PROPOSAL for a Basin Focal Project - FANRPAN · 2006-10-11 · ARC-FANRPAN Limpopo Basin Focal...

PROPOSAL for a Basin Focal Project

River Basin: Limpopo

1. PROJECT TEAM A. Lead Institution: Agricultural Research Council of South Africa (ARC), supported by FANRPAN Name of Project Leader: Dr. Douglas J. Merrey Postal Address: Private Bag X519; Silverton 0127; Pretoria, SOUTH AFRICA Email: [email protected]; [email protected] Telephone: +27 12 845 9100; and +27 12 842 4027 URL of lead institution web page: www.arc.agric.za; www.fanrpan.org Primary discipline of importance to this proposal: Social and Institutional Science Institution type: NARES and regional policy research organization B. Institution: Food Agriculture and Natural Resources Policy Analysis Network (FANRPAN) Name of Researcher: Dr. Lindiwe Sibanda Email: [email protected]; [email protected] URL: www.fanrpan.org Primary discipline of importance to this proposal: Strategic Planning; Agriculture Institution type: Regional policy research organization C. Institution: FANRPAN- Bunda College (country node) Name of Researcher: Professor Charles Mataya Email: [email protected] Primary discipline of importance to this proposal: Agricultural Economics Institution type: Regional policy research organization and NARES (university) D. Institution: IWMI Name of Researcher: Dr. Hilmy Sally Email: [email protected] Primary discipline of importance to this proposal: Water Resources Engineering Institution type: CGIAR E. Institution: ARC Name of Researcher: Mr. Terry Newby Email: [email protected] Primary discipline of importance to this proposal: Environmental Studies; Remote Sensing applications Institution type: NARES F. Institution: ARC Name of Researcher: Mr. Kevin Scott Email: [email protected] Primary discipline of importance to this proposal: Water Engineering Institution type: NARES

ARC-FANRPAN Limpopo Basin Focal Project Proposal

2

Other Team Members

Institution: ARC Name of Researcher: Dr. Massoud Shaker (Limpopo Basin Coordinator) Email: [email protected] Primary discipline of importance to this proposal: Civil Engineering-Water Resources Institution type: NARES Institution: FANRPAN-University of Pretoria (country node) Name of Researcher: Professor Johann Kirsten Email: [email protected] Primary discipline of importance to this proposal: Agricultural Economics Institution type: Regional policy research organization and NARES (university) Institution: FANRPAN-University of Pretoria Name of Researcher: Professor John Annandale Email: [email protected] Primary discipline of importance to this proposal: Soil-Plants-Water Relations Institution type: NARES-University Institution: FANRPAN- University of Zimbabwe Name of Researcher: Dr. Ruvimbo Mabeza-Chimedza Email: [email protected] Primary discipline of importance to this proposal: Agricultural Economics/Gender Analysis Institution type: Regional policy research organization and NARES (university) Institution: FANRPAN- Centre for Rural Development, University of Zimbabwe (country node) Name of Researcher: Dr. Prosper Bvumiranayi Matondi Email: [email protected] Primary discipline of importance to this proposal: Rural Development/Institutions Institution type: Regional policy research organization and NARES (university) Institution: ARC Name of Researcher (new addition): Mr. Dirk Craigie Email: [email protected] Primary discipline of importance to this proposal: Remote Sensing applications and spatial analysis Institution type: NARES Institution: IWMI Name of Researcher: Mr. Thulani Magagula Email: [email protected] Primary discipline of importance to this proposal: Natural Resources, hydrology: modeling and spatial analysis Institution type: CGIAR Institution: FANRPAN- Bunda College Name of Researcher: Professor Julius Mangisoni Email: [email protected] Primary discipline of importance to this proposal: Agricultural Economics/Impact Assessment Institution type: Regional policy research organization and NARES (university)


3

Institution: IWMI Name of Researcher: Dr. Pius Chilonda (Coordinator, Strategic Agricultural Knowledge Support System—Southern Africa) Email: [email protected] Primary discipline of importance to this proposal: Knowledge Management Institution type: CGIAR Institution: African Centre for Water Research Name of Researcher: Mr. Anton Earle Email: [email protected] Primary discipline of importance to this proposal: Institutions Analysis (specifically transboundary water management) Institution type: Consultancy New Institution: Faculty of Science, University of Botswana (country node) Name of Researcher: Dr. Berhanu Fanta Alemaw Email: [email protected]; [email protected] Primary discipline of importance to this proposal: Hydrology and Water Resources Engineering Institution type: NARES (university) New Institution: Instituto de Investigação Agrária de Moçambique (IIAM), Maputo, Mozambique Name of Researcher: Dr. Mario Ruy Marques Email: [email protected] Primary discipline of importance to this proposal: Agro-ecology Institution type: NARES New Institution: Instituto de Investigação Agrária de Moçambique (IIAM), Maputo, Mozambique Name of Researcher: Mr. Jacinto Mafalacusser Email: care of: [email protected] Primary discipline of importance to this proposal: Soil Survey and Natural Resource Management—GIS systems Institution type: NARES Institution: FANRPAN—University of Pretoria Name of Researcher (new addition): Dr. Ward Anseeuw Email: [email protected] Primary discipline of importance to this proposal: Institutional Economics Institution type: NARES (university) New Institution: University of Eduardo Mondlane—Department of Agricultural Engineering (country node) Name of Researcher: Professor Rui C. L. Brito Email: [email protected] Primary discipline of importance to this proposal: Soil and Water Management Institution type: NARES (university) New Institution: Global Water Partnership—Southern Africa (GWP-SA) Name of Researcher: Ruth Beukman (Regional Executive Secretary) Email: [email protected] Primary discipline of importance to this proposal: We are using the entire GWP network for outreach and impact, therefore discipline is not relevant. Institution type: : Other: Regional network of country NGO partnerships, and a part of a larger international NGO


4

2 METHODOLOGY FOR THE 6 WORKPACKAGES

In your EoI you provided an overview of the team competencies in the six work packages. We ask you now to refer back to annex 1 of the EoI ‘BFP Methodological Guidelines’ and provide us with a concise explanation of your approach to delivering the outputs of each of the packages. While there is a predefined ‘approach and activities’, these are not exclusive. Alternative innovative approaches can be included in the proposal, as long as they are supported by a description of their efficiency and effectiveness compared to the methodologies already identified, or are more appropriate for the data available. Having said this, it is also important that there is sufficient complementarity with other BFPs to enable comparative analysis of the data and results with other basins. Your research must provide all of the outputs identified in the BFP Methodological Guidelines that accompanied the EOI. When responding to the various requests below please be cognizant with the ‘study process’ activities at the end of the methodological paper. Each bullet point should be no longer than 300 words. 2.1 Project Overview (500 words) (describe how your proposed work plan achieves the outputs required by the BFP methodology guidelines. This project will contribute to achieving the Millennium Development Goals by generating knowledge to alleviate poverty and enhance food, health and environmental security. It will do this by analyzing the status of agricultural water use, access, and productivity in the Limpopo Basin, and identifying opportunities for poverty alleviation through improvements in agricultural water management—the aim of all CPWF Basin Focal Projects. We will produce five main outputs: 1) a revised Limpopo Basin Profile using new information, including a GIS-based atlas of water-poverty; 2) validated and tested agricultural water management “intervention packages;” 3) a network map of basin stakeholders; 4) a demonstration “virtual reality” communication tool; and 5) specification of topics requiring further research.

Most team members are familiar with the Basin and bring a high level of understanding. Therefore, during the initial scoping exercise we propose the following approach: 1) We will develop initial maps of key factors and indicators (e.g., water availability productivity and access, soils, vegetation, socio-economic features, poverty levels) and analyze these to refine our research questions and hypotheses. 2) Drawing on the initial mapping and reviews of literature and documents, we will prepare a detailed terms of reference for four country teams to carry out rapid appraisals in selected areas (which may include current CPWF project sites). The maps, TORs and draft list of potential water-poverty intervention packages will be discussed and finalized at an inception workshop to finalize them, ensure common understanding, and contribute to further team building. (An example of “intervention packages” is a package of micro-agricultural water management technologies like treadle pumps, plus the policy, institutional, capacity building, etc. requirements for successful implementation; see Annex 1). The teams will co-opt other specialists and students to assess the situation and opportunities on the ground and integrate the data with other poverty, water, etc., databases available at country levels. They will interact closely with key decision-makers, and share and validate findings at national consultative workshops organized by GWP-SA and FANRPAN. We will then hold a second regional workshop to share the findings, define a short list of intervention packages, and finalize the work plan for obtaining the data and doing the analyses required to identify specific categories of water-poor people (combining analyses of types of households with resource availability based on hydronomic zones), the most promising intervention packages for these categories, and assess the likely impacts and outcomes if these packages are implemented. We will invite selected key basin stakeholders to this workshop to obtain


5

their views and buy-in.

