EXTERNAL
EVALUATION
PANEL
REPORT
2002
Reports by Thomas L.Thurow, Ahmed E.Sidahmed,
Bernard A.Engel and Keith M.Moore.
Edited and Designed by Susan L. Johnson
Cover Illustration by Joyce Turk
This publication was produced by the Management Entity,
Global Livestock Collaborative Research Support Program,
University of California, Davis, California 95616
Telephone (530) 752-1721 Fax: (530) 752-7523
E-Mail: glcrsp@ucdavis.edu
World Wide Web Site: http://glcrsp.ucdavis.edu

EEP MEMBERS
Thomas L. Thurow, Chair
EEP Team Leader, East Africa
Professor and Head
Department of Renewable Resources
University of Wyoming
Laramie, Wyoming 82071
Ahmed E. Sidahmed
EEP Team Leader, Central Asia and Latin America
Technical Adviser/Focal Point, Livestock & Rangeland Systems
Technical Advisory Division
International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD)
Via del Serafico, 107
00142 Rome, Italy
Bernard A. Engel
Professor
Department of Agricultural and Biological Engineering
Purdue University
West Lafayette, IN 47907-1146
Keith M. Moore
Program Director
Office of International Research and Development
1060 Litton-Reaves Hall
Blacksburg, VA 24061

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Latin America Research Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Community Planning for Sustainable Livestock-based Forested Ecosystems
in Latin America (Spanish Title: Planificacion Local Agropecuaria y
de la Naturaleza -- Project PLAN)
Central Asia Research Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Livestock Development and Rangeland Conservation Tools for Central
Asia (LDRCT)
East Africa Research Programs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Early Warning System for Monitoring Livestock Nutrition and Health for
Food Security of Humans in East Africa (LEWS)
Integrated Assessment of Pastoral-Wildlife Interactions in East Africa:
Implications for People, Policy, Conservation and Development
in East Africa (POLEYC)
Improving Pastoral Risk Management on East African Rangelands
(PARIMA)
Addendum to EEP Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
Appendix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
Scope of Work
Itineraries and agendas
List of Materials provided to EEP
Project Teams
Funding Allocations by Project
Glossary

INTRODUCTION
The External Evaluation Panel is an integral component of the Collaborative Research Support
Programs. Established as a mechanism for ensuring long-term scientific integrity and
independent and continuous evaluation, the EEP plays an important and essential role in the
CRSP projects.
This year’s EEP report is an in-depth review of the following projects: Community Planning for
Sustainable Livestock-based Forested Ecosystems in Latin America (Spanish Title: Planificacion Local
Agropecuaria y de la Naturaleza -- Project PLAN); Livestock Development and Rangeland Conservation
Tools for Central Asia (LDRCT); Early Warning System for Monitoring Livestock Nutrition and Health
for Food Security of Humans in East Africa (LEWS); Integrated Assessment of Pastoral-Wildlife
Interactions in East Africa: Implications for People, Policy, Conservation and Development in East
Africa (POLEYC); and Improving Pastoral Risk Management on East African Rangelands (PARIMA)
The Management Entity and the project’s Principal Investigators provided project publications
and documents to the EEP. In addition to the paper review, EEP team members participated in a 9-day
site visit to Kenya and Southern Ethiopia for the review of the East African research program. The Latin
American research program was reviewed through a 4-day site visit to Ecuador. The Central Asian
research program was reviewed through a day of presentations and discussions between the EEP and
project team members based in the U.S
Teams of two EEP members conducted the reviews. The External Evaluation Panel for this
report were Dr. Thomas Thurow, University of Wyoming who serves as Chair of the EEP and as team
leader for the site visit to East Africa; Dr. Ahmed Sidahmed, IFAD, who served as team leader for the site
visit to Latin America and for the review of the Central Asia project; Dr. Bernard Engel, Purdue
University, EEP team member for East Africa and Central Asia and Dr. Keith Moore, Virginia
Polytechnic University, EEP team member for Latin America.
The EEP is guided by a scope of work developed jointly by the USAID Program Manager and
the Program Director. The Scope of Work as well as the itineraries and agendas, project funding history,
a complete list of materials provided and project team members is located in the Appendix. Project
Principal Investigators are invited to respond to the EEP report and the responses are located in the
Addendum to the report.

1
LATIN AMERICA RESEARCH PROGRAM
This report is the outcome of the External Evaluation Panel mission to Ecuador. The EEP team
members were Dr. Ahmed E. Sidahmed, Technical Adviser/Focal Point, Livestock and
Rangeland Systems Technical Advisory Division, International Fund for Agricultural
Development (IFAD) and Dr. Keith M. Moore, Program Director, Office of International Research and
Development, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University. Dr. Sidahmed served as team leader
for the mission to Ecuador. The EEP reviewed the “Community Planning for Sustainable Livestock￾based Forested Ecosystems in Latin America” project (Spanish Title: Planificacion Local Agropecuaria y
de la Naturaleza – PLAN). The mission participated in a full day presentation of the progress made by
PLAN in each country and an overall analysis by the lead Principal Investigator, Dr. Timothy
Moermond. This was followed by two days of field visits to farmer’s fields and pastures, watershed areas,
and a farmers’ organization. Discussions were also held with officials at the Baeza municipality. The last
day was reserved for a wrap up meeting in the morning and a closing meeting in the evening where we
discussed the preliminary summary of our findings and received feedback from the PLAN team. (See
Appendix for detailed itinerary).
A great many people contributed to the success of this mission. The team in Ecuador deserves special
recognition for the high standard of organization. The EEP wishes to thank Ms. Kattya Hernández and
Ms. Monica Navarrete, Heifer Project International – Ecuador; Gustavo Mosquera, Isabel Murillo and
Alex Leguizamo, FUNAN; Marcia Peñafiel and Armando Castellanos, JS/CDC; and Fabian Calispa,
Fundacion Terranueva. The EEP also wishes to thank Arturo Moreno, Project PLAN representative
from Mexico and Timothy Moermond, lead Principal Investigator. The EEP is appreciative of all the
community members and officials of the municipality of Baeza who took time to meet with us. A very
special thanks to Estalin Molina and the members of APROPAL, the Association of Producers of Las
Palmas, for allowing us to tour their farms and patiently responding to our inquisitive questions. The
EEP encourages PLAN to better brief community groups on the purpose of the EEP site visit in the future.
And finally, the EEP extends its heartfelt thanks to Carlos Vacaflores, Coordinator Project PLAN -
Bolivia who had the unenviable task of translating for the group. The EEP acknowledges the complexity
of the research programs and commends Dr. Moermond and the team for a job well done.
2
External Evaluation Panel Report 2002
Upper left: Members of APROPAL, the Association of Producers of Las
Palmas; Upper right: Bridge built by APROPAL tourism project,
supported by the municipality of Baeza. Left: Arturo Moreno and
Sailor Erazo discuss alternative productions systems during a farm visit.
Above left: Fabian Calispa of Terranueva. Above, right:
Tour of greenhouse experiments with from right, Estalin
Molina, Extensionist, Carlos Vacaflores, PLAN Coordinator
- Bolivia and Keith Moore, EEP member. Below Right:
Gustavo Mosquera, FUNAN, Ahmed Sidamed, EEP team
leader and Arturo Moreno, PLAN Representative - Mexico.
3
Research Program -- Latin America
Report by Dr. Ahmed E. Sidahmed, International Fund for Agricultural Development (EEP Team Leader)
 and Dr. Keith M. Moore, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University
SUMMARY
The PLAN project is based on a sound partnership and consensus building approach that has set the
foundation for a process which should lead the teams to develop an interactive, problem solving action
research program. The EEP is of the opinion that this move should be developed and fine-tuned during
the remaining time of this phase (until September 2003). However, development and implementation of
full-fledged systematic participatory action research capable of addressing the attributes of the problem
model at the local, national and regional levels would require the extension of the project to a second
phase. Therefore, the EEP is strongly supportive of an extension of the PLAN project into a second
phase.
RESEARCH PROGRAM
The project PLAN, like all GL-CRSP projects, is
focused on a problem model. The Problem Model
(PM) for PLAN defines a process which aims at
the improvement of Latin American forested
ecosystems endangered by poor natural resource
management practices. The PM is quite clear and
its development has matured as reflected in the
change of project title from “Livestock-Natural
Resource Interfaces at the Internal Frontier” to
“Community Planning for Sustainable Livestock￾based Forested Ecosystems in Latin America”.
This problem model is scientifically sound from a
disciplinary perspective: do not encroach on the
forest, improve soil fertility, improve pasture,
improve livestock management (less animals,
higher quality), minimize shifting cultivation, and
consequently, sustainable livestock-based forest
ecosystems are possible to maintain. The research
has evolved towards an interactive and community
based problem solving approach. (See Box 1).
Holistic Approach
The EEP acknowledges and appreciates the effort
being made to develop a holistic multi-activity
research program. The project strives to
understand the physical, ecological, economic,
social, cultural, and political context of the
COMMUNITY PLANNING FOR SUSTAINABLE LIVESTOCK-BASED
FORESTED ECOSYSTEMS IN LATIN AMERICA
(SPANISH TITLE: PLANIFICACION LOCAL AGROPECUARIA
Y DE LA NATURALEZA -- PROJECT PLAN)
4
External Evaluation Panel Report 2002
The Project PLAN Problem Model provides a process for describing, studying, planning,
implementing, and monitoring the integration of livestock, agriculture and natural
resource uses in natural forest ecosystems in order to achieve sustainable livelihoods
through four step-like components. The PM is supporting a scientifically sound approach
which is operationalized by an iterative participatory process involving problem
definition, individual experimentation, and community application. The four steps around
which the processes are organized in Ecuador were examined as detailed below:
-identifying potentials and limitations- soils are poor. Encroachment of cropping and
livestock raising on the forested areas is causing degradation and mud slides. The
situation has been deteriorating as a result of deforestation caused by the shifting
cultivation and pasture production. Conflict over resource access and poor social
integration/bonding among a recent migrant population provide little social
capital on which to build a sustainable planning process. However, water is
plentiful, there is a rich diversity of flora and fauna, and a younger generation of
farm families who are seeking the means to develop a sustainable livelihood in the
area.
- evaluating current practices and experimenting with alternatives- management is
not rationalized to maximize production outputs, but to minimize investments of
capital, management and labor. Farmer/researcher experimentation focuses on
intensifying exploitation of existing farm resources and reducing infringement of the
forest through rotational grazing with fewer livestock, improved pasture
management, and alternative crop production.
- generating a participatory process- farm family production and livelihood
concerns are and have been identified through a participatory diagnostic process
involving researchers, local NGO representatives, and farming community
members. This iterative process targets the development and testing of solutions
compatible with local objectives.
- generating a community planning process- through the use of an NGO-supported
“extension” agent within the local population, some farm families have formed an
association seeking to enhance the sustainability of the local community. Acting
as a group, they have taken the initiative to work together in making necessary
improvements in environmental conservation, productive activities, and income
generation.