The November 2006 CPWF workshop will provide an opportunity to ensure our methodologies are aligned with those of other CPWF basins. At the end of the 3-month scoping phase we will produce a draft atlas of maps, draft literature reviews and databases, reports on the rapid country appraisals, a database on organizations and stakeholders in the basin; and based on these, a detailed work plan for the remaining project period. We will deliver all the outputs required, as discussed further below. 2.2 Work packages Please note that the questions appearing against each work package activity are tentative questions to orient you to the key BFP issues. You are free to add other comments that may cover any innovative aspects of your proposal. Work Package 1: Water Poverty Analysis • Approach and activities for review of literature – The starting point is BFP Working Paper 3 on water poverty, and references therein. All 6 types of “water poor” quoted from Black and Hall are found in the Limpopo Basin. We will review international literature on the water-poverty nexus and approaches to defining poverty and draw on BFP experiences, to develop a specific framework and hypotheses to guide the project. The analytical framework in section 3 of BFP WP 3 provides a good starting point. We will draw on the considerable literature produced at sites in or near the basin, for example Chivi in Zimbabwe, Chokwé irrigation scheme in Mozambique, and the Olifants Basin in South Africa.

We will obtain existing national and local-level data on poverty levels, locations of the poor, etc. At least three of the countries have done poverty assessments recently, and we will use these. The objective will be to integrate water dimensions into standard poverty measures. Given the central role women play in agriculture (including livestock rearing), it is essential to disaggregate by gender – though this may be problematic at higher levels of abstraction. In South Africa, we will draw insights from recent mapping of water and poverty in the Eastern Cape at municipality scale and similar on-going work in the Olifants Basin (South African databases are especially detailed).

Working with other work package groups, we will prepare poverty maps that can be overlaid with others to observe the co-variation of levels of poverty, water availability and productivity, other infrastructure, etc. These initial maps will form the basis for selecting potential local areas for intensive investigation. Poverty assessment will be central in the country-level rapid assessments to ground truth the patterns emerging from the initial mapping exercises and to prepare a detailed work plan for both micro- and macro-level analysis.

• Approach and activities for analysis of methodology – There is a vast literature on poverty assessment methodologies. Given the complexity and lack of consensus, it is premature to propose a specific framework. We are attracted by the Water Poverty Index (WPI; Sullivan 2002), but realize that poverty has multiple causes. Vulnerability is a critical dimension given the cycle of droughts and floods in the basin. We agree with Hulme and McKay’s (2005) argument for more attention to chronic poverty and poverty dynamics, going beyond the limitations of monetary measures. Therefore, in consultation with CPWF colleagues in other basins, we propose


6

an approach with several dimensions:

1) A framework at higher levels of abstraction to refine the poverty mapping;

2) A gender-disaggregated database of categories of poor people in terms of types of households and potential resources. For example, some households have no labor, making it difficult for them to use new technologies; others have under-used labor, but need access to technologies or markets. Similarly, households with access to water only from deep boreholes have different opportunities than those with access to wetlands. In South Africa, the University of Pretoria recently implemented a low-cost poverty assessment in the Olifants Basin using students to interview 600 households. We will draw on these data, and do similar surveys in the other countries, to refine the poverty maps and provide data for modeling water-poverty interactions.

3) Statistical modeling of the poverty data sets using such tools as logit and probit will estimate the potential responses of different categories of households to specific interventions.

4) Students will do case studies in selected areas (implemented with other work packages) to clarify the dynamics of poverty-water security-productivity and livelihood strategies, validate the models and household typologies, and contribute to designing intervention packages. The database and models will be important outputs.

• Approach and activities for information packages – We are confident that we can obtain sufficient data to demonstrate how poverty co-varies with other factors including water availability and productivity. We will produce the following information package outputs:

Pov1) A review of water-poverty literature including regional and relevant international methodological literature;

Pov2) Water poverty maps at basin and sub-basin levels, as part of a package of overlays (atlas) useful for further analysis, targeting of interventions, etc.;

Pov3) A database of poor households based on household typologies, gender, and types of access to water and other natural resources, using a combination of analyzed data from national poverty assessments and our own rapid poverty survey; this can be used as a starting point for targeting specific interventions and monitoring and evaluating impacts of interventions in the long run; and

Pov4) A scientific report on water poverty in the Limpopo Basin, including journal articles.

These four packages will constitute the four outputs specified in the BFP Methodological Guidelines and provide quantitative and qualitative understand of who is poor, where they live, and why they are poor; information on the relationships between water availability and poverty (likely to be complex, not straightforward); improved methods for analysis of water-related poverty including a better understanding of the coping strategies people employ to manage water-related stress; and provide a basis to raise awareness among basin stakeholders of the variability and causes of poverty and water-based opportunities for poverty alleviation.

• Expected effectiveness of our approaches to reach the required outputs – Our team has considerable experience in leading poverty studies in various SADC countries, and its members are integrated into a wider regional and international network


7

of poverty analysts. For example Mangisoni recently completed an insightful assessment of the impact of treadle pumps on poverty in Malawi for a project managed by Merrey. Through FANRPAN, ARC, GWP-SA as well as personal contacts, we have excellent access to national and regional custodians of databases. We therefore believe that we have a strong comparative advantage for implementing this work package. We will carefully integrate the work done in this package with the work done under other packages to identify and assess what we anticipate will be complex linkages between water availability, access, and productivity and poverty, mediated through the institutional context. From the outset, this and other work packages will be evaluating the potential of a set of hypothetical intervention packages to contribute to improving food and environmental security and reverse the negative trends in human well-being in the basin; as the work proceeds we may well identify additional intervention packages that had not occurred to us initially.

In sum, we expect to achieve new insights into water-related poverty and contribute to identifying effective intervention packages and strategies whose implementation can make a major contribution not only in this basin but beyond.

Work Package 2: Analysis of Water Availability and Access • Approach and activities for review of literature – All work-package team members have done hydrological studies in the basin. Each team member will contribute outputs and references from these previous studies which will be expanded through local and international searches and literature studies. One source of information likely to be particularly useful is the Waterlit project/report list of the South African Water Research Commission; another is the recent FAO drought impact mitigation and assessment in the Basin. Literature studies will include searches of the archives of the Departments/Ministries responsible for water in the various countries in the Basin. We have access to the very detailed sets of data built by IWMI for the Olifants (the largest tributary of the Limpopo); from a long-term University of Zimbabwe research site in Chivi, southern Zimbabwe (adjacent to the Limpopo); past and on-going work in Chokwé, Mozambique; and ongoing work in the Botswana portion of the basin. For example our University of Eduardo Mondlane (UEM) and IIAM partners have ongoing research in Chokwé with other partners such as the Mozambique Institute for Natural Disaster Management (IGCN) and Mozambique’s Limpopo River Authority (ARA-SUL).

We will produce a review of literature on water availability and access in the basin, including an assessment of modeling options. An issue that will be addressed in the literature review is the nature and severity of degrading water quality; this is perceived as an increasingly serious problem with the expansion of mines, commercial agriculture and cities in the upper watersheds. Poor water quality, as well as changes in timing and quantity of flows, have serious downstream impacts on people as well as on important ecosystems in the transnational parks and estuary fisheries.

• Approach and activities for rapid assessment of status and trends – The first level of analysis of water availability will involve GIS-based mapping of the basin hydrology. A standardized hydrological modeling system across the basin is a high priority. The locally developed Pitman model has been used by the Limpopo Basin Technical Committee and other groups (including team members) to analyze basin


8

hydrology. The model used is in the public domain and no special rights are required. The Pitman model is particularly user-friendly and calibration is relatively simple. Reasonable accuracy of runoff maps could be achieved by adjusting and calibrating a simple elevation/rainfall based model with the results of more detailed localized studies (using the Pitman model). Clarity must still be obtained on the availability of data produced by certain previous studies and the potential to update and refine the existing basin models. It is anticipated that the availability of data will not be a problem, especially given the excellent contacts of our team members from each country, but restricted access to data could affect costs. An updated Limpopo Pitman model, and a workshop to train people in its use, will be important outputs.

Hydrological water availability maps at several different scales that can serve as indicators of water availability will be another important output and will include:

Locality Maps indicating major dams and water supply systems

Median Annual Runoff Maps (expressed in terms of millimeters runoff on an exponential mapping scale of 1, 2, 4, 8, 16…to 128+ mm)

Seasonal Runoff Maps

1:10 year Drought Runoff Maps

Groundwater Availability Maps.

These maps will be integrated with other GIS-based basin maps at various scales to map the co-variation of water availability, access and productivity, location of pockets of poor households, soils, soil erosion and other natural resources, infrastructure, etc.

• Approach and activities for water assessment and accounting at basin level – Water balances need to be undertaken by differentiating the water input to the system and the water consumed by it. The water accounting procedure involves the input variables (e.g., rain, groundwater) and output variables (evaporation, transpiration, runoff and drainage) with a net change in soil moisture content at the root zone, for a given time interval. The procedure is important for upscaling from field to farm and then to basin level, because water taken into but not consumed by a system is excluded from the accounting calculations. The water accounting procedure provided in IWMI RR 49 and Molden (1997) can be used to track the movement of water volumes within a field, an irrigation system or a basin.

Analysis of water availability involves developing a database of water demands and trends in water use, per water use sector. Water use sectors include domestic and environmental, industrial, the runoff impact of invasive exotic plant species (treated as a water demand), irrigation, stock-watering, and international obligations. Methodologies used in the Irrigation Water Supply Risk Analysis Model (IWS-RAM, an ARC–developed model developed and tested on systems in the basin) will be refined to analyze water availability and supply risks per water use sector (including rainfed). An irrigation risk assessment will be an important output.

Groundwater flow patterns are poorly defined, but this project will attempt to identify major trends and their impacts on water availability and accessibility. Inland regions of the basin generally have deep water tables.