Box 1: Description of the PLAN Problem Model Approach
5
Research Program -- Latin America
problems at the level of the community and the
watershed. Central to the success of incorporating
host country priorities has been the concept
workshops which allows integrating the local,
national and regional needs and priorities into the
research agenda. However, the EEP is concerned
about the ad hoc nature of the research agenda and,
to some extent, loose coordination between the
country programs. Systematic interdisciplinary
organization for participatory action research with
a focused direction towards interdisciplinary work
will greatly benefit the project.
The guiding principals and perspectives,
conceptual frameworks and processes, strategies
and methods being adopted, developed and
applied as well as the comparative experiences of
the three countries in implementing the same
Problem Model and Approach should be well
documented. The EEP feels strongly that a
methodological process should come out of the
research. The holistic approach and the
community-based development process should be
properly recorded. It is the opinion of the EEP
that this should be a priority for the coming year.
A scientific description of the process and
development of the holistic approach would be of
great value to the scientific and development
communities.
GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
The objectives and activities of the project are well
integrated in this Problem Model. There are three
goals of the project: (1) determine how to
incorporate livestock, agriculture, and natural
resource uses into the environment in a manner
that is ecologically sustainable and that will
improve the livelihood of the local residents; (2)
develop a set of processes useful for
implementation of community development and
natural resource management projects by local
people in conjunction with external agents (i.e.,
how to achieve the first goal); and (3) provide
training and institutional capacity building for
current and future researchers and practitioners
(i.e., develop a learning organization). This
defines a complete overarching set of objectives for
establishing the PLAN research agenda.
Goal One: Improve the livelihood of local residents.
The disciplinary science is of high standard and
has been extensively, and appropriately reported.
The move towards more interdisciplinary activities
and participatory action research focusing on farm
level integration of all crop, livestock, and soil
management practices is applauded. Some of the
current research supports the problem solving
objectives (e.g. soil fertility and pasture
improvement), while the research on livestock
management should be redesigned in order to
provide practical solutions to improved
productivity, labor saving and increased household
income. The production systems of the target zone
are now better understood and production
techniques for improving management practices
have been identified in Ecuador and to some
extent in Mexico and Bolivia.
Although the technologies for improving and
sustaining the natural resources and livestock
6
External Evaluation Panel Report 2002
production are understood by participating
farmers, there is a need to strengthen farm
management and integrate use of research
knowledge in order to maximize livestock output.
Also, the reasons for poor uptake of the technical
recommendations by the individual farmers need
careful assessment. For example, the uncertainty
of the current milk market might be the reason for
poor harvesting of milk and the tendency for the
farmers to diversify into other income generating
activities. This supposition is speculation, as the
research to answer this question has not been
conducted. NGOs are applying the insights of
social science research in the design of on-farm
experiments with farmers, but are not benefiting
from continued research on the implementation of
those insights to assure development of sustainable
production system dynamics. The EEP is of the
view that sustainability must not be examined in a
static or additive manner, but in terms of the
dynamic interactions of the development trajectory
focusing on what can change non-sustainable
practices into sustainable systems.
Goal Two: Develop set of processes for community
development and natural resource management
projects.
While contextual social science issues have been
researched (perceptions, conflicts, household
structure and strategies, land tenure, and social
capital) consistent with the first goal of the PM,
social science research contributing to the second
goal of the PM is minimal. Social science issues of
1) Problem Definition
• Characterize context
• Identify Problems
• Evaluate Problems
2) Experimentation
• Select alternatives
• Conduct experiments
• Evaluate alternatives
3) Planning
• Integration, evaluation, and selection
• Adaptation and implementation
• Monitoring
1) Problem Definition
• Characterize context
• Identify Problems
• Evaluate Problems
2) Experimentation
• Select alternatives
• Conduct experiments
• Evaluate alternatives
3) Planning
• Integration, evaluation, and selection
• Adaptation and implementation
• Monitoring
Project PLAN: Objective Framework
Box 2: Planning for Appropriate Alternatives and Adaptive Management
7
Research Program -- Latin America
community and leadership development, collective
management of resources, or mobilization of small
groups for changing NR management practices
needs further investigation. NGO partners have
commented on how they have changed their
approach from introducing new ideas to building
on local initiatives. This strategy has been
influenced by the fine participatory appraisals and
contextual research conducted. Consequently, the
introduction of new technologies has been built on
local knowledge in this way engaging farmers to
invest in learning new knowledge and in
reallocating resources. However, information on
the mechanisms by which this relationship
between farmers and change agents has been
established has not been documented.
The EEP was engaged in an interesting and useful
discussion of the proposed “process” presented by
the project team (See Box 2). It became obvious
during the discussions that the proposed “process”
could lead to a well integrated and problem solving
research if the resources (e.g. collective thinking
and participation of the members of the teams in
each country) were focused and the plans
implemented in a systematic manner. Activities
have certainly been undertaken to promote
community organization and development, but
these efforts have not been documented in a way
that could lead to the production of scientific
knowledge to inform other development
practitioners or to scale up project activities. The
PLAN team needs to be self-reflective about their
process and the mechanisms they use in order to
implement their participatory research agenda.
There is a need for analysis of leadership development
and organizational dynamics. In sum, an explicit
research agenda to achieve the second goal needs to
be formulated. The EEP recommends that a
sociologist who is an expert in participatory action
research, organizational development and small
group dynamics be added to the team. Priority in
the coming year should be given to documenting
the process.
Goal Three: Training and institutional capacity
building.
EEP noted with satisfaction that training is one of
the strongest aspects of the PLAN project. Another
observation was the fact that the training was
accomplished with considerable leverage of funds
from other resources. Overall twenty-two students
were trained/ or involved in training at the BS,
Master and Ph.D. levels with a significant number
of the trainees being from the three host countries.
There is a mix of short and long-term training and
most of the degree students are getting their
training in their respective countries. Other
training was achieved through workshops and
conferences. However, the EEP questions whether
the research agenda is driving the selection of
trainees or if the trainees interests direct the
research agenda. The EEP recommends that
students be selected to participate in the project
based on a focused research agenda with an
overarching impact on the PM. A training plan
that addresses the research agenda should be
developed.
The effort to train the farmers has suffered from
underfunding. The PLAN team is to be
8
External Evaluation Panel Report 2002
commended for including representatives of the
farmers in project meetings. However, the
proposed host country farmer to farmer exchanges
have not occurred on a regular basis or in
substantial numbers to have an impact. These
planned exchanges were cut due to the low
funding level in the first years. Also, there was not
a substantial emphasis within the project plans
placed on training farmers. The EEP recommends
that a plan for training be developed taking into
consideration a very strong involvement of the
farmers and that maximum effort should be
directed towards a program which trains a broader
sector of farmers and local professionals in
community planning, interactive multidisciplinary
research and in the analysis of the results (e.g.
using farmers’ field school approach or similar).
The PLAN team is highly diverse, representing a
range of disciplines and institutions, and they have
truly formed a “learning organization ” capable, if
properly focused, of developing a holistic research
agenda. The exchange with the Ecuador team and
the interaction seen between the three country
representatives has given the EEP the impression
that the PLAN researchers and NGO partners are
learning from the experience of the past three
years. Certainly there is an evolution in the
thinking of the Project team favoring the move
towards the undertaking of the complex
community based research approach. The Ecuador
Team and, to some extent the Mexican and
Bolivian Teams, have modified their sub-programs.
This was reflected in the extent of collaboration
between the NGOs, the farmers and the
professionals in Ecuador.
PROJECT MANAGEMENT
The project partners have developed a good deal of
mutual trust and self-confidence, which has
encouraged open communications. If a single
reason can be identified, this appears to be due to
the open leadership of the PI. The PI should be
commended for his effort to delegate the research
tasks to the national coordinators and for his
interpersonal capacity of team building and
encouragement. The PI has facilitated a research
environment that supports creativity, openness and
productive working relationships. The team spirit
and collaboration between the national team
members (as demonstrated in Ecuador) and
between the four countries has been a strong
aspect of the project management.
The Ecuadorian partners appear to have very solid
intellectual bonds and have developed clear lines of
communication. Communication within the
Mexican Team is reported to be equally as strong.
Bolivia is more complex with two sites and two
functionally different NGOs involved (one for
research and one for development, each having
responsibility for a single site). The quality of
communication among U.S. collaborators could
not be determined as none of the US based team
were present for the review. However, all of the
team members from the host countries we met
were pleased with the opportunities, form, and
frequency of communication.
The project management appears to be
administratively centralized in the PI with
reporting, financial management and overall
9
Research Program -- Latin America
analysis of the research results. On the other hand,
effective decision-making for most initiatives is
decentralized and shared by the body of co-PIs
from the four countries – local co-PIs appear to
have greater influence over locally relevant
decisions. This form of decentralized decision￾making has been demonstrated as best for the
encouragement of creativity and for assuring
relevance and cost effectiveness of the identified
researchable problems. Indeed, a coordinated
research plan and a uniform approach for data
collection verification, information sharing, etc.
would positively influence project management
and lead to considerable savings.
The yearly workshops, held to conceptually
integrate the activities in each of the three host
countries, are important mechanisms for
consolidation of a common language to identify
common problems and address issues across sites.
Regional collaborators and team members have
had a substantive role throughout the life of the
project. They are interdisciplinary and action￾oriented in their approach to the research as it has
evolved through the various stages of
implementation (from identifying and testing
specific technological innovations through their
integration in a production system reproducible at
the community level).
Instruments to evaluate ongoing work (e.g. each
year the workplan presents a set of evaluation
criteria which are used by the project collaborators
to evaluate project progress) are in place and
should be useful. The utility of the indicators has
not been demonstrated and warrants further
consideration The evaluation should concentrate
on the novel features of the research (e.g. the
process of developing a community planning
approach, participatory action research). Also the
research should be oriented towards achieving a
significant impact on the human welfare (and not
only on the environmental sustainability aspects).
These complex output targets need a thorough
analysis of the expected deliverables (as mentioned
above) which is a joint task of all teams but with
leading responsibility being set on the shoulders of
the PI and the UW team.
IMPACT
Although it is too early to identify any significant
impact of the research program there are indicators
of useful outputs (e.g. pasture improvement
technology, training of a large number of students
at the degree level). Indeed, the awareness, which
has already been established about the importance
of developing interdisciplinary research, is one
important accomplishment. Also there is a
progressive awareness about the need for resolving
and minimizing the conflict between forest
conservation and livestock/ crop production
objectives. However, there is need to develop and
specify the extent of the benefits (what, how and
who), and the mechanism for dissemination of
results (training, reporting, information sharing
and communication of results). There are benefits
to USA from supporting this research, which are
reflected in the fact that almost half of the
GLCRSP budget and about 40% of the training
allocations are spent in UW.