The information generated will be used as a basis for water accounting analysis and identification of “hydronomic zones” (IWMI RR 56). These will enable definition and characterization of appropriate management strategies and intervention packages.


9

Hydronomic zone maps will be another project output.

• Approach and activities for information on water availability – Information will be presented in simple, concise and ‘user-friendly’ formats. Findings

will largely be reduced to tables and graphs that contribute to the knowledge base packages. We will also try to document the impacts of observed climate change. Water accounting graphs and diagrams therefore constitute another output as contributions to the GIS-based atlas and updating of the Basin Profile.

Acceptable risk profiles (as defined in IWS-RAM) will be developed per water use sector. Demands will be plotted against risk profiles and potential development. Some of this work has been done in South Africa and Chokwé in Mozambique; we will extend it to the other two countries. A typical risk assessment for situations where storage is considered is represented by the graph in Annex 2. It shows risk profiles describing critical drought periods (e.g., D40 represents the driest 40 month period in a 50 year cycle) and the fraction of normal demands that must be supplied during this period to ensure the farmer a reasonable chance of avoiding bankruptcy. Similar analyses are possible for run-of-river situations.

In sum, this work package will produce the following:

WA1) Literature review on water availability (quantity and quality) and access;

WA2) An updated Pitman model and training workshop on its use;

WA3) GIS-based water availability and hydronomic zone maps;

WA4) An irrigation and rainfed agriculture risk assessment;

WA5) Water accounting graphs and diagrams; and

WA6) Scientific papers.

These will contribute to the outputs specified in the BFP methodological guidelines: quantitative analysis of variability of water availability and use at basin scale and selected areas; understanding of the distribution of water to different users and where this is significant for poverty alleviation; quantitative analysis of committed water resources and opportunities for re-allocation that would benefit the poor; and description of significant water-related hazards.

• Expected effectiveness of our approaches to reach the required outputs –

Our team already has considerable experience working on hydrological and other issues in the Limpopo Basin, including developing and applying the Pitman and other models; and we have access to a large amount of data including data that is normally not entirely public. The envisaged approaches to assessment of water availability and risk have been developed and tested in areas that include sites within the Limpopo Basin. There is some uncertainty regarding the availability of certain data across the full basin, but we will use our contacts to try to minimize this. Surveys to collect raw data are expensive and will place budgetary restrictions on the number of detailed case studies that can be undertaken within the scope of this project. An important element of the project will be to ensure that case studies include a representative sample of areas within the Basin, building where possible on existing CPWF research sites. There is some consistency in the objectives of the Waternet-led CPWF Project (CP 17) and this one; we will therefore work especially closely with this project team.

The project will focus on the synthesis of information across the different work-


10

packages and present information to decision-makers in a clear and understandable format. Emphasis will be on the development of decision support systems and tools to facilitate assessing the feasibility of a range of interventions and intervention packages for different situations and in different hydronomic zones within the basin.

We are therefore confident that our approach will be effective and produce timely results of the highest quality.

Work Package 3: Analysis of Agricultural Water Productivity • Approach and activities for review of literature – A critical literature review will identify methodologies and issues, specifying the main agricultural production systems (rainfed and irrigated), their performance, level of risk, and the state of knowledge on agricultural water productivity in different parts of the basin (e.g., building on work already done by IWMI, and WRC-supported research). Further, we will identify appropriate modeling tools at farm, watershed/ irrigation scheme and basin levels (e.g., Professor Annendale has students modeling farm-level water productivity).

The BFP Working Papers 2 and 4, Comprehensive Assessment and IWMI water productivity publications, and the CPWF Limpopo Basin Profile are obvious points of departure. These will be complemented by data from national databases and reports, information being assembled by the Limpopo Basin Commission, and other sources such as the crop production systems database being prepared for the South African portion of the Limpopo by IWMI.

We realize that the availability and resolution of country-level information in the different riparian countries will vary. Hence, we envisage recourse to global databases on land cover and land use to fill gaps where needed. We also expect to find that reliability of access to water has an important impact on the productivity of its use: where risk is high, water productivity will be low other things being equal.

We will also collate and analyze data on linkages between agricultural water productivity and livelihoods of small farmers, and the analytical tools available to quantify returns to different uses and assess the impacts of proposed interventions. This set of ‘scoping’ activities will refine the overall project approach and contribute to a report on agricultural water productivity (see below).

Approach and activities for rapid assessment of status and trends – The agricultural production systems database and other sources identified in the literature review and water availability work package will be a basis for country-level rapid assessments of agricultural water productivity. We will use modeling, remote sensing and spatial analysis to determine crop water use. Wherever possible, spatial and temporal trends in water productivity will be determined through estimates of evapotranspiration and biomass from satellite imagery, thereby illustrating how agricultural returns to water availability and water use are distributed in time and space in the basin.

The indicators will include the classic ‘crop per drop’ (e.g., crop mass or monetary units produced per unit water [kg/m3, $/m3]), distinguishing among available water, water supplied, or evapotranspiration. For individual small farmers, water productivity may not be the primary concern; their main objective is increased production.


11

Furthermore, water is just one factor (including fertilizer use, management practices, crop variety) contributing to output performance with respect to yield or productivity. Hence, returns to land and labor in different production systems (including commercial farming and livestock) as well as returns to water use by non-agricultural sectors such as mining will also be estimated. This information will form the basis for assessing the scope for improving water management and productivity over the whole basin, taking into account possible benefits and impacts of (re)-allocating ‘saved’ water among multiple uses and users. It will provide an important input into assessing the likely impacts of the hypothesized intervention packages, or other possible interventions that would enhance water productivity.

This work, coupled with that of the work packages on water availability, poverty and institutional analysis will also serve as a platform for selection of basin sub-areas for detailed analysis and ground-truthing field work.

• Approach and activities for identification of areas – The planning and implementation of this phase will be closely integrated with the intermediate outputs of the other work packages. It is particularly underpinned by the water accounting and mapping done in the water availability package. Specific domains of investigation include:

1. Identification of areas (e.g., hydronomic zones) showing certain (e.g., extreme) values of production, productivity, population densities, poverty statistics, and farming types.

2. A few detailed farm surveys will be done to understand the underlying causes of observed variations in performance (e.g., whether due to bio-physical resource endowments, institutional or socio-political factors). We will assess water use, production, and productivity, investigate the water use and imputed productivity of livestock production and fisheries, and assess the likely outcomes of various intervention packages.

3. In parallel, the survey will also be used to assess returns to non-agricultural uses of water. We will explore the feasibility of using the concept of gross geographic product (GGP), which takes into account the value of various uses of water.

4. The results will be included in a geospatial database. The notion of a “performance gap” between potential and average water productivity, for example, on the basis of the performance of the top 10% of surveyed farms, may be used to define a yield or productivity “gap.” GIS-based maps will be produced to highlight zones of high, average and below-average productivity.

5. These will form the basis for determining options for ‘reallocating’ or improving management of water to achieve higher levels of agricultural water productivity, taking into account factors like climate, soils, water resources, and institutional context. We will also consider the relevance of other objectives such as improving equity of water access, or better household food security and nutrition in addition to that of improving water productivity.

• Approach and activities for identification of impacts – The activities described above will enable spatial analyses and correlation of water productivity to water availability and access both within and among particular agricultural production systems. Returns to common non-agricultural water uses will also be determined; but equity and sustainability considerations must be weighed against


12

productivity improvements and financial returns in the aggregate. Who benefits is no less important than the level of benefit streams. This will require collaboration with the water-poverty and institutional work package groups as well as the water availability group. No less important is trying to explain the mechanisms of coping with water-related hazards and analysis of the opportunities for improvement or the risks of deterioration posed by global environmental changes like climate change. The hydrological and economic impacts of reallocating water to meet different policy objectives have to be assessed carefully. Appropriate simulation tools and methodologies, and brainstorming and consultation with a range of stakeholders, will be needed to understand the potential benefits and consequences (hydrologic, economic) of various interventions, and what the possible trade-offs are.

• Approach and activities for information packages – We envision four major outputs:

Pr1: A report reviewing agricultural water productivity for the principal agricultural systems within the basin, focusing on those with potential for poverty reduction and agricultural growth. It will seek to explain the determinants of water productivity, drawing on and linking to the results and findings of other work packages and the international literature.

Pr2: Maps and other products based on quantitative analysis of the potential, attainable and actual agricultural water productivities for the entire basin or sub-basins (where possible) and selected agricultural systems. Other outputs will include stand-alone water-productivity related products such as description and structure of databases, and methodologies and concepts.

Pr3: A report analyzing the opportunities to increase water productivity within agricultural systems through re-distribution of water resources and/or through improved management, and the potential contributions to or implications for poverty reduction; this report will also contribute to assessing the feasibility and potential impacts of the hypothesized intervention packages.

Pr4: Explanations of the mechanisms people use to cope with water-related hazards and analysis of opportunities for risk management.