10
External Evaluation Panel Report 2002
BUDGET
The scope of the research is too broad for the
budget and timeframe, although with leveraged
funds a lot has been accomplished (hence, as
stressed above, the need to set a clear research plan,
develop an agenda and prioritize is critical to the
success of the project). Project resources are not
sufficient for such a wide range of activities
without improved integration of research activities
(and consequent economies of scale). Research
needs to be more focused in order to match
participatory action research with the budgetary
resources available. The severely reduced budgets
in the early years of the project have had beneficial
effect on the development of a highly committed
team of host country collaborators at the expense
of a reduced level of contribution on the part of
US collaborators. The small budgets could also
have led to the ad hoc nature of the research
agenda as individual leveraged projects were strung
together to create a whole. The project has done
very well in leveraging external funds, possibly
because the project was under-funded for two
years. For example the Project was able to expand
its activities through leveraging national resources
(in-kind contributions of the participating public
and civil society institutions such as the local
municipality, HPI and FUNAN etc.)
POLICY
The project goals have policy implications for land
tenure and environmental protection. The project
has been working at the micro-level up to this
point and results have not advanced to the point of
being able to influence national development. The
policy level that this project is currently addressing
is very much at the meso/micro-level. Issues
involve the implementation of national laws (on
land tenure, environmental protection) as they
apply at the local level which is critical to address
the agriculture/conservation interface that is the
focus of this project. There is a strong emphasis
on local policy development through support by
the municipality for eco-tourism development and
other community initiatives. These actions
constitute implementation of sustainable
development at the municipality level through
collaboration between local organizations and local
government facilitated by the NGO (e.g. FUNAN
in Ecuador).
The various research activities have direct policy
implications. For example the main thesis or PM is
the recognition (and adherence) of the crop/
livestock farmers to the sustainable forest
conservation and protection targets. Such
implications were not explicitly recognized, and
the engagement of the policy makers has so far
been very limited (to the level of the municipality
in case of Ecuador). Also, research has not focused
on how policy makers (implementers) are being
engaged and the consequences of that engagement
although the results of the research are showing
how national policies impact local decisions in
ways that directly affect the farmer’s welfare and
the future of the conservation units in juxapostion
to these communities. It is important to recognize
that local policy implementation has direct
consequences on individual and collective resource
management decisions (e.g. on land tenure
11
Research Program -- Latin America
policies). This point was reflected in the
legitimizing practices of local authorities (e.g.,
agreeing to assist in development of the APROPAL
eco-tourism project) and constitute an
intermediate level of policy linking national
legislation with local application.
EEP RECOMMENDATIONS
❑ The PLAN project should be extended into a second phase.
❑ Priority should be given to the development of a prioritized, focused and systematic research
agenda based on a holistic approach.
❑ The EEP feels strongly that a methodological process should come out of the research. The
holistic approach and the community-based development process should be properly
documented and analyzed as a priority for the coming year.
❑ The move towards more interdisciplinary activities and participatory action research focusing
on farm level integration of all crop, livestock, and soil management practices is applauded.
❑ The EEP recommends that an expert in participatory action research, organizational
development and small group dynamics be added to the team.
❑ A training plan that addresses the research agenda should be developed. The EEP
recommends that a training program with very strong involvement of the farmers also be
taken into consideration.
❑ The PI should be commended for his effort to delegate the research tasks to the national
coordinators and for his interpersonal capacity of team building and encouragement.
❑ The complex output targets need a thorough analysis of the expected deliverables. This
should be a joint task of all teams but with leading responsibility being set on the shoulders
of the PI and the US investigators.
❑ There is need to develop and specify the extent of the benefits (what, how and who), and the
mechanism for dissemination of results (training, reporting, information sharing and
communication of results).
12
External Evaluation Panel Report 2002
THREE THINGS THE PLAN TEAM SHOULD DO:
1. Document and analyze the methodology as applied in the three countries as a
whole team exercise. Construct a grid with the three broad levels and sub-levels of
the Project PLAN Process (Objective Framework: Problem Definition, Individual
Experimentation, and Community Application) on the y-axis and each of the
communities across all sites along the x-axis. The objective is two-fold: first, to make
explicit what has been accomplished (technical problems identified and solutions
researched) and how (mechanisms of individual and community interaction) in each
site; and second to compare your practices across sites to elicit the PLAN Model. This
exercise could be done by small groups within country groups; and then comparisons
could be made by mixed small groups, before a synthesis is prepared in a plenary
session. The results of this exercise could be written up as a publication or briefing
paper.
2. Set up tighter interdisciplinary experiments and activities recognizing that
introducing new management systems and building local organizations requires cross￾disciplinary collaboration and is a subject of research itself. The need for this has
become very obvious from our discussion with two APROPAL member farmers.
Although both farmers (one who owns a large farm and leaves its management to a
landless contractor, and a small farmer who functions at the same time as an
extension agent for FUNAN) know a lot about the benefits from several disciplinary
research results (pasture improvement, range management, alternative farm
enterprises, livestock improvement and management technologies) , the full benefit
from this knowledge is far beyond reach because of lack of a comprehensive
approach towards a better use of the livelihood assets which they own. For example
one farmer knew that he could double milk yield and reduce the number of dairy
cows but refrained from this because of a variety of reasons ( lack of economic
pressure, lack of hired labor, etc.). Putting such concepts into an integrated action
research require leadership and a systematic approach for developing a problem
solving research plan.
3. Intra project linkages: The EEP noted the existence of opportunities for useful
linkages between the PLAN and two other projects embracing the goal of research
which support the rural communities to develop their own action plan, as well as a
capacity to monitor the Natural Resources. Such linkages could be realized between
ICIMOD’s Regional Range Project in the Himalayan – Hindu - Kush mountainous region;
the ICARDA –IFAD supported Crop – livestock Integration project in the Mashreq
(Middle East) & Maghreb (North Africa) region and the SANREM project in West Africa.
13
SUMMARY
The EEP is satisfied with the performance of this research program and expresses special satisfaction with
the effort extended by the Principal Investigator, Dr. Emilio Laca, and commends him for managing this
complex undertaking, a project which involves several United States and Central Asian institutions. Of
the four project modules, the two core modules are new areas, made very difficult to research in view of
the transitioning and rapidly changing environment of Central Asia (CA). The Animal Production (AP)
module includes very useful elements and is developing feed analysis in CA using state-of-the-art￾technology. The co-PI for this model, Dr. Wolfgang Pittroff, should be commended for upgrading the
TAMU Ruminants models for use with the current IT. However, the EEP is concerned that the Socio￾economic (SE) module team did not gain fully from the generous funding provided by the GL-CRSP
and the availability of a fully dedicated graduate student.
The EEP recognizes that carbon flux work, particularly the scaling up from sites to the region, is a
significant technological and scientific contribution. This work on rangelands has never been done
before and the techniques that have been developed are quite unique.
CENTRAL ASIA RESEARCH PROGRAM
LIVESTOCK DEVELOPMENT AND RANGELAND CONSERVATION TOOLS FOR CENTRAL ASIA
Report by Ahmed Sidahmed, IFAD and Bernard Engel, Purdue University
The External Evaluation Panel review of the Central Asia project entitled “Livestock
Development and Rangeland Conservation Tools” was primarily a paper review with the
addition of a full day of presentations at UC Davis on the project’s progress (see appendix for
agenda). The EEP team members for this review were Dr. Ahmed E. Sidahmed, Technical Advisor and
Focal Point, Livestock and Rangeland Systems, International Fund for Agricultural Development
(IFAD), who served as EEP team leader and Dr. Bernard Engel, Professor, Department of Agricultural
and Biological Engineering, Purdue University. The EEP wishes to thank the lead Principal Investigator,
Dr. Emilio Laca and Program Assistant, Ms. Mary Dalsin for arranging an excellent and informative
program of presentations.
14
External Evaluation Panel Report 2002
RESEARCH PROGRAM AND PROBLEM MODEL
The core modules (GIS and C fluxes) have
received top emphasis and have made significant
progress. However, the Problem Model (PM)
targets related to providing local policy makers
with information and tools to address the negative
effects of the economic transition need further
strengthening during the final year of this project
phase.
The socio-economic component of the project,
while included, is not as complete as other
components at this point. Certainly the research
results should assist in understanding, and
consequently solving, the negative implication of
the economic transition at both the physical and
socioeconomic levels. Indeed, the C flux data set.
The C model, GIS data set, sheep model, and the
socio-economic model will have scientific and
developmental value once completed and linked.
The project team was able to benefit from the
knowledge and experience gained during the
modification of the original PM and workplan,
changed to include a more focused and
manageable approach. Although the original scope
of the research was appropriate given the budget
and time frame, the primary goal to develop a
comprehensive model was very ambitious and was
based on separation of the biophysical research
from the socio-economic research. The modified
structure was more streamlined, effectively linking
all parameters and research activities. Funding was
adequate and was boosted by leveraging other
resources (USAID, ILRI, IFAD, ALO, USDA).
Overall, the EEP believes that the
accomplishments of the project are significant and
up to expectations, taking into consideration the
difficulties encountered in changing the
hierarchical research culture of the senior Central
Asian collaborators, as well as the language
constraints.
New team members were identified appropriately
as the research agenda was modified. This was
reflected in the involvement of capable scientists
from USDA, USGS-EROS, University of
California-Davis (UCD), and Utah State
University (USU); however, there is room for
improving team interaction. For example, there is a
need to allocate budgets for closer interaction
between leaders of the four modules, and between
the SE and AP model developers. The latter is
necessary to allow for simulating the targeted
improvement at the production system levels, and
not solely on disciplinary levels; thus such models
could be of direct use in changing policies and
investment targets.
The EEP believes top-quality research is being
conducted in all activities. The papers published or
accepted are indicators of the quality and
contribution of the project research to science.
The linkage between the project’s C flux activities
with the USDA C flux research is an indication of
the quality and value of the progress made. A
further example is the AP module that is engaged
in state-of-the-art technology and Alkane markers
to understand grazing feed patterns and quality. In
addition, the software used in the sheep and cattle
model has been upgraded to keep pace with the
15
Research Program -- Central Asia
breakthrough advances in information technology.
The GIS environment provides a low cost, state￾of-the-art capability that is readily useable by
scientists and policy makers. The SE module
achieved very useful results by documenting the
changes during transition, which in turn led to a
transformation of the livestock production systems
and marketing channels, from the collective
systems to the smallholder private (peasant) and
subsistence systems.
PROGRESS
There have been significant accomplishments
during the project’s current phase in developing
appropriate institutions at both the human and
infrastructure levels; these need to be sustained.
The EEP recognizes that a network of trained
scientists in Central Asia linking the three
countries and their institutions is a significant
contribution of the project. However, further
investments in these institutions by the Central
Asian countries is needed to capitalize on the
efforts of this project.
During the next phase, care needs to be taken to
ensure that the outcome of the C flux component
is linked to the livestock development policies in
the region. Also, there is a need to consolidate
quantification data regarding the impact of various
grazing practices on the C flux in certain areas;
specifically, those areas which are building on the
findings of the recently funded study on the
impacts of extensive grazing on carbon balances.
The initiative taken by the Global Livestock CRSP
in developing the GEF project for the World Bank
(WB) on steppe rehabilitation is an example of
further support for the project’s research, allowing
the models to move from research tools to tools of
development and policy support. The workshop
for the dissemination of the GIS tool and data set,
planned for Fall 2002, is an example of the
approach needed. The same approach should be
followed when disseminating the tools generated
from the AP and SE models. In addition, it is
noted that the team has done a satisfactory job in
publishing and presenting the project’s results in
scientific periodicals and conferences. The
planned research briefs for this and the following
year should be a high priority.
The research completed promises significant
benefits for the US. For example, the C flux data
and modeling are being linked to the ongoing US
project to measure and model C flux from
rangelands. The carbon flux work, particularly the
scaling up from sites to the region, is a significant
technological and scientific contribution. The C
flux work on rangelands and the techniques that
have been developed are quite unique. Several of
the modelling tools and GIS tools are being used
within the US and elsewhere. The GL-CRSP is
using cutting edge technology developed in
Central Asia to lead the integration of data from
the 10 US carbon flux sites to allow satellite
monitoring and prediction of carbon flux in
grasslands. The redevelopment and modernization
of the Texas A&M University sheep and beef
models will be of significant use to US livestock
producers and scientists. Improving the livestock
feed analysis techniques using the Alkane markers
16
External Evaluation Panel Report 2002
will benefit many research, training, and teaching
institutions. The project has contributed
significantly to the graduate studies of several US
students, at both the MS and the PhD levels.
POLICY
The SE research and modelling are expected to
contribute to the dialogue around policy change by
providing the policy makers with knowledge and
options. The results of the C flux research could
provide policy makers with tools to develop
national action plans (e.g. Kazakstan). The project
has engaged policy makers in the research process,
and results have been provided to the senior
officials at the ministries and different relevant
institutions. However, there is need for the
researchers and policy makers to be more
proactively involved with each other. To
accomplish this, research results could be produced
in a fashion more easily understood and easier for
the policy makers to use (e.g. publication of
research notes, or participation of the policy
makers in the stakeholder workshops). The GL￾CRSP carbon work has been instrumental in the
establishment of the WB effort in dryland
rehabilitation. This represents the fact the CRSP
role was to do the basic science and the WB is
building on that to do more practical intervention.
TRAINING
There has been effective on-the-job and short-term
training (e.g. through short term visits to US
universities or participation in workshops) for the
national collaborators. Significant leveraged funds
were awarded through the ALO grant which
allowed short-term training for six Central Asian
scientists in the US. Positive impact was also
achieved through the training of 11 students from
the region at the undergraduate (BS level), and
through the interaction between the US graduate
students, regional students, and professionals;
however the training program has fallen short of
achieving the goal of engaging Central Asian
students in long-term degree training in the US.
Although we acknowledge the constraints faced as
a result of language, institution standards, high
cost, and command economy research cultures, we
see potential for improving training and capacity
building during the remaining period of this phase
and during the next phase. Therefore, the project
extension for another phase should put more
emphasis on institutional reform as a condition for
supporting further research in each Central Asian
country, and by linking the USA degree training
programs with the sustainability of the research
programs in their respective Central Asian
institutions, assuring that the field work will be
done in each country as part of the overall national
research plan.
PROJECT MANAGEMENT
In the absence of direct contact between the EEP
and the regional collaborators and some of the
module coordinators, we do not claim
understanding of the full management structure of
the program. However, we note the strength of the
research teams and the ability of the PI to pull
together a diverse group of researchers who were
able to work together to accomplish the individual
17
Research Program -- Central Asia
(module) tasks. The key remaining challenge is
the linkage between the various tasks which could
lead to the integration of the results from all
activities that would maximize the value of this
project.
MISCELLANEOUS
Leverage: We would like to commend the project
leadership in doing a very good job of leveraging
more than $ 1.5 million in kind and over US$
0.75 million in cash.
Regional scale: Certainly the project is regional,
involving three countries; however there is
overemphasis on working in Kazakhstan.
Inter-project collaboration: The PI has been actively
involved in the activities of two other GL-CRSP
projects. The contribution of LDRCT to the
PLAN project is noted through the participation
of the PI in the field training workshop in Mexico.
LEWS developed the GIS software that is being
used extensively in this project. Also, LDRCT
worked in the farms and with the collaborators of
the livestock component in the closed Livestock
Sector and Economic Reform project.
The Teams working in the four modules are from
more than one USA institution (USDA, USGS￾EROS, USU, and UCD). The UCD teams are
themselves from more than one department
(Agronomy and Range Science, Animal Science,
and Agricultural Economics). The EEP notes that
this is one of the few cross-agency projects in the
CRSP linking USAID, USDA, and USGS. This
linkage has fostered a cross-agency project that is
integrating US carbon data (never done between
the US sites) and leveraging USDA/ARS resources
to have a US/Central Asia combined data set,
allowing satellite monitoring and prediction of
carbon flux in grasslands.
Intra project linkages: The EEP notes the existence
of linkages between LDRCT and other research
projects in the regions (e.g. IFAD-ICARDA, ILRI,
ODI, the Macaulay Institute, and the USDA CO2
Network).
18
External Evaluation Panel Report 2002
EEP RECOMMENDATIONS
❑ The activities for the remaining period of this year and the workplan for next year should
clearly identify steps to be taken to integrate the AP module and SE modules in a way
whereby specific sets of reliable parameters from Kazakhstan related to forage production,
range and livestock management, and livestock genotypes will be provided by the SE team to
the AP team. The AP module will incorporate these parameters in running the module and
provide outputs which will lead to developed simplified functions and provide tools for
policy makers. The interaction between the two modules will have a specific objective of
simulating the major production systems featured during this transitional period in the
Central Asia countries.
❑ Additional recommendations are targeted towards bringing the policy makers closer to the
research process. To provide the local policy makers with information and tools they know
how to use and are comfortable using, perhaps an in-country scientist could partner with one
of the US researchers and formulate a concrete plan for outreach to local policy makers.
Suggested approaches include: invitations to come and visit research sites, and routine
updates via research briefs or other published materials with specific examples as to how they
can begin to implement what is being learned. This step should be emphasized in the next
phase of the project since it is essential in order to counteract the negative implication of
economic transition. Reaching out to a wider group of official is useful, as well. Senior
officials should still be contacted; however, widening the circle of dissemination would be
beneficial.
❑ In order to more fully link the USA degree training programs with the research programs in
the respective Central Asian institution, the project should think about how to surmount the
barriers that currently keep Central Asian students from engaging in long-term degree
training in the US. If the barrier is language, how might learning English be accomplished
for these students? Is it feasible to fund small-scale local language classes for students and
Central Asian researchers? Are there any staff on the project to whom a stipend could be
offered to arrange and/or provide language instruction? If the barrier is cost, who might offer
additional money to facilitate language classes? An analysis of these obstacles would help
both this project and future projects that might face the same problems. Including this
analysis in a brief or research update sent to local policy makers as well as US NGOs would
increase awareness as to the difficulties faced in working in a command economy research
culture.
19
EAST AFRICA RESEARCH PROGRAM
Thomas Thurow and Bernard Engel served as External Evaluation Panel (EEP) members for
the on-site review of three Global Livestock Collaborative Research Support Program
(GL-CRSP) projects in East Africa. Dr. Thurow, Professor and Head of the Department of
Renewable Resources at the University of Wyoming served as Team Leader and as Chair of the EEP. Dr.
Bernard Engel is with the Department of Agricultural and Biological Engineering. The projects
reviewed were the “Early Warning System for Monitoring Livestock Nutrition and Health for Food
Security of Humans in East Africa” (LEWS) project led by Dr. Jerry Stuth, Texas A&M University;
“Improving Pastoral Risk Management on East African Rangelands” (PARIMA) project led by Dr. Layne
Coppock, Utah State University; and “Integrated Assessment of Pastoral-Wildlife Interactions in East
Africa: Implications for People, Policy, Conservation and Development in East Africa” (POLEYC)
project led by Dr. David Swift, Colorado State University. The itinerary of these project visits, which
took place from 18-29 June 2002, is included as the appendix of this report. The EEP thanks the PIs
and collaborators of each of the projects for their collegiality and hospitality during our visit. The EEP
also wishes to thank them and the GL-CRSP Management Entity personnel for their great efforts in
planning, information provision, and logistic arrangements. The format of this report is organized to
respond to the questions which formed the basis for the EEP Scope of Work – the EEP offers these
perspectives in the spirit of constructive input. This is followed by summary recommendations for each
project.
INTRODUCTION
20
External Evaluation Panel Report 2002
Left: Local leaders in Moyale, Kenya
demonstrate “clean-milk” technology
during the External Evaluation Panel
tour.
Above: Accomodation near Marsabit, N. Kenya. Below: EEP members,
PARIMA team meembers and collaborators at airstrip in Moyale, Kenya,
prior to departure for Marsabit and Nairobi. Left: Peter Little and
Layne Coppock at PARIMA outreach site in Southern Ethiopia.
21
a) How does the Problem Model (PM) address a
development issue of importance to the country(s) in
which the project functions. Is the PM clear, fully
developed, and scientifically sound?
The project model focuses on developing an early
warning system for pastoral management systems.
By developing a system in the East African
countries that tracks forage availability and
predicts future forage production, the project
develops an important capability that has many
ramifications for local and regional planning. For
example, assessment of regional forage availability
can be an important source of information for
aiding livestock marketing decisions, guiding
livestock and people movement patterns,
anticipation of areas of conflict associated with the
movement patterns, anticipation of disease
outbreaks, and positioning of relief efforts.
b) Is the scope of the research appropriate given the
budget and time frame? Does the budget accurately
reflect the needs of the project?
Yes, the project PIs have done an excellent job of
leveraging existing funds by working with
organizations such as the livestock ministries,
Famine Early Warning System (FEWS), Arid Land
Information Network (ALIN) and a host of
NGO’s that help distribute the information.
Significant funds have also been leveraged from
other sources that are complimentary and
beneficial to the LEWS effort.
The project is making good use of their existing
budget. Based on their track-record of
accomplishment, there is good reason to believe
the project would provide a good return-on￾investment if additional funds were available —
particularly in the context of developing capability
that would link into PARIMA and POLEYC
activities (see recommendations).
c) How do the objectives and activities fit the problem
model?
The PI’s have done a very good job focusing their
activities to accomplishing the objectives
embedded in their problem model, both in terms
of research and outreach.
Report by Dr. Thomas Thurow, Professor, University of Wyoming (Team Leader and EEP Chair) and Dr.