• Expected effectiveness of our approaches to reach the required outputs – The IWMI team members have been working on agricultural water productivity assessments in the Olifants Basin for several years. Therefore, this project provides an opportunity to complete this work and extend it to the larger Limpopo Basin. Because we already have considerable data and excellent contacts throughout the basin with other data custodians, we are confident we can work effectively and quickly to produce the required results. Other strengths that enhance our effectiveness include:

• combining hard science/technical expertise with social science and institutions for analyzing, correlating and overlaying findings and assessing determinants of water productivity to extract overall lessons and recommendations;

• looking at water productivity in an overall context of natural resource management and livelihoods – our multi-disciplinary and multi-dimensional approach and analysis is already tested and will be effective;

• consideration of different scales, from field to basin and from broad-brush scoping work to detailed zoomed-in analyses are also activities we have done in the Olifants


13

basin; and

• our ability to make use of existing databases in our possession in many cases, and draw from other scientific studies completed and ongoing to develop decision support inputs and/or tools.

We are therefore confident we can produce new insights into the levels and patterns of variation in water productivity and their causes and the complex relationships to poverty and well-being.

Work Package 4: Institutional Analysis • Approach and activities for review of literature – Our working assumption is that the outcome of interventions intended to improve water access and productivity in a way that reduces poverty will depend on the policy and institutional environment. Therefore, this package, with the intervention package, will integrate insights from others to define appropriate interventions and strategies. The steps for this phase are:

1. Develop an analytical framework for classifying institutions (including laws, policies, organizations, customary arrangements) at basin, sub-basin, national, and local levels, and for analysis of their mandates, effectiveness, and interactions (drawn from institutional economics, gender analysis, socio-technical analysis, etc.). We will use existing published and unpublished work (e.g., forthcoming IWMI WP 112 on Limpopo institutions, thesis by Turton, SADC documents, national websites, WRC database on South Africa’s International Freshwater Agreements, and other CPWF project outputs) to produce a draft analytical overview of policies, institutions and interventions.

2. Country team members will identify relevant laws, policy documents, and literature for inclusion in a database, summarized in English following a specified format; this information will also be used for the analytical overview. The recently approved SADC Regional Water Policy and Regional Water Strategy will also be analyzed.

3. Draw on existing networks and databases to create an inventory of the main organizations and stakeholders addressing water, food, poverty and environment issues in the basin, and their existing and potential roles in applying study findings (e.g., basin coordinator’s network, partner databases of CPWF projects, FANRPAN and SARPN networks, GWP-SA networks through the Country Water Partnerships).

4. Prepare an issues report as a contribution to the country-level rapid assessment TORs, and the list of potential intervention packages.

• Approach and activities for rapid assessment of status and trends – 1. Interview, using a pre-designed schedule, members of the Limpopo Basin Commission, government officials and representatives of NGOs and community organizations in basin countries, to fill gaps in the database developed in previous steps; and to clarify policy objectives, instruments and actions related to access and productivity of water, poverty reduction, food and environmental security

2. Plan, in conjunction with other work packages, a cost-effective procedure and sampling process for the country-level rapid assessments.

3. Revise and complete the analytical overview of laws, policies, institutional


14

arrangements, and innovations either under implementation or contemplation in the basin, with a database of organizations active in the basin as well as literature. The latter will contribute to the basin network map. Our working theory is that patterns of behavior including institutions are the cumulative outcomes of choices people make these are constrained by institutions, but there is also a feedback loop whereby institutions are both reinforced and changed over time. The four basin states have either completed or are in the process of reviewing their national water management laws and policies to bring them in line with the principles of IWRM, with guidance from the SADC Regional Water Policy. In addition, there are sub-national basin-based organizations, such as Catchment Councils in Zimbabwe, Catchment Management Agencies in South Africa, and basin authorities in Mozambique, which are in various states of institutional development. The data on these institutions, policies, laws etc. will be linked to the GIS-based basin database.

4. Prepare a plan for detailed assessments in conjunction with other work packages.

• Approach and activities for detailed assessments – Given the limited time and resources, specific cases must be chosen carefully and strategically. We will be guided by the concept of ‘hydronomic zones’ (IWMI RR 56) complemented by the idea that, if different management interventions are needed in different zones of the basin, then different institutional arrangements will also be needed for effective implementation. Similarly, any effective intervention package must either fit existing policy environments and institutional capacities or include practical measures to create them, and must comply with existing laws.

The entire project team, based on the work in phase 1, will identify spatially, specific problems (e.g., areas with high water poverty, low water productivity cases), promising innovations being implemented by government or non-government organizations, or apparent opportunities for interventions not currently being pursued. We anticipate this will give us a sample of specific cases to be studied. We will pay special attention to gender issues, given the importance of women in agricultural production in the region.

We will recruit students and other young professionals from the region (e.g., recent graduates) to implement case study research; prepare methodological guidelines for the case studies; and train field researchers in methodologies to be used (building on the social science methodologies training program prepared under CP 47). Some case studies will be relatively rapid assessments, others will involve more in-depth primary research; all will be done by interdisciplinary teams of researchers supervised by senior team members.

Analysis will be based on a socio-technical framework, value chain, and organizational analysis and will be largely qualitative given the nature of case study data. It will include an assessment against specific criteria of the impact and effectiveness of studied innovations and the potential feasibility and cost effectiveness of scaling up and out.

• Approach and activities for identification of institutional and policy changes – Our working hypothesis is that inequitable access to water—i.e., lack of access to water by large numbers of people—is even more important than low water productivity as a cause of poverty. Lack of access is an especially big problem for women. If the project confirms this, interventions need to focus on this issue. It is unlikely that single-dimension interventions, such as institutional changes or building infrastructure, will


15

solve the problem. Therefore, intervention packages are required including infrastructure where it is needed, new or re-structured institutions, training and capacity building, improved availability of inputs that enhance water productivity, and better access to output markets. The appropriateness of these packages and institutional innovations will vary by hydronomic zone. In addition to water management institutions, we will pay attention to local non-water institutions (e.g., customary procedures and organizations or modern collectives). Some of these may be able to play a role in promoting effective local participation in water management.

In the scoping phase, we will have identified potential intervention packages, derived from the rapid assessments and local and international literature reviews (e.g., the Comprehensive Assessment, other CPWF projects). The detailed research will test whether these hypothesized intervention packages are indeed the most promising and implementable, refine and adapt them, and/or identifying others.

Informal institutions are often invisible and neglected but research in Tanzania for example (Cleaver) has shown their critical importance in understanding why poverty persists even when new “formal” institutions like water users associations are implemented. Skewed water and land rights, lack of political “voice”, and weak collective action capacity are also important determinants underlying poverty and the capacity to respond to new opportunities. These realities will affect the efficacy of even the most promising interventions.

• Approach and activities for information packages – We will produce the following outputs, which go beyond the BFP Methodological Guidelines:

IA1) An analytical overview of laws policies (instruments and actions affecting access to water, poverty alleviation, food and environmental security), institutions (legal frameworks, organizational arrangements, governance processes) and interventions currently being implemented or under consideration in the basin or through SADC;

IA2) An inventory of stakeholders and institutions in the basin as a basis for the network map;

IA3) An issues report to guide the scoping phase research;

IA4) An updated training module in social science research methods;

IA5) Case studies of selected promising interventions, especially institutional innovations;

IA6) Documentation, assessment and suggestions for implementation of selected intervention packages with special attention to institutional innovations; and

IA7) A paper on research issues that need to be addressed in the basin.

In addition, we expect to work with other work packages to produce a set of policy briefs (IA8) on those policy and institutional innovations that seem most promising to reduce water-poverty in the basin. While all these outputs will be produced as an effort of the entire team, we will work especially closely with the intervention analysis group in their production.

A major strength of this proposal is the alliance of the strong regional agricultural and policy networks of GWP-SA and FANRPAN, combined with the growing network in the basin created by the Limpopo Basin Coordinator, and the linkages to Waternet


16

(comprising mostly regional educational institutions) through both GWP-SA and IWMI. Both FANRPAN and GWP-SA have close formal as well as informal ties with SADC. These networks provide excellent opportunities for packaging project outcomes and recommendations, and engaging in an effective dialogue with the key policy makers and other stakeholders at national, basin, and regional levels.

• Expected effectiveness of your approaches to reach the required outputs – We believe our approaches will be very effective in reaching and exceeding the expected outputs for the following reasons:

1) we are using professionals from the region who not only have considerable cultural, social, political and technical insight into basin issues, but have strong personal and professional linkages throughout the basin and southern African region;

2) our team is very strong in social and institutional sciences with considerable experience internationally as well as regionally and in the basin;

3) our team includes the major regional agricultural, natural resources and water management networks with excellent access to decision makers at all levels—including civil society, national governments, research institutions, NGOs, and regional and international institutions in southern Africa; and

4) FANRPAN and IWMI both have very close working relationships with the South Africa Agricultural Research Council, and they as well as the GWP-SA secretariat are housed in the same campus as the Limpopo Basin Coordinator. We believe this will further enhance our partnership.

Work Package 5: Intervention Analysis • Approach and activities for review of literature – We define water-related interventions as any human action that significantly changes or contributes to changes in water availability, access and productivity. This work package examines the relationships among water availability, agricultural water productivity and poverty, to identify the potential opportunities and risks of specified interventions. Literature will be reviewed to compile information on past and on-going interventions and potentially relevant ones in other basins. The starting point for the literature review will be to synthesize information on interventions across work packages 1-4. Since such information is likely to be available in both published and unpublished reports, we will use our networks to identify these. Working with other work package groups, we will access published work through websites, journals, and other databases. To access grey literature, the team will use the network map of scientists, government and non-governmental personnel active in the basin and those that have worked there in the past. We will survey these people for suggestions; and will scan newsletters, technical reports, conference proceedings, business documents, and government reports. In most cases, only successful interventions are documented; however for our purposes, it is important that an inventory of all the tested interventions is compiled. Therefore we will collect additional information though stakeholder interviews during the rapid assessments done in the scoping phase of the study.