Bernard Engel, Professor, Department of Agricultural and Biological Engineering Purdue University
EARLY WARNING SYSTEM FOR MONITORING LIVESTOCK NUTRITION AND HEALTH FOR
FOOD SECURITY OF HUMANS IN EAST AFRICA (LEWS)
ADEQUACY OF THE PROBLEM MODEL AND THE QUALITY OF THE SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH
22
External Evaluation Panel Report 2002
d) Are there aspects of the PM that are missing or are
inappropriate? What are they?
There are no aspects of the PM that are
inappropriate. It is an ambitious but do-able
project, particularly given the significant buy-in by
interested parties throughout the region. See the
recommendation section for some suggestions of
other complimentary lines of inquiry that would
be helpful if time and funding allow.
e) What is the quality of research being conducted?
Does the research make a significant contribution to
the relevant field(s) of science and does it advance
understanding of appropriate development processes?
The PI’s and their collaborators have excellent
credentials, experience, and commitment needed
to conduct quality research which is then well
distributed through their extensive contacts to the
organizations that can benefit from their research
output. Yes, the research makes significant
scientific and development contributions in the
field of creating, refining, and operationalizing a
forage-based early warning system. The PIs have an
excellent publication record based on research
conducted within the LEWS project.
f) Does the research support a problem solving
objective and link logically with the PM? Does it
develop a technology that has development/science
value?
Yes, the research targets an important information
gap associated with anticipating and responding to
forage-based dimensions associated with the
inherent climatic variability within the region.
There is both development and scientific value to
this endeavor. For example, the technology and
associated science that have been developed are
being applied in several diverse rangeland
environments in the US and elsewhere. There are
many creative spin-offs of these products; for
example, the approach being used in East Africa is
under consideration for becoming the basis for
input to a US forage insurance program mandated
in the 2002 Farm Bill.
g) How does the team’s expertise match the research
agenda? Is the level of contribution appropriate to the
area of investigation? How does the team interact?
An excellent team has been assembled to address
the PM. Particularly impressive is the caliber, and
dedication, of the PIs from the East African
countries who have coordinated their activities, are
aware of what each other are doing, and seem to
work extremely well together. The PIs and
collaborating members interact regularly via
various communication channels. Overall, the
group functions as a team. The PIs from the East
African countries are characterized by each of them
having the desirable combination of rank,
scientific skill, and commitment to improving
natural resource management. It is a fairly
sensitive task to build such a team (because this
inevitably means that some put forward by
Ministry politicos, who do not have this
combination of traits, must be politely steered
away). The approach of the GL-CRSP in having a
proposal development grant prior to the selection
of the funded projects seems to have helped in
23
Research Program -- East Africa
providing the leverage needed to separate the
wheat from the chaff — i.e., Dr. Stuth could make
the case that well-placed, skilled, committed
scientists needed to be made available by the
collaborating Ministries (from Uganda, Tanzania,
Eritrea, Ethiopia and Kenya) or else the project
would likely not be funded.
h) Is the research agenda appropriately matched to the
project’s resources? Why or why not?
The CRSP is getting a very good return on
investment given the substantial leveraging that
has been done, especially in terms of outreach and
the development of technology that might be
applied in other locations, including the US.
i) How effectively has new knowledge been applied in
the modification of the original PM workplans?
The PI’s have done a very good job of adapting to
unanticipated challenges while still maintaining
focus on the objectives of the PM.
PROGRESS
a) Considering the funding history of the project,
evaluate the accomplishments of the project and
provide rationale for your evaluations?
An excellent team of talented, dedicated scientists
has been assembled from each of the East African
countries that are part of the project (i.e., Kenya,
Tanzania, Uganda, Ethiopia). A sound, well￾dispersed monitoring network has been
established. A validation procedure has been
instituted to demonstrate product reliability and
aid model refinement. Excellent progress has been
made on establishing an effective dissemination
network for the information both through the
project and by working with other established
information organizations in the region (e.g. the
Famine Early Warning System (FEWS) and the
Arid Lands Information Network (ALIN).
b) Should the project be continued or modified?
Provide rationale for your evaluation.
The project should definitely be continued. The
project is now in a trust-building phase which
needs time to mature. The project should be
continued so that the germination of this
technology has a chance to take root and become
firmly established while the project continues to
refine the products and develop complimentary
capabilities (see recommendations). There has
been good progress at setting the stage to
institutionalize the forage early warning
capabilities. An estimate of about four years of
additional involvement by the GL-CRSP is
warranted. This estimate is based on time needed
to establish trust in the network output and time
needed to develop complimentary aspects of the
forage-early warning system to its potential (see
recommendations). Additional time is needed to
institutionalize the process for creating the
estimated forage availability maps so that it is self￾sustaining throughout East Africa. The PIs are
very sensitive to the need to institutionalize the
monitoring and reporting network and are doing a
good job at establishing a firm foundation for self￾sustaining maintenance of their monitoring
24
External Evaluation Panel Report 2002
network and integration of network output into a
host of planning groups (ranging from pastoral
communities to the office of the President of the
respective countries). One of the most
disappointing elements of development projects in
general is that projects that demonstrate genuine
promise and early success are cut off from support
before the self-sustaining connections into regional
infrastructure is firmly established. This is a
successful project and therefore merits the
investment/time that a next phase can provide to
firmly establish their technologies under the care of
the national governments.
c) In what ways have the impacts and outputs been
significant? Evaluate the mechanisms for
dissemination of research results.
Examples include monthly maps of forage
availability on the Famine Early Warning System
(FEWS) web-site and their monthly newsletter
which is disseminated to about 600 government
agencies and NGOs throughout the region. For
example, the FEWS newsletter is a regular agenda
item for update/discussion in the Kenyan
President’s cabinet meeting. The information is
also well disseminated through the radio satellite
system enabling remote NGOs to receive and
disseminate the information. A collaborative
relationship with the Arid Land Information
Network (ALIN) has been established for
dissemination via radio satellite. Maps of regional
forage status are posted at some of the livestock
market centers throughout East Africa and
generate much interest by the traders. It is very
important to stress the distinction between interest
and trust. The transition from interest to trust is a
very important period that needs time; potential
users appreciate the potential value (hence the
interest) but must be given the opportunity to
validate, through their own experience, that the
information is indeed something that they can rely
on (hence the trust). Only then will there be an
environment that will allow the program to
succeed (as measured by institutionalization of the
project by the regional governments).
d) What, if any, are the benefits to the US?
There are potentially multiple benefits of this work
to the US. The information collected throughout
East Africa has been used to improve the
robustness of the NIRS and NUTBAL PRO
models which are used in the US as well as
globally. These models are in the process of being
listed as a Best Management Practice in the US for
the USDA-EQIP program. The technique of using
point-based biophysical modeling and geostatistics
resulted in formation of several studies that gave
rise to the Texas Livestock Early Warning System
with two pilot studies as well as the Nobel
Foundation providing funding for a Livestock
Early Warning System that covers a 47-county
region in the south-central US. The automation
techniques coupled with the point-based
biophysical modeling is being considered for
recommendation to the USDA-Risk Management
Agency by a US company (AGRILOGIC Inc.) in
their feasibility study to use it as the basis of the
new forage insurance program mandated by the
US Congress in the 2002 Farm Bill. The web
techniques of automation of the satellite-based
25
Research Program -- East Africa
weather was used to create the US forage/ weather
and US livestock/weather web sites used in support
of early warning and livestock management
systems in the U.S. This integration of East
African research into US benefits is an excellent
accomplishment by the PIs.
There are also indirect benefits to U.S.
development and diplomatic agency activities, in
that these techniques offer potential for helping to
identify areas experiencing, or about to experience,
forage deficits in developing countries. This
capability can be helpful in identifying where
food-aid should be pre-positioned to alleviate a
pending shortage of livestock products (e.g., milk)
linked to a shortage of forage — famine among
pastoral people is notoriously difficult to
proactively plan for, the tools developed by this
project can be a substantial help in dealing with
these concerns. The forage maps may be helpful in
identifying areas of potential conflict prompted by
disputes over scarce resources (these conflicts can
serve as an ignition point for reopening a host of
animosities leading to broader conflict; e.g., there
are several good examples of this sequence of
events in the past decade in various locales around
the Horn of Africa). The models developed by the
project may also be useful as a stand-off/peer-in
tool for current areas of conflict (e.g., Somalia)
where current information is scarce.
POLICY
a) Do the project goals have policy implications?
What are they and how have they impacted national
development?
The products of the project feed into many levels
of policy decisions regarding livestock production
and movement patterns influenced by forage
availability. As trust in the model output increases,
and as corollary products are developed (see
recommendations), the upside for significant
policy impact will continue to increase. The scales
of potential policy impact range from local to
national and regional.
b) Has policy been incorporated in the project design?
At what level are appropriate policy makers engaged?
(Ministries, provincial, regional, local, etc.)
Yes, policy relevance is a primary consideration in
project design and results dissemination at all levels
of government as well as with the private sectors.
TRAINING
a) Rate the adequacy of the amount and quality of
the training. Is there an appropriate mixture of long -
and short-term training? Evaluate the impact of the
training on participants.
There is an excellent mixture of short- and long￾term training of Africans. This training is clearly
building capacity of the collaborating institutions
necessary to eventually sustainably operate the
monitoring network and forage map generation
26
External Evaluation Panel Report 2002
process and develop NIRS capability within the
NARS of the collaborating countries. The project
has also done an excellent job in leveraging other
resources to increase the number of Africans that
can receive graduate education. There are seven
students who have received, or are completing
Ph.D.s (five at TAMU, one at U. Nairobi and one
at Makerere U. – funding is from DANIDA,
NIFFIC, World Bank, EU and GL-CRSP). Three
students are pursuing M.S. degrees (two at TAMU,
one at Allemeye University — funding from the
GL-CRSP, Texas Agriculture Experiment Station
and the USDA-NRCS).
b) How does the human capacity building provide the
basis for long-term capability to institutionalize the
goals of the project?
The people being trained work within
organizations that have a demonstrated vested
interest in the products being generated by the
project. A computer server and training on LEWS
tools has improved development of the IGAD
early warning newsletter. The Regional Center for
Mapping Resource Development is building
capacity as a LEWS zonal training center. An
NIRS lab located at KARI is fully functional with
Uganda’s recently coming on line. Labs are in the
process of being established in Tanzania and
Ethiopia. ILRI was an initial recipient of NIRS
lab in Addis Ababa in 1999. Worldspace container
partners are RANET for country level reports and
ALIN for regional level reports. LEWS has 2-3
Mbytes of content with these institutions.
PROJECT MANAGEMENT
a) Has the team developed mechanisms to ensure that
local, national and regional needs and priorities will
continue to be incorporated into the development of
the research agenda? Do regional collaborators and
team members have a substantive role throughout the
life of the project?
Yes, these aspects are discussed above.
b) Describe the project management structure and
function. Is it appropriate for the type of research
being conducted?
Dr. Stuth and his support staff at TAMU provide
overall management of the project. Robert Kaitho
provides much of the day to day management and
leadership for the project. He makes frequent trips
to East Africa to work with team members. Team
members within various countries are responsible
for local data collection and analysis that provides
data for generation of forage maps and their
validation. This management approach has been
very effective for the work conducted.
c) Evaluate the intra-project communication.
The project team seems to communicate regularly
via a variety of communication avenues including
email, fax, telephone, written correspondence, and
project meetings. Both the quantity and quality of
communication seem very good.
27
Research Program -- East Africa
d) Does the project management function effectively?
Why or why not?
The project management functions effectively
based on the level of productivity demonstrated by
this project. The individuals providing project
management have instilled a sense of teamwork
among the team that was very evident in their
productivity as well as their attitude toward the
project.
e) Evaluate the quality of communication with all
members including host country collaborators. Is
communication adequate, frequent enough, are there
problems?
The project management seems efficient. There is
good esprit de corps among the collaborators from
the project countries. They interact effectively and
are well informed as to what each group is doing.
The various collaborators were asked and did not
express concerns about project administration (i.e.,
the managing PI was handling communications
and support as well as possible).
f) Do regional collaborators and team members have
a substantive role throughout the life of the project?
Yes, the regional collaborators and team members
are will integrated into the decision-making
process.
g) How effective are operational decisions? What
mechanisms have been incorporated for evaluation of
ongoing work? Are they effective?
Operational decisions are effective. The project is
commended for the excellent manner in which the
diffuse monitoring network throughout remote
regions of four East African countries has been
established and maintained. Regular
communications and a good validation protocol
for tracking field and model performance is in
place. The project accomplishments are really
quite impressive, especially given the challenges
associated with establishing and maintaining such
a monitoring network.
MISCELLANEOUS
a) Has the project leveraged significant funding from
other sources? Why or why not?
The project has leveraged significant funding from
various sources and is benefiting from “in kind”
collaborative efforts as well. Information provided
by the LEWS project indicates that for every $1
they receive from the GL-CRSP they have
leveraged $1.57 in complementary support from
other organizations (including USAID-ASARECA,
USAID-SPAN-ILRI, Rockefeller Foundation,
DANIDA, FAO-TCP, TAMU- Kelleher
Professorship contribution, World Bank,
SANREM CRSP, USDA-NRCS, EU and
NUFFIC). FAO and FEWS NET are considering
proposals for development of peer-in capability to
Somalia (i.e., estimate forage base using satellite
data without actually getting the opportunity to
set up monitoring stations within that difficult-to￾access country) and USAID-REDSO-FEWS NET
are considering a proposal to apply LEWS in
conflict vulnerability assessment.
28
External Evaluation Panel Report 2002
b) Is the project regional? Is the rationale for
regionalization clear? What are the linkages to
regional activities? How appropriate are they?
Should changes be made? Why? Are its linkages
appropriate to its regional activities.
Yes, the project is truly a regional effort. The
linkages to organizations affiliated with livestock/
forage/drought aspects are thorough and
appropriate. An indication of the extent to which
a host of organizations are aware of and seek
information about this project can be obtained
from their web site, which has received over 1401
queries from at least 10 countries in last six
months.
c) What is the level and quality of inter-project
collaboration?
A small effort is on-going between the LEWS
project and PARIMA project to create a marketing
decision support capability for the northern Kenya
and southern Ethiopia area. This effort had only
been recently initiated (within the last year) so
assessment of progress was difficult. Opportunities
for further collaboration exist during the next
phase of GL-CRSP efforts. If this is a priority,
additional funds should be available for such
efforts (see recommendation to ME section).
d) Describe any significant linkages to other research/
development projects (CRSP or non- CRSP)?
This has been already addressed above – see
responses to questions II C, IV A&B, VI C.
e) Identify unexplored areas of collaboration between
projects that are feasible and have potential.
Opportunities for additional validation of the
LEWS forage production maps are possible by
working with the POLEYC and PARIMA efforts.
However, the current LEWS validation efforts may
be sufficient and therefore further validation may
not be warranted.
If the future direction of the LEWS project
includes additional decision support capabilities
related to livestock production and marketing,
additional collaborative efforts with the PARIMA
project should be explored. The PARIMA efforts
may also provide an opportunity for more
extensive evaluation of how pastoralists might use
the forage maps and the level of trust pastoralists
place in the maps.
Some of the plot data collected within the LEWS
effort for validation might also be useful to the
POLEYC effort for model parameterization and
potentially for validation.
29
Research Program -- East Africa
EEP RECOMMENDATIONS
❑ As the project continues to expand monitoring locations, emphasis should be focused in
particular on sites where forage is the primary limiting factor to pastoral production systems
in the regional landscape (i.e., on some sites water typically runs out before forage, on other
sites forage typically runs out before water). The rationale for this suggestion is that it is
most important that the confidence limits be as narrow as possible on forage-limited sites;
confidence limits can afford to be somewhat wider on water-limited sites.
❑ Forage is correlated with a variety of other factors of interest to pastoral communities. For
example, tick populations, and the incidence of diseases they transmit, may be strongly
correlated with the same climatic factors that are manifest in forage production (forage
production is a good bio-indicator that takes account of the amount of rain, timing of the
rain, humidity, temperature, and wind; forage production is easier to monitor than tick
numbers but the forage production and ticks may have a collinear relationship so that
knowing forage production is the same as knowing the status of the tick population.). This
type of information could be used to pre-position/target provision of veterinary services.
Another example is that pastoral movement related to regional patterns of forage availability
is often a precursor to conflict between pastoral groups. If the pastoral movement patterns in
response to drought can be anticipated, the advanced warning could provide time to plan
and negotiate how an influx of livestock could be accommodated (e.g., gear up for
vaccination prior to entering a private ranch where disease has been controlled; agree where
livestock may have access to a park as opposed to trying to cope with random incursions.). It
would be very helpful if these types of relationships were quantified and then disseminated as
bulletins which provide early warning of these concerns.
❑ The LEWS project is commended for the outstanding job they have done in disseminating
information in a policy relevant format to organizations which reach different sectors with an
interest in pastoralism (e.g., inclusion of forage status information in the Famine Early
Warning System monthly bulletin which is used in particular, by government planning
agencies and — at the other extreme — getting space on the radio-satellite network which
reaches remote NGOs who, in turn, transmit it to a host of their client pastoralists.). Team
members described how they are pursuing a host of other creative means for expanding
dissemination of their products. Efforts to continue to creatively open new lines of
dissemination are encouraged as opportunities arise. When distributing provincial/district -
level maps, it is important to put a few key landmarks on the maps that are important to
30
External Evaluation Panel Report 2002
pastoralists so that they can more easily get perspective (i.e., political boundaries should be
complemented by also placing a few key mountains/rivers/well on the map.). Pastoralists are
usually quite good at reading/interpreting maps/aerial photos once they locate a few
landmarks that they can identify.
❑ It is extremely important that maps of current conditions/future projection be transmitted to
all sources at the same time to ensure equal access to information that could possibly
influence market price. As trust in the utility of the current/future representations grow, this
will become very important (i.e., there is no room for a glitch in information distribution
that puts valuable information in some hands before others). The PIs are sensitive to this
concern regarding building even-handed trust among all stakeholders. The acceptance
psychology of users of model output require time for validation and building of trust by
stakeholders (particularly since many of the potential users have little or no experience with
computers or modeling technology). Great interest by many sectors of the pastoral
community/NGO/government has been expressed, but it will likely take several years before
substantive decisions will be made which primarily rely on model output.
❑ A useful investigation would be to document the relationship between NDVI greenness
images, forage availability, and livestock movement out of an area prompted by decline in
forage quantity/quality. Modelers trust that these three values are roughly equivalent but
there is some anecdotal evidence which indicates that forage availability (especially when
quality of the forage is considered) is not well related to greenness images, consequently
livestock move out of an area while the NDVI images still indicate the quantity and quality
of the forage should be high. The LEWS study design is positioned to test the validity of this
assumption. The results of this investigation would be of great value to all three of the GL￾CRSP projects in the region, as well as a service to many around the world who use the
readily available NDVI images for planning.
❑ A research element of the next phase that may be worth considering would be to document
(using case studies of the five collaborating countries) a procedure of the successes and pitfalls
associated with developing a self-sustaining institutionalization of a promising new technology
(venues such as the J. of Administration Overseas or the Journal of Public Administration and
Development are devoted to these types of issues; alternately, Dr. Stuth is the co-author of an
article in Agricultural Systems describing team-building associated with a US-based research
collaboration). We encourage the CRSP structure to consider breaking new ground by
considering doing research on this important weak link between science, product development,
and sustainable adoption by regional agencies that profess the value of the product.
31
Research Program -- East Africa
a) How does the Problem Model (PM) address a
development issue of importance to the country(s) in
which the project functions? Is the PM clear, fully
developed, and scientifically sound?
The PM is structured to develop a capability to
explore options for pastoralism and wildlife
conservation by creating a complex simulation tool
to determine how land use patterns and policies
will influence wildlife density and diversity,
livestock production and health, ecosystem state,
human health, and economic status. There is a
desire to promote decisions which optimize
positive outcomes for people and wildlife. The
PM seeks to identify critical problems at the
pastoralist-livestock-wildlife interface, develop
integrated assessments to address those problems,
and define the probable outcomes of alternate
policies, practices, and decisions and their effects
on people, livestock and wildlife. The research
focuses on developing the capability to use models
to provide assessments at local (site specific) and
regional levels.
Report by Dr. Thomas Thurow, Professor, University of Wyoming (Team Leader and EEP Chair) and Dr.
Bernard Engel, Professor, Department of Agricultural and Biological Engineering Purdue University
INTEGRATED ASSESSMENT OF PASTORAL-WILDLIFE INTERACTIONS IN EAST AFRICA:
IMPLICATIONS FOR PEOPLE, POLICY, CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT
IN EAST AFRICA (POLEYC)
ADEQUACY OF THE PROBLEM MODEL AND THE QUALITY OF THE SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH
b) Is the scope of the research appropriate given the
budget and time frame? Does the budget accurately
reflect the needs of the project?
The scope of the PM is so sweeping and complex
that the only hope is to view project activity within
the context of an iterative process which makes the
base models more robust.
c) How do the objectives and activities fit the problem
model?
The objectives and activities fit the problem model
in that they target building the capability to use
the models to provide assessments in locales where
people-livestock-wildlife conflicts are present and
getting more intense.
d) Are there aspects of the PM that are missing or are
inappropriate? What are they?
The focus of the work is on the research
component of strengthening the robustness of the
SAVANNA and PHEWs models, and on collecting
information needed to parameterize the models at
32
External Evaluation Panel Report 2002
the study locations. The research is excellent.