Once a database of available literature on past and on-going interventions has been compiled, a review and analysis of the reports will be undertaken, as a contribution to the institutional analysis report (IA1). The interventional analysis group’s contribution


17

will be an inventory of what interventions have been tried in the basin, which ones have succeeded or failed and why.

• Approach and activities for detailed assessments – Both the institutional and intervention groups play an integrative function across work packages 1-5. We conceive of “interventions” not as single-dimensional, but as “packages.” Their success is determined by many factors including water availability, access, institutions, agro-ecology, and policy environment. By the end of the scoping phase we will have identified a limited set of hypothesized intervention packages appropriate for specific hydronomic zones and household types within those zones. We will also contribute to the analytical framework developed under the institutions work package to analyze interventions, in terms of such dimensions as potential beneficiaries (and losers, if any), costs and benefits, potential for implementation given current capacities and policies, kinds of institutional or policy reforms needed for sustainable implementation, and the kind of monitoring and evaluation effort required as part of an implementation package. These hypothesized packages and the analytical framework will be tested through consultations with key stakeholders at basin and national levels.

Detailed assessments will be done primarily through the case studies planned under various working packages; that is, the project will identify the most promising cases emerging out of the consultations and literature reviews of the scoping study, and the country teams will do these case studies using students and young professionals guided by senior team members. These cases may include promising innovations currently implemented locally to assess their potential for scaling up and out, or problem areas (for example poverty hot spots) where we believe specific intervention packages may be effective. Case studies will not be implemented separately by various work package groups—these will be done in a way that maximizes their potential for providing insights into the feasibility and potential outcomes of proposed intervention packages.

• Approach and activities to assess high potential intervention scenarios – The first step in assessing intervention scenarios or packages is to define the criteria for assessment and the target population. We will draw, first, on the outcomes of the analyses being done under work packages 1-4: for example the poverty analysis group will attempt to model the likely outcomes of interventions for specific target groups in specific hydronomic or agro-ecological zones, and the water productivity group will assess water productivity outcomes of different livelihood strategies. Working together, we will use qualitative and quantitative techniques to attempt ex ante assessments of potential outcomes of the hypothesized intervention packages. In this analysis we will identify as part of each package, the technology proposed if any; the requirements for making it widely available (for example local manufacture, import); the capacity building, training and applied research support requirements for implementation at scale; the institutional requirements; the policy changes needed to support the intervention; and an estimate of the costs, potential benefits, and who will benefit. We will also attempt to identify the potential risks and downsides; for example while up to a point introducing treadle pumps may be beneficial in certain areas, too many pumps may have negative impacts on water availability.

The second and crucial step will be consultations with stakeholders at various levels. We propose to return to the case study areas and consult the communities, and hold dialogues and consultations at sub-national and national levels on the specific proposals for these areas. We will consult informally with key decision-makers and potential


18

donors, and at the final project workshop, we will consult with senior regional and basin policy makers, including sharing the outcomes of previous consultations.

• Approach and activities for description of impact pathways – We will learn from the experiences of other BFPs with developing impact pathways and network maps, as this exercise has not yet been attempted in the Limpopo Basin. Building on these experiences, we envision the following approach for developing them for this basin:

1. Using the stakeholder databases developed by other work packages, prepare network maps that link all the actors in the basin. We expect that there will be a variety of such maps at sub-national, national and basin levels forming an integrated hierarchy.

2. As part of the process of identifying the hypothesized intervention packages, we will develop problem and objective trees in consultation with key stakeholders. During the project these will be constantly reviewed, and revised and updated as we learn more.

3. During the project we plan a series of stakeholder consultations at various levels; we will use these to identify the most significant changes required to achieve the desired impacts. The facilitation skills of several of our team members as well as others in the partner networks (GWP-SA, FANRPAN) will be very important here. These will include the local consultations with case study communities mentioned above; national workshops (using both FANRPAN’s quarterly national policy dialogue platforms and GWP-SA’s country water partnerships); and one-on-one meetings with senior policy makers, donors, NGO representatives, and business persons to define processes by which key policies and institutional arrangements can be strengthened or reformed to create a conducive environment for investments, adoption and scaling out and up of intervention packages.

• Expected effectiveness of your approaches to reach the required outputs – The study outputs as specified in the BFP Methodological Guidelines will include:

Int1) A short-list of potential significant intervention packages for different parts of the basin;

Int2) Qualitative evaluation of likely impacts on water use and agricultural water productivity;

Int3) Strategic plans for the basin identifying promising interventions for specific situations identified for different parts of the basin; and

Int4) Increased awareness of high potential interventions that key actors (agricultural producers, ministries, donors, research and development agencies) could invest in.

We believe our approach will be effective in achieving the project objectives for several reasons. Many members of the team have worked together and know each other—therefore even though it is relatively large, we have the basis to work cohesively. We will maintain a continuous dialogue with stakeholders throughout the study with regular feedback to community and national leaders not only to ensure awareness of potential interventions but more importantly, to achieve buy-in through the process or consultation so that, ideally, the final outcomes are jointly “owned.” We believe that the fact that the team is from the region and includes well-recognized senior researchers will increase the credibility and potential uptake of our findings and recommendations. The inclusion in the project partnership of the Limpopo Basin Coordinator, IWMI’s southern Africa office, the ARC with its well-recognized technical expertise, and the networks of


19

GWP-SA and FANRPAN also increase the potential effectiveness and likelihood to have substantial impacts not only in the Limpopo Basin, but other basins in the region.

Work Package 6: Development and application of the knowledge base • Approach and activities for spatial data base development – This work package supports the others to integrate, store and facilitate access to databases. It will also assist them to package and share outputs, as well as producing its own outputs. It will work closely with the Strategic Analysis and Knowledge Support System for Southern Africa (SAKSS-SA). Activities under this heading include:

1. Establish data domains and priorities: This activity will identify and prioritize those data domains (e.g. natural resources, demographic, indigenous knowledge) important to water, food and poverty issues.

2. Identify country contact points: We will identify contact points and resource persons in the four basin countries that can help identify data and data custodians, and facilitate access to data. EIS-Africa is currently completing an inventory of institutions holding geo-spatial data sets in the SADC region; we will build on this.

3. Establish and confirm participation/data sharing: This task will formalize the participation of data custodians relating to data exchange, data restrictions, IP protection and other issues. Instruments such as data exchange MOUs, data protocols, and access agreements will be considered.

4. Document network stakeholders: A list of names and contact details of network stakeholders will be compiled and maintained, assisted by others, especially the institutions group.

5. Establish a register of scientists active in the basin: A dynamic electronic register will be established where basin scientists can register. This will form the basis of a scientific knowledge network (“community of practice”) for the basin. Items 4 and 5 constitute output K1.

6. Collect metadata: This activity will capitalize on the previous activities and source data about important datasets, including information on ownership, quality, scale, maintenance, IP, format, and restrictions on use.

7. Compile meta database in IDIS: The metadata will be housed in the IDIS system. We will prepare a report summarizing these activities (1-7) (output K2.).

• Approach and activities for discussion and exchange of data – This activity will facilitate the incorporation of data into IDIS and will include sourcing, acquiring, standardizing, and evaluating the datasets identified for inclusion. It will both draw upon the work of other work packages, and support them. It is also important to note that we will draw on a number of existing data bases including IWMI’s Data Storage Pathway; IWMI’s World Water and Climate Atlas; ARC’s AGIS; SAKSS-SA; and SADC’s hydrological and remote sensing data bases.

1. Compile data acquisition guidelines (IP, purchase, updating) (output K3): A set of guidelines will be prepared to facilitate data sourcing. This will include guidelines on how to address issues such as IP, purchasing, standards, projections, quality, maintenance and updating of the datasets.


20

2. Source data: Datasets identified as required will be sourced, and purchased if need be. Alternatively right of access to data will be facilitated with custodians, especially those data sets that are updated regularly such as climate datasets.

3. Evaluate data for quality: All datasets acquired will be evaluated for completeness and quality. The results of the evaluation of the dataset will be reflected in the metadata.

4. Model / patch missing datasets: Those datasets that are found to have significant missing data, or datasets that are considered critical will be considered for patching to fill missing values or models will be used to create simulated datasets where these do not exist. Extensive use of satellite imagery will be used to generate surrogate datasets where feasible. New methodologies, models or techniques will not be invented.

4. Load into IDIS (output K4) All datasets will be loaded into IDIS.

• Approach and activities for knowledge sharing processes –

1. Project brochure (output K5) A project brochure will be prepared and distributed in English and Portuguese. It will be used to raise awareness, solicited buy-in and facilitate communication with basin stakeholders.

2. Team knowledge sharing meetings Team meetings for knowledge sharing, coordination and data requirement assessments are envisaged. This function will be fulfilled with the two workshops in the scoping phase, followed by approximately bi-annual meetings (6 in all).

3. Knowledge to action indabas (basin wide) (output K6) Two basin-level “Knowledge to Action” conferences are envisaged to exchange knowledge among stakeholders through papers, workshops, field demonstrations and field tours, and for consultations on the project progress, outcomes, and findings.