However, if the models are going to be accepted
for actually guiding policy decisions, there needs to
be much more emphasis on independent
validation of the model output. Currently, the
models work in the manner in which the
researchers think they should work, but getting
model output that makes sense to the researcher
does not constitute validation of the model. The
tedious, un-glamorous aspects of model
development (e.g., conducting independent
validation and documenting sensitivity analysis) is
not well integrated into the PM. Grassroots work
with the target policy-making groups — stressing
rudimentary and maintained assumptions —
needs to be strengthened to make sure that these
groups understand the ramifications of model
design assumptions and parameterization
decisions, and so that output is presented in a
manner that most effectively targets their concerns.
e) What is the quality of research being conducted?
Does the research make a significant contribution to
the relevant field(s) of science and does it advance
understanding of appropriate development processes?
The quality of the research being conducted is very
good. The research is extending SAVANNA and a
group of related models. These advances improve
the science and provide modeling tools that will be
useful in further scientific endeavors as well as
providing potential for assisting with development.
f) Does the research support a problem solving objective
and link logically with the PM? Does it develop a
technology that has development/science value?
Yes, the research supports parameterization and
refinement of the models. In this context the
efforts support a problem-solving objective and
link logically with the PM. The development/
refinement of this complex technology does indeed
have great science value. The development value
depends upon how much the interested parties
accept/trust the model output as a tool for guiding
decisions regarding their future. There is a definite
curiosity about the data collection and model
output, but there is no evidence that the transition
has been made from curiosity about model output
to viewing it as a reliable, trusted tool that has
acceptance in the policy arena.
g) How does the team’s expertise match the research
agenda? Is the level of contribution appropriate to the
area of investigation? How does the team interact?
The expertise of the team is excellent and
definitely matches the research agenda. The
research team interacts well together – it is
impressive to see how the ecologists, sociologists
and economists are working together to develop/
refine these integrative tools. Making the
transition from developing/refining a research tool
that is actually used by local policy makers involves
huge challenges because the most vitally concerned
beneficiaries of the research should be the
members of the local communities. Many of the
leaders of the pastoral communities (and, even
more so, the general populace) have never seen a
computer, much less understand what is
happening inside. It is not at all clear that the
community leaders, nor other district/regional/
national officers, would actually rely upon the
33
Research Program -- East Africa
model output to help guide their decisions. In
contrast, the Kenya Wildlife Service and university
collaborators do understand the process much
better. Consequently, the KWS collaborators seem
to be much more concerned about getting the
underlying assumptions embedded in the model to
reflect their objectives.
h) Is the research agenda appropriately matched to the
project’s resources? Why or why not?
The research agenda is ambitious; the PIs have
done an excellent job of leveraging the GL-CRSP
funds with other sources of research funding, in
particular a significant grant from the National
Science Foundation. If the research agenda is
constrained to developing/parameterizing/refining
the models, they are doing a good job. If part of
the research agenda is to do the validation/
sensitivity documentation/building of trust by
pastoralists and non-scientist government
bureaucrats, then the answer is no.
i) How effectively has new knowledge been applied in
the modification of the original PM workplans?
Model development is an iterative process; the PIs
are world-class experts in model development and
therefore are very adept at effectively integrating
new knowledge into their PM.
PROGRESS
a) Considering the funding history of the project,
evaluate the accomplishments of the project and
provide rationale for your evaluations?
Based on the funding history of the project and
the recent tragic loss of the project PI, the
accomplishments of the project to date are for the
most part reasonable. The scientific
accomplishments largely meet expectations.
Additional efforts to create “products” that are
useful to policy makers and stakeholders are
needed. Additional details are provided in the
recommendations section.
b) Should the project be continued or modified?
Provide rationale for your evaluation.
The recommendations section provides suggestions
for the conditions that should be addressed in
order for the project to continue. Much depends
on whether the project can demonstrate that non￾scientist policy makers trust and use the model
output in tangible ways. This could be one of the
best projects in CRSP history or one that does
good science but is not used by policy makers
(there are many examples of very good scientific
insight that does not have an impact beyond the
research arena for any of a host of reasons.). Since
CRSP success is traditionally judged in the context
of both science and sustainable application of the
science, the project must do a more thorough job
at documenting tangible application of their
modeling tools. The development value depends
upon how much the interested parties accept/trust
the model output as a tool for guiding decisions
regarding their future. There is no evidence that
the transition has been made from curiosity about
model output to viewing it as a reliable, trusted
tool that has acceptance in the policy arena. It is
not at all clear that non-scientists such as the
34
External Evaluation Panel Report 2002
community leaders, nor other district/regional/
national officers, would actually rely upon the
model output to help guide their decisions. The
project needs to devote substantive effort to
documenting information use, as opposed to the
current emphasis on information provision. There
are many examples in the development literature
which illustrate that better information is not the
limiting factor to decision processes – it is not at
all clear that the type of information provided by
the project will change behavior of the
communities or the government planning
ministries. Future project funding should be in
jeopardy unless the project can document the
information they are providing will really make a
difference to community decision-making.
c) In what ways have the impacts and outputs been
significant? Evaluate the mechanisms for
dissemination or research results.
The outputs from the project have the potential to
be very significant. However, much of the
potential has not yet been realized. The Kenyan
Wildlife Service (KWS) is using some of the results
of the project and is very interested in expanding
capacity building with the project (see
recommendations). Results of the project have
recently been summarized for use in the
Ngorongoro Conservation Area (NCA) but it is
apparent that some of the stakeholders (e.g., the
Maasai collaborators) are confused by some of the
output and underlying assumptions.
Project results have largely been disseminated in
the form of journal papers and SAVANNA
workshops for stakeholders. Further efforts are
needed to create results that incorporate the
concerns of all stakeholders in manners that they
understand and to provide results in policy
relevant forms (see recommendations).
d) What, if any, are the benefits to the US?
The models being developed are being applied in
the US and elsewhere to address wildlife and
ecology issues, therefore development of model
robustness in theory improves model application
throughout its domain of use. Development of
sustainable wildlife policy in Africa and elsewhere
is of interest to the US from preservation and
tourism standpoints.
POLICY
a) Do the project goals have policy implications?
What are they and how have they impacted national
development?
The project goals have potentially extremely
important policy implications related to
development of issues regarding wildlife and
wildlife interaction with pastoralists and farmers.
This is especially germane since the traditional
(communal) and more recent (group ranch)
methods of controlling land use are being
transformed by the current Kenyan policy of land
subdivision into individual land holdings. Further
efforts are needed, as described in more detail in
the recommendations section, to ensure that the
policy implications of the project are realized.
35
Research Program -- East Africa
b) Has policy been incorporated in the project design?
At what level are appropriate policy makers engaged?
(Ministries, provincial, regional, local, etc.)
The project could have very significant policy
implications. The modeling systems are crafted by
the scientists on the project to address policy￾relevant issues. Policy makers at various levels are
involved in project discussions. Efforts to fully
engage with policy makers need to continue to be
emphasized (see recommendations section).
TRAINING
a) Rate the adequacy of the amount and quality of
the training. Is there an appropriate mixture of long -
and short-term training? Evaluate the impact of the
training on participants.
Some short-term training has been provided for
African scientists on data collection for
parameterization of SAVANNA and related
models. These scientists are currently collecting
data in the field for use with SAVANNA and other
models. Short-term training related to
interpretation and use of SAVANNA results has
been provided at several African locations. Several
graduate students have conducted research related
to the POLEYC project and several others are
currently conducting related projects.
b) How does the human capacity building provide the
basis for long-term capability to institutionalize the
goals of the project?
Additional training of African scientists to fully
utilize the modeling systems is needed to
institutionalize the use of the models. One ILRI
scientist is receiving training on SAVANNA at
Colorado State University during July and August
2002. KWS and university personnel have asked
to receive training on SAVANNA. African
collaborators have some experience in collecting
data to develop model inputs for SAVANNA.
PROJECT MANAGEMENT
a) Has the team developed mechanisms to ensure that
local, national and regional needs and priorities will
continue to be incorporated into the development of
the research agenda? Do regional collaborators and
team members have a substantive role throughout the
life of the project?
The closest form of insightful collaboration seems
to be with the KWS who would like to test and
apply the model at many of their national parks,
particularly those parks where there are conflicts
between pastoralists and wildlife. Other
stakeholders, particularly land-use policy makers at
the national level, need to be cultivated.
b) Describe the project management structure and
function. Is it appropriate for the type of research
being conducted?
The project has gone through a fairly rapid
transition of project leaders from Dr. Coughenour
to Dr. Ellis to Dr. Swift. At the time of the EEP
review, Dr. Swift was in the process of familiarizing
himself with the project sites and past/current
project efforts (Dr. Swift was not part of the
36
External Evaluation Panel Report 2002
project until the last several months.). The
unresolved question is relative weight placed on
the science that goes into model development (the
dominant project focus in the early years of the
project) vs. emphasis on validation, integration,
and institutionalization of the models and their
policy-relevant capabilities developed through the
project (topics that need more attention in the
present and future).
c) Evaluate the intra-project communication.
Intra-project communication should continue to
be a priority for the project management team.
Communication has seemingly improved within
the POLEYC phase of the project relative to the
past project phase.
d) Does the project management function effectively?
Why or why not?
The project management is in a transition period
due to the loss of the lead-PI. The management
team includes a staff member, Dr. BurnSilver, that
completed graduate work on early phases of the
IMAS project so she is very familiar with the
region as well as the project; the team leader, Dr.
Swift, was instrumental in the early phases of the
SAVANNA model creation and development in
northern Kenya and therefore brings the project
some valuable insights.
e) Evaluate the quality of communication with all
members including host country collaborators. Is
communication adequate, frequent enough, are there
problems?
Efforts are being made to improve communication
among team members and collaborators through
newsletters and other communications from the
management team. The project would benefit
from continued efforts to improve
communications to ensure that all collaborators/
stakeholders are full participants in modeling
scenarios that are conducted.
f) Have regional collaborators and team members
have a substantive role throughout the life of the
project?
Regional collaborators and team members seem to
be more involved in the project since it became the
POLEYC project (formerly it was the IMAS
project). African team members are and will be
heavily involved in data collection for sites that
will be modeled with SAVANNA.
g) How effective are operational decisions? What
mechanisms have been incorporated for evaluation of
ongoing work? Are they effective?
The project needs to focus on evaluating/
documenting the impact of their science-based
products on policy decision-making and how the
achievements of the project are being
institutionalized in a sustainable fashion by the
local and national government entities.
MISCELLANEOUS
a) Has the project leveraged significant funding from
other sources? Why or why not?
37
Research Program -- East Africa
The project has leveraged other funds, especially
from the National Science Foundation, primarily
for the further development of models being used
within the POLEYC project. Improvement in the
models will be beneficial to the POLEYC effort.
b) Is the project regional? Is the rationale for
regionalization clear? What are the linkages to
regional activities? How appropriate are they?
Should changes be made? Why? Are its linkages
appropriate to its regional activities.