5 Develop knowledge products (4 products constituting output K7) The project will acquire considerable information useful for developing knowledge products. At least four packages will be identified and produced, including such products as information brochures, information or interactive compact discs (CDs), videos, or manuals. The most appropriate packaging will be based on the knowledge content, target stakeholders and cost. A regular short quarterly newsletter in English and Portuguese is also envisaged.

6 Virtual Reality (VR) model of the Limpopo Basin (output K8) A unique feature of this proposal is the development of a pilot Virtual Reality product in conjunction with Naledi3d of Pretoria (www.Naledi3d.com). VR helps improve learning and communication based on adult learning experiences and has been used for themes as diverse as teaching back hygiene and bee-keeping. This knowledge product will demonstrate the effect of activities by one stakeholder in the basin on other stakeholders. Examples being considered include changes in land use by one country could increase the risk of floods, water scarcity or water pollution in another, or poor resource management resulting in degradation (erosion) could impact on sustainability and future generations.

• Approach and activities for engaging with the CPWF community of practice – One of the activities mentioned above is to establish a register of scientists active in the


21

basin: A dynamic electronic register will be established where researchers and other scientists in the Limpopo basin can register their co-ordinates. This will form the basis of a scientific knowledge network (“community of practice”) for the basin. The network will meet on an annual basis to exchange scientific findings and for networking. The project can facilitate this network for the first two years; thereafter it must be self-sustaining. Forums such as this have been successful in South Africa: the model of the successful Arid Zone Ecology Forum and the Fynbos Forum will be followed.

This Limpopo basin scientific network will in turn be linked to that of Waternet, a network of research and education institutions active in southern and eastern Africa, and the Water Research Fund for Southern Africa (WARFSA) which supports integrated water resources management research in the region. If the proposed agricultural agricultural research network (SAARTN) planned to be built initially around research institutions working on water management in the Limpopo Basin is successfully launched this will form another part of the basin research network. FANRPAN is also in discussions with the Global Environmental Change and Food Systems (GECAFS) network to host a southern Africa secretariat for global change research in the region.

We expect that the CPWF secretariat will facilitate the linkages among the basin institutions as it already does among CPWF project partners. Having an international research partner like IWMI will also play a key role. Our team looks forward to working with other BFP teams to create a global community of practice of researchers on water and poverty issues. • Approach and activities for processes and tools to support stakeholders’

investment decisions – The “intervention packages” that will emerge as recommendations from this project will themselves require investments. From the beginning therefore we will try to involve potential investors as well as regional decision-makers, to enhance the likelihood that our products will indeed lead to investments. Our partnership with the Strategic Analysis and Knowledge Support Systems, Southern Africa (SAKSS-SA) is a critical in this regard.

SAKSS-SA is a relatively new program that is developing a knowledge management system to improve access to and use of high quality data for agricultural policy and investment analysis, with an emphasis on investments. In addition to data bases and a portal to other data bases, its stated objective is to make analytical tools available for supporting investment decisions. With IWMI and ICRISAT managing this program, its emphasis will include water management; and with IFPRI playing a strong role, it will be in a position to provide analytical support to investment decision-makers.

IWMI has been providing technical support to the SADC Agricultural Water Management and Food Security Project development; this is planned as a US$150 million project to support both applied research and capacity building, and investments in poverty-oriented agricultural water management. The project’s initial targets do not include the Limpopo Basin, but two basin countries are included (Mozambique, Zimbabwe). As that project comes on stream, it will provide an excellent opportunity for sharing results that can be integrated into a major regional investment program. The ready availability of spatial and other data in the IDIS system will also make investment analyses accessible and feasible.

• Approach and activities for impact analysis – The project team regards monitoring and evaluation as a critical project component.


22

At an early stage we plan to develop draft impact pathways and problem trees associated with each of the proposed intervention packages. The final recommendations will include final impact pathways linked to network maps of key stakeholders. Since there will be different intervention packages for different countries and/or hydronomic zones, there will be separate impact pathways and network maps for each.

The potential impacts of this project go beyond the intervention packages; we will be generating new knowledge and insights that can influence future research and national and transboundary policies, and build new capacities in the region. Therefore, during the scoping phase we will develop a broader impact pathway diagram of the entire project and estimate the potential impacts of the project.

Project implementation will include activities designed for impact. This includes the training modules mentioned above, and the various knowledge sharing activities. For example, one of the activities will be holding regular knowledge sharing indabas (workshops). An output of these indabas will also be statements and documentation on the impact of the project in the basin. Information in support of this will also be obtained through interviews with focus groups such as extension services, local municipal decision makers and local community leaders.

We are particularly excited about the potential usefulness of the Virtual Reality” product we propose to develop. Project resources will allow only a demonstration of the potential, but Naledi3d has received past support from the Kellogg Foundation (Pretoria office). We believe there would be potential to raise supplementary resources to demonstrate this approach to communication and community capacity building on a larger scale, thus further enhancing our impact.

• Expected effectiveness of your approaches to reach the required outputs – In addition to producing the four outputs specified in the BFP Methodological Guidelines, our proposal demonstrates we will go beyond them. Thus the outputs will include:

1) Databases facilitating easy access to high quality data through IDIS;

2) Knowledge-sharing processes that ensure input from and access by all key stakeholders;

3) Accessible information on high potential interventions and their likely impacts; and

4) Accepted strategies for taking knowledge through to application.

Our knowledge base team already has considerable experience with knowledge management and sharing through their experiences with AGIS, SAKSS-SA and IDIS (since ARC is the custodian for the Limpopo Basin). The ARC team has been involved from the beginning in the development of AGIS, and is very familiar with the available data sets, ways of acquiring, storing, and sharing data—as well as the pitfalls and problems inherent in managing databases from diverse sources, integrating them, and making them available in a useful format. The coordinator of SAKSS-SA (Chilonda) has done similar work in his previous position at FAO (which is why he was hired for SAKSS-SA), and is part of a CGIAR network from which we will gain further knowledge and experience.

Our team has links with other knowledge management systems, including SADC’s Remote Sensing Unit, FAO, and CGIAR. We have good relationships and contacts with custodians of national and regional databases, which should enable us to obtain data that


23

is otherwise not widely shared. Further, IWMI itself is re-branding itself as a global water knowledge center and has a growing capacity for technical support in this area.

In sum we are confident we will be fully effective in reaching the required outputs.

3 INSTITUTIONS AND PROJECT TEAM

AR

C-F

AN

RPA

N L

impo

po B

asin

Foc

al P

roje

ct P

ropo

sal

24

3.1

MA

TR

IX O

F T

EA

M C

OM

POSI

TIO

N T

O A

DD

RE

SS P

RO

JEC

T O

UT

PUT

S N

ote:

The

Mat

rix

belo

w sh

ows t

he “

Lea

d” T

eam

Mem

ber

for

each

Wor

k Pa

ckag

e; th

e no

tes i

ndic

ate

supp

ortin

g te

am m

embe

rs.

W

OR

K P

AC

KA

GE

S Pr

ojec

t Lea

der

A

Tea

m M

embe

r B

T

eam

M

embe

r C

T

eam

M

embe

r D

T

eam

M

embe

r E

T

eam

M

embe

r F

Dou

glas

Mer

rey

Lind

iwe

Siba

nda

Cha

rles

Mat

aya

Hilm

y Sa

lly

Terr

y N

ewby

K

evin

Sco

tt

1 Po

verty

Ana

lysi

s X

X-L

ead

2

Ana

lysi

s of

w

ater

av

aila

bilit

y an

d ac

cess

x

X-le

ad

3 A

naly

sis

of

agric

ultu

ral

wat

er

prod

uctiv

ity

x X

-lead

X

4 In

stitu

tiona

l Ana

lysi

s X

-lead

X

5

Inte

rven

tion

Ana

lysi

s X

X

-Lea

d X

X

6

Dev

elop

men

t an

d ap

plic

atio

n of

kn

owle

dge

base

X

X

X

-Lea

d

E

XPE

RIE

NC

E

H

as w

orke

d pr

evio

usly

in te

ams

with

th

e pr

ojec

t lea

der.

--

- Y

es

No

Yes

N

o N

o

Pr

evio

us e

xper

ienc

e in

the

desi

gnat

ed

river

bas

in

Yes

Y

es

Yes

Y

es

Yes

Y

es

Pr

evio

us

expe

rienc

e in

ot

her

river

ba

sins

(ple

ase

nam

e)

Nile

; Gan

ges;

Indu

s;

Rua

ha (T

anza

nia)

; W

alaw

e, K

irind

i Oya

, M

ahaw

eli (

Sri L

anka

); O

lifan

ts

Zam

bezi

, Zi

mba

we

catc

hmen

ts,

SAD

C re

gion

Zam

bezi

, La

ke M

alaw

i O

lifan

ts;

Wal

awe,

K

irind

i Oya

, M

ahaw

eli

(Sri

Lank

a);

Rua

ha,

Pang

ani

(Tan

zani

a),

Vol

ta, N

iger

, Za

yend

eh

Rud

(Ira

n)

Sout

h A

fric

an

Wes

tern

Cap

e ba

sins

; O

rang

e-Se

nque

Olif

ants

, Li

mpo

po;

Ora

nge-

Senq

ue R

iver


25

NOTES TO MATRIX, including changes: Other contributing key team members will include: Massoud Shaker (water availability and access, water productivity, interventions); Prof. John Annandale (water productivity); Ruvimbo Chimedza (gender specialist-poverty and interventions); Prosper Matondi (poverty, institutions);; Thulani Magagula (water availability, and access; productivity); Prof. Julius Mangisoni (poverty, productivity, intervention); Pius Chilonda (knowledge base); Anton Earle (institutional analysis); Berhanu Alemaw (water availability and access); Professor Rui Brito and others in his faculty (water availability and access, water productivity, institutions, interventions); and Mario Marques, Jacinto Mafalacusser and others in IIAM (water availability and access, productivity, interventions). Their CVs are also attached. The team members “leading” a work package will closely work with the others designated as contributing; in some cases the latter will carry out much of the work.

Changes in team: Professor Barnard is no longer available. We have asked Kevin Scott to lead the water availability and access package because there was some concern whether this role could be played by the Basin Coordinator; however the Coordinator is providing intellectual support to Kevin. Professor Kirsten has indicated he may not have sufficient time to lead the poverty and water package, but will remain associated as a senior advisor. Professor Charles Mataya has considerable experience with poverty analysis in the sub-region and is an excellent substitute. Ward Anseeuw from the University of Pretoria will strengthen the institutional analysis package. We have further strengthened the team by adding colleagues from Botswana (Berhanu Alemaw) and Mozambique (Professor Rui Brito and colleagues, Mario Marques, Jacinto Mafalacusser and colleagues)—thus filling a gap in the earlier team which had no one from these two countries. The Team Leader has worked with Mario Marques in the past, and has known Berhanu Alemaw and Rui Brito for some years professionally. The Global Water Partnership-Southern Africa, which is physically located in the same office as FANRPAN and same campus as the Basin Coordinator, has agreed to participate in the project to facilitate the regional outreach; it has a network of country water partnerships (the ones in the four basin countries are especially strong), links to the SADC water unit, and excellent access to senior water policy makers in the region and even globally. Our team is indeed somewhat large, but is now even stronger than before; and there are a sufficient number of linkages among team members to ensure we can operate well as a team.

Given the structure of the budget format provided, the work package leaders are shown there as Principal Investigators and the others as Consultants; but in reality we consider the “consultants” to be members of the team.

3.2 Explain your methods for fostering innovation and cooperation within your team, and their ability to cooperate with other BFP teams to exchange ideas. (Max 400 words) Our team is relatively large and diverse in terms of disciplines, nationality, and cultures. Although presenting challenges, we view this size and diversity as a strength, because it brings a diversity of perspectives that can lead to the generation of new innovations and insights. The likelihood of this is enhanced by the fact that most team members know each other and have worked together in the past; they have a shared mutual respect and personal relationships on which we can build. The team will operate on the basis of full transparency, open communication, and mutual respect. Not only the Team Leader, but other members of the team have experience in managing multi-national teams, and several team members (Sibanda, Earle) are trained facilitators.

We are organizing the team as a matrix, i.e., not only in terms of work packages but also as country teams (see Annex 3). All four countries are represented on the team,


26

and for each we have designated a country team leader. Annex 4 provides a schematic overview of how we perceive the interactions of the work packages within the project.

All the team members have good email and internet access, and all have good telephone communications (cell phones in most cases), thus facilitating easy communication. During the two-year period, we have budgeted for 6 team meetings, usually back-to-back with stakeholder workshops. We will carefully plan these team meetings to ensure they are intellectually productive and result in fostering cooperation and innovation.

The team looks forward to the opportunity to work with the teams implementing Basin Focal Projects in other basins around the world. We recognize we can learn much from the experiences of these teams, for example on using impact pathways and network maps; these are new concepts for this region. We believe we can both contribute and learn regarding other areas, for example water-poverty analytical methods, analysis of water productivity, and institutional analysis. Some team members have experience working in other regions of the world including other river basins; nearly all have some experience in other countries within the SADC region. A few of us have personal relationships with members of some of the other BFP teams on which we can build. Therefore cooperating with BFP teams in other basins is for us a great opportunity and not a challenge.

3.3 Please describe your approach to ensure participation of, and linkage between, national, regional, and international institutions in the river basin in which you intend to work. (Max 400 words) Throughout this proposal we have emphasized our linkages with institutions at all levels in the Basin and how we plan to build on these. Operationally, we have budgeted for four national workshops in each of the four countries, and two basin-level (regional) workshops. Because of our personal and institutional linkages in the region, we are confident we can ensure active participation of representatives of all the key stakeholders in these workshops as well as gain access through other mechanisms. During project implementation, we will remain in communication with a wide variety of stakeholders both personally and through our planned newsletter and presentations at various forums.

FANRPAN is itself a network of agricultural policy researchers, policymakers, and civil society stakeholders; in each country it has direct links to the highest agricultural policymakers, in addition to its links with SADC. It sponsors an annual regional policy dialogue attended by the highest level agricultural policymakers and other stakeholders from research, civil society, and agri-business. Its nodes also sponsor regular national policy discussions that provide ideal opportunities for sharing project results interactively. Another emerging opportunity is a new network co-sponsored by ARC and FANRPAN, “Southern Africa Agricultural Research and Technology Transfer Network (SAARTN). This network of research institutions will initially be built around water issues in the Limpopo Basin, and expanded from there; it has been endorsed by NEPAD and FARA and is under consideration by SADC and several donors.

Similarly, GWP-SA has links to national and regional policy makers in the water sector. Its Country Water Partnerships provide an ideal avenue for national dialogues


27

on the project plans and outcomes, as do its regional meetings. GWP-SA co-sponsors with Waternet and WARFSA an annual water symposium attended by several hundred researchers, NGOs, civil society representatives and policymakers. GWP-SA is part of the international GWP.

Both the Basin Coordinator and IWMI have linkages with the emerging Limpopo Basin Commission, and the various national departments involved in it. Further, IWMI has its own relationships with national, regional and international institutions in the basin. For example, IWMI and ICRISAT together with FANRPAN implement the Strategic Agricultural Knowledge Support System for Southern Africa (SAKSS-SA), part of an Africa-wide network facilitated by the IFPRI.

All team members are involved with various regional networks. Finally, team meetings will be planned to coincide with other events to provide a low-cost opportunity to share knowledge and progress.

3.4 Basin Coordinator: explain the role(s) of the basin coordinator. (Max 200 words) FANRPAN, IWMI, and GWP-SA are located in the same ARC premise as is the Coordinator. Both IWMI and FANRPAN have close working relations with ARC. This proximity and established relationships will enhance the participation of the Coordinator in this project. The agreed roles of the Coordinator include:

1. Providing technical inputs and guidance to the water availability and access work package in particular, building on his own expertise (this work package is led by ARC);

2. Providing overall guidance and inputs for the project implementation strategy;

3. Contributing to other packages, especially the intervention package, building on his previous experience as a senior civil servant in the Limpopo Provincial government;

4. A major role as convener of workshops, meetings, etc. with key stakeholders in the basin, as well as introducing the team and project to the four governments and the Limpopo Basin Commission;

5. Facilitating close collaboration with the existing CPWF projects in the basin including access to reports and data, cooperation in field work, etc. (IWMI, which is involved in most of these project will also assist in this area); and

6. Disseminating project outputs and facilitating uptake and impacts from the project.

3.5 Capacity Building: explain the capacity building elements that you have identified as part of your work plan. (Max 300 words) We view this project as an opportunity simultaneously to use our capacities and to further enhance institutional and human resource capacities in the region. The specific capacity building elements of this project include:

1. Use of students – especially in the field-work. The team includes university professors with regional students seeking good research topics and supervision


28

which we can provide. In each basin state there are M.Sc. programs in IWRM, where students gain a multi-faceted understanding of the factors involved in managing water resources. The project can provide them opportunities to develop practical research skills to complement their academic knowledge. We will contract with students to do needed studies under our supervision and provide us a report; they can also use the data for their masters or Ph.D. theses.

2. The Waternet program of regional universities is in its sixth year of M.Sc. IWRM training. The graduates represent a pool of young professionals we can use. This will provide them with vital research and consultancy skills, complementing their academic training and contributing to their career development.

3. We will provide training in methodologies, for example social science methodologies and Pitman model training; other examples include impact pathway, water-poverty, and water productivity analytical methods.

4. The project is an opportunity to build regional interdisciplinary research capacity among young and seasoned professionals. This will enhance regional capacity to engage in such research, and to respond to future CPWF and other opportunities for such work.

5. Finally, through the close engagement of the team with policymakers, government and non-government implementing agencies, and civil society representatives, we will be strengthening their capacities and providing them with new knowledge and insights as a basis for policy and institutional innovations.

4 RESPONSE TO REVIEWER COMMENTS ON YOUR EXPRESSION OF INTEREST The invitation to develop a full proposal identified some negative factors of the EOI that required adjustment. Please list below the factors and explain how you have addressed the comments in your full proposal. Please add boxes as necessary. 1 (insert review comment) FANRPAN as an institution has not yet built up a track record of project management. May be difficult to manage such a huge team. Response: The Agricultural Research Council (ARC), the “first among equals” partner, will have formal institutional responsibility for project management. It does have a strong track record. FANRPAN has also built a record over the past few years of managing multi-country studies, for example on seeds policies, and impacts of HIV/AIDS. Further, the two partners have very close working relationships, and FANRPAN is housed in an ARC premise. The Team Leader and other members of the team also have considerable experience in this area. Therefore, we do not believe project management will be a problem. 2 (insert review comment) Not clear if adequate expertise on the team regarding improving water productivity in rainfed systems as opposed to irrigated systems.


29

Response: Hilmy Sally and Thulani Magagula (IWMI) have been working on water productivity in rainfed as well as irrigated systems in the Olifants Basin, a tributary of the Limpopo; Drs Sally and Merrey have also been closely involved with the ILRI-led project on livestock-water productivity and have contributed to the methodology used. Professor Annendale (University of Pretoria) also has considerable experience with water productivity analysis in rainfed and irrigated systems. Further, the methodologies are not very different for irrigated versus rainfed agriculture. Therefore, we believe our team has full capacity to address this. 3 (insert review comment) Most positive characteristics of the EoI Excellent team, though somewhat large. Strongest possible team leader. Vast expertise in the basin. Basin coordinator on board. Appropriate view of intervention analysis as the linchpin – the culminating work – systematic approach to intervention analysis. Appears to cover whole basin and all issues. Regionally based PL and lead institution, with excellent multi-institutional team covering the basin and requisite range of skills and experience. Existing partnerships among key lead institutions (ARC-FANRPAN); Basin Co-ordinator fully integrated already at EoI stage. Strong proposal and strong team Response: We have included all the positive responses in this box, and can only say that we are grateful for, and fully agree with, the reviewers’ comments. We hope to be given the opportunity to show what this regionally based team can do and are sure the CPWF will be more than pleased with the outcomes. 5 BUDGET Separate files 6 FINAL COMMENTS The intent of this section is to enable you to pull together the most convincing aspects of your proposal that you would like to convey to the assessment panel members, the CPWF Management Team, and members of the Steering Committee. (300 words) We believe our proposal and team offer several unique and unparalleled strengths.

First, we have a very strong team of professionals, all based in the SADC region; most are citizens of regional countries, giving them “insider” capacity in terms of language, culture, environment, and contacts. Although our team may seem large, it has the virtues of having members from each of the four countries in the basin, and there are already close personal and professional ties among them which will enhance their capacity to work together effectively and creatively.

A second advantage is our network of relationships with a wide variety of stakeholders in the agricultural and water sectors, at all levels from local and civil society, to agri-business, national research institutes, NGOs, and policymakers, and


30

regional and basin level institutions. Therefore we have both the right team to produce new insights and innovative ideas, and the relationships, contacts, and credibility needed to have a significant impact.

Third, all the team members participate in many national, regional and international forums and networks, providing excellent opportunities to present the findings and recommendations of the project to significant audiences. Therefore we have the possibility not only of having a substantial impact within the Limpopo Basin, but also on other basins and institutions.

Fourth, we are well-placed to maximize the capacity building outcomes. With our academic partners and access to other universities in the region, we can mobilize students able to do good quality work, who will also benefit in terms of building their capacities. We will also provide training in new methodologies, and will strengthen the capacity of civil society and policymakers by providing new insights and innovative approaches to addressing the water-poverty issues in the basin.

7 ANNEX OF INFORMATION FROM THE EOI Please cut and paste, with any modifications identified in a different font style, the following sub-sections from your EoI, to allow the reviewers comment access: 7.1 COMPETENCIES OF LEAD INSTITUTIONS

The Agricultural Research Council of South Africa (ARC) and the Food, Agriculture, Natural Resources and Policy Analysis Network (FANRPAN) have joined forces to lead this proposal.

ARC (www.arc.agric.za) will be the ‘primary’ lead institution, responsible for financial management and ensuring the project is completed on time; and for key technical inputs drawing on all of its constituent institutes. The ARC has a long record in project management and sound financial control; and just as important, it is recognized internationally for its deep research capacity in agricultural and natural resources management. For example, ARC cooperates with other agencies to manage the “Agricultural Information System for South Africa” (AGIS, www.agis.agric.za), a geo-referenced data base on natural resources, infrastructure and socio-economic factors that makes South Africa’s agricultural information system available on the internet. AGIS is intended to be expanded to include the SADC region. Other relevant projects include: ARC prepared an irrigation design manual now in use for both emerging and commercial farmer irrigation schemes; ARC is testing a variety of conservation agriculture methodologies and tillage equipment it has developed, in various agro-ecological zones; ARC is testing the feasibility of scaling up ‘telecenters’ in small scale irrigation schemes, that give the users access to phone and internet services. ARC is heavily involved in supporting the revitalization of small scale irrigation in the Limpopo Province (effectively the South African portion of the Basin) through training, applied research, technical advice, and evaluation. Finally, ARC was selected as one of the initial five developing country national partners in the CPWF and its successful hosting of the Limpopo Basin Coordinator functions is further evidence of its capacities and commitment.

FANRPAN (www.fanrpan.org) is a network of policy research institutions and university departments in the SADC region. It has recently moved its secretariat to South Africa, where it has the same diplomatic and legal status as other international


31

organizations such as the International Water Management Institute (IWMI); and has been revitalized under new leadership and with strong donor support. ARC and FANRPAN are developing several joint programs in the region in addition to this Basin Focal Project, and will sign an MoU in the near future. FANRPAN and IWMI (as well as GWP-SA) are housed in an ARC complex. FANRPAN has a strong network of senior policy researchers, and very close linkages to senior national policy makers, SADC, NEPAD, and FARA (among others). It has the capacity to implement in-depth cutting edge policy research in the region, and communicate the results effectively at the most senior policy level. Recent examples include projects on enhancing rural livelihoods, policies for strengthening farmer organizations, feasibility of promoting contract farmers in the region; studies on the impacts of HIV/AIDS on food security; and a regional maize marketing study. In terms of its project management capacity, FANRPAN has developed competence in managing project grants and multi-partner multi-country team projects. For example in the past fiscal year it managed a portfolio of 9 project grants from various donors, including a 2-year USAID grant for US$ 800,000 (two years), and recently completed a 2-year multi-country study on the impact of HIV and AIDS on agriculture and food security (Euros 600,000 from the EC). An important recent development is that the Global Environmental Change and Food Systems (GECAFS) has recently proposed that FANRPAN act as the secretariat for its Southern Africa Science Plan and Implementation Strategy (on the recommendation of NEPAD), in recognition of both its growing management capacity and its ability to broker science and policy analysis.

ARC and FANRPAN both have strong partnerships with IWMI. ARC and IWMI have been collaborating on water management projects since 1997. FANRPAN is a partner with IWMI and ICRISAT in implementing the Southern African node of the Strategic Agricultural Knowledge Support System (SAKSS-SA) and indeed we propose to integrate the strengths of SAKSS and AGIS as the basis for the supporting knowledge system. These partnerships were built when Doug Merrey was Director for Africa at IWMI.

7.2 COMPETENCIES OF PROJECT LEADER

With over 25 years of increasingly responsible research and management positions in the field of agricultural water management, Dr. Douglas J Merrey will be a strong and effective project leader. Doug has been associated with IWMI for most of its existence, and from 1 July 2006 has become the Director for Programs with FANRPAN, based in Pretoria. At IWMI, among others, he has held positions as Country Program Leader (Sri Lanka, Egypt), Global Theme Leader (various themes), Team Leader of a major multi-disciplinary project in Egypt that carried out an institutional analysis of the Ministry of Irrigation and proposed a strategic plan for its strengthening, Deputy Director General for Programs, and more recently, Director for Africa. In the latter role, he opened IWMI’s office in South Africa, and led its development from a zero base to one that now has 3 sub-regional offices, about 30 scientists, and about 25% of IWMI’s total budget. More important, he has led the development of a strong network of national, sub-regional and regional partners, and the development of a research and capacity development program that is focused on some of the major priority issues facing Africa. He has demonstrated an ability to manage complex multi-disciplinary projects, build and guide multi-cultural interdisciplinary teams, and produce excellent and innovative outputs within time and budget. His recent work at IWMI has included:

• Led projects on micro-irrigation investments in southern Africa and integrated the results with those of other work in Africa;


32

• Initiated with FANRPAN and ICRISAT, the Strategic Agricultural Knowledge Support Systems in Southern Africa;

• Coordinating Lead Author of the chapter on policies and institutions in the final synthesis book for the Comprehensive Assessment of Water Management for Agriculture.

• Is co-editor of a forthcoming book on the Olifants River Basin • Led IWMI’s work on agricultural water investment opportunities, with the

African Development Bank, FAO, IFAD, NEPAD, and World Bank. He is well-known and recognized in the SADC and Limpopo Basin region (for example, he was elected by the Waternet members to the Waternet Steering Committee, and appointed by the Minister of Water Affairs and Forestry to the Board of Governors of the South African Water Research Commission). Doug will lead the institutional analysis package. He has worked on water management institutions since 1976 in Asia and Africa. He led the development of IWMI’s research program in the Olifants Basin, and led the submission of IWMI proposals to the CPWF (most were successful). He has been leading CP 47 on African Transboundary Institutions (in the Volta and Limpopo), and also led a comparative study of river basin institutions at IWMI which resulted in a major book edited by M. Svendsen.

Date post:	18-Mar-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	0 times
Download:	0 times

PROPOSAL for a Basin Focal Project - FANRPAN · 2006-10-11 · ARC-FANRPAN Limpopo Basin Focal...

Documents