The project is working within Kenya and
Tanzania. The focus of the models is on providing
insight to areas of conflict between pastoralists and
wildlife, within the context of the somewhat site￾specific concerns in the vicinity of conservation
areas. There are probably some broad,
transportable lessons that could be learned from
these site-specific case studies, but the focus to date
has been characterizing the issues at a site-specific
level. The project addresses issues that are
regionally of interest and as the robustness of the
models are increased the transportability of the
models are likely to improve.
c) What is the level and quality of inter-project
collaboration?
Some opportunities for inter-project collaboration
exist. There may be opportunities to work with
LEWS to validate forage availability using data
collected within the POLEYC effort. Some of the
small plot data collected by the LEWS project
might be used for validation of POLEYC model
components. Some of the risk mitigation
considerations being investigated by PARIMA
would be useful for incorporation into discussions
with the group ranches that are undergoing
subdivision (which, in some ways, increases risk for
the residents trying to continue to make a living
under significantly altered circumstances).
d) Describe any significant linkages to other research/
development projects (CRSP or non- CRSP)?
The POLEYC effort is part of a larger effort at
Colorado State University related to ecological
modeling. The POLEYC effort builds nicely on
these efforts.
e) Identify unexplored areas of collaboration between
projects that are feasible and have potential.
Some opportunities for possible collaboration are
described above in section VI c above.
38
External Evaluation Panel Report 2002
EEP RECOMMENDATIONS
❑ There are genuine concerns by the EEP, and indeed from some of the Maasai project
collaborators who attended the meeting, that aspects of the modeling effort were not
transparent and perhaps in need of serious refinement. These concerns fall into two broad
categories: parameterization and design. Both these concerns could be alleviated by rigorous
validation of the assumptions used in design and parameterization, but there was not
sufficient information presented to assure either the EEP or the Maasai collaborators that this
validation had been done in a manner that could dispel concerns about the resulting model
output. An important issue with all models used in policy formulation is that there will
likely be an interest group that will be unhappy with the implication of the output. It is,
therefore, extremely important that key model design and parameterization decisions be
explicitly documented in a transparent, defendable manner. No such documentation was
presented to respond to the queries by the EEP. The utility of the model output for use as a
policy tool will be seriously undercut if the PIs are unable to document the ramifications of
design and parameterization decisions and present them simultaneously with the model
output. It was apparent that several key model design decisions and parameterization
assumptions have not undergone a rigorous, true validation in the region.
The type of concerns regarding the details of the model expressed by the EEP are illustrated
in the following example: NDVI greenness data seems to be used as a proxy for biomass
production and is assumed to be a related to livestock movement patterns; however, other
research from the Serengeti region indicates that livestock and wildlife movement patterns are
more strongly influenced by forage quality for the class of animal (not necessarily related to
greenness or quantity). This issue is further complicated by the apparent assumption that the
condition of the rangeland in the NCA is stable, when in fact it has been steadily declining
for the past four decades. The decline in range condition is most strongly manifest by a
change in species composition from palatable bunchgrasses to extremely unpalatable
bunchgrasses (e.g., a shift from Themeda triandra to Pennisetum schimperi, resulting in
about a six-fold reduction in carrying capacity, even though greenness pattern associated with
the sward and the amount of biomass production may stay about the same). The SAVANNA
model output shown to the EEP appeared to assume that range condition was stable for the
last several decades and would remain so in the future, when, in fact, range condition has
been decreasing resulting in significant changes in species composition and associated forage
quality. These types of concerns raise the specter that the policy relevance of the output
could be seriously flawed. The basis for some of these assumptions was stated to have been
39
Research Program -- East Africa
based on relationships validated on the predominately annual grasslands of Turkana, which
in many ways is a fundamentally different system than the perennial grasslands of the NCA.
❑ The POLEYC group repeatedly asserted that one of their key clientele were the pastoralists.
This is not supported by the way parameterization decisions are currently made because it
was obvious that the pastoralists did not understand the ramifications of the assumptions
embedded in the modeling effort. For example, the pastoralist community was documented
to have an average daily caloric intake of only about 80% of the daily recommended values
suggested by the World Health Organization (WHO). In response to our queries, we
learned that this 80% number was held as a constant when projecting future options. The
EEP is certain that no community would want their future modeled in a manner that
assumes perpetuation of the current unacceptable situations (we asked several of the Maasai
collaborators whether they understood the ramifications of this assumption: they clearly did
not and expressed great concern when they understood the implications of the modeling
decisions). This illustrates that the community is not a full/knowledgeable participant in
terms of truly understanding the ramifications of parameterization decisions.
When analyzing the human/livestock/wildlife tradeoffs in a region, at least one of the model
runs should be done in the reasonable context of what it would take to get the community to
a level of comfort/security they should reasonably be able to aspire to (e.g., people living
inside the NCA should be able to secure a livelihood that is, at least, similar to those living
adjacent to the NCA; people should be able so secure a livelihood at least at the level of
WHO recommended nutrition standards). These are important baseline values that will
dramatically change model output as opposed to the current practice which seems to be
characterizing current, unacceptable conditions and projecting those into the future.
Another fundamental disconnect with pastoral community perceptions is the practice of
focusing evaluation on the monetary tradeoffs of crop-livestock/wildlife interaction. The
monetary elements of this dynamic are a very minor part of the cost-benefit tradeoffs that
takes place in the mind of the people living in the area. The most significant costs of wildlife
interactions with pastoral communities are intangibles, (e.g. the assessment of the fear factor
associated with the potential that wildlife kill people and livestock in their community
{indeed, elephants alone kill several people each year in many of these districts}, the extra
vulnerability/risk of wildlife-borne disease, the devastation that wildlife {e.g. elephants} can
quickly inflict by destroying maize fields). Also, there is an inherent risk associated with
becoming more dependent on eco-tourism revenue (i.e., one incident of an expatriate tourist
40
External Evaluation Panel Report 2002
being robbed/killed in a conservation area can dramatically decrease tourism revenue to the
region for months/years.). These concerns cannot be ignored since these risk-based
intangibles are the dominant factors in a pastoralist’s mind when assessing the desirability of
changing their production system to be more dependent on wildlife-based tourism revenue.
Given that a rigorous quantification of these issues would require far more resources than the
GL-CRSP could provide, some methodology for a qualitative adjustment to the monetary
calculations needs to be made (i.e., a focus group could be used to approximate what
monetary compensation (a positive tradeoff) would be needed to offset negative concerns
associated with wildlife.
To do any analysis of wildlife vis-a-vis the pastoral livelihood/welfare without at least
attempting to incorporate the unquantifiable qualitative concerns generates a valuation of
wildlife which is nonsense to the pastoral community. Therefore, one of the model runs
should explicitly be centered on maximizing welfare of the people who live in the area. There
was a stated reluctance/concern on the part of the ecologists/modelers to develop such a
model run because of the concern that wildlife would lose out and that eco-tourism would
look like a poor option compared to benefits of cereal or intensified livestock production.
Rather than making a priori decisions regarding acceptability of output, the focus of the
modeling effort should be on illustration of the magnitude of production tradeoffs, regardless
of what those tradeoffs imply. Using these simulation results as a baseline, comparisons
could be made in terms of cost to the community associated with other land use options.
For example, this comparison would be necessary to establishing a defendable rationale for
wildlife easement payments. Indeed, KWS is engaging in easements payments to the owners
of the subdivided group ranch south of Nairobi National Park. The POLEYC model could
be a helpful tool in developing a defendable rationale for the level of such payments.
❑ Parameterization should avoid divisive framing of value selection – this may require framing
the question differently. For example, modeling the impact of doubling human population
over time is problematic since it is clear that there is fundamental, contentious disagreement
regarding both population growth rate and immigration policy. These issues could be
sidestepped by instead framing the question in terms of how much extra cultivation would
be necessary to raise the caloric supply to 100% of the WHO recommendation for different
population levels. This frames the question in a policy relevant manner necessary for
assessing tradeoffs of population increase without getting bogged down in a dispute over
population growth rate and immigration policy.
41
Research Program -- East Africa
❑ Parameterization of the SAVANNA model requires a significant amount of expertise and
remains largely an “art.” Continued efforts to move the parameterization from an “art” to a
“science” are needed. Creating accepted protocols for parameterizing the models that are
part of POLEYC will be important in the acceptance of the modeled results and in the
ability to institutionalize the models within East Africa and elsewhere. As part of this effort,
a more complete documentation of sensitivity analysis of SAVANNA and the related
POLEYC models should be pursued. The results of a sensitivity analysis would be helpful to
some stakeholders and decision makers.
❑ The POLEYC project has not produced publications that have described model output in a
policy relevant manner; i.e., the focus to date has been on model refinement and on scientific
publications as opposed to policy-relevant publications. The next six months of the project
will likely determine how successful this group is in terms of distinguishing between these
perspectives. Kenyan and Tanzanian USAID mission personnel should be useful checks as to
whether this group is able to make the bridge between science and policy.
❑ The Kenyan Wildlife Service (KWS) and University administrators have asked to have some
of their personnel trained in parameterization and operation of the SAVANNA model.
There has been little discernible progress in pursuing a way that operation of the model
could be institutionalized within Kenya/Tanzania. It is troubling that no Africans in the
project area that hold positions within national agencies have been trained to independently
parameterize and use the model. Training University, KWS and other agency personnel
should be initiated as a high priority of the project.
❑ Previous EEP reports expressed concerns that the policy maker audience seems not to have
been significantly engaged in this work to date, therefore there was some question as to the
suitability of the models and the forms of its output to policy makers. These issues remain
and are of particular concern since some of the aspects of some of the models are so complex
that transparency of model design and parameterization decisions are not able to be readily
understood/validated – which is especially pertinent in terms of trust in the output, which is
an important attribute of models used in policy formulation and planning. Active, up-front
participation of impacted policy makers in project planning, implementation, and decision
making about the format for information delivery should be pursued.
❑ The project management needs to be more sensitive to making sure that the different interest
groups concerned with model output receive published analyses at as close to the same time
42
External Evaluation Panel Report 2002
as possible. It would also be useful for policy-relevant documents to solicit review input from
the interested groups prior to dissemination – especially since there may be legitimate
differences of opinion regarding critical parameterization decisions making it desirable for
some interest groups to request a fuller explanation of caveats that may not be intuitively
obvious to a casual observer.
❑ Restating the point made in II-2, there are many examples in the development literature
which illustrate that better information is not the limiting factor to decision processes – it is
not at all clear that the type of information provided by the project will change behavior of
the communities or the government planning ministries. Future project funding should be
in jeopardy unless the project can document the information they are providing will really
make a tangible difference to community decision-making.
FOR A RESPONSE BY THE POLEYC PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR, PLEASE TURN TO PAGE 51.
43
Research Program -- East Africa
 a) How does the Problem Model (PM) address a
development issue of importance to the country(s) in
which the project functions. Is the PM clear, fully
developed, and scientifically sound?
The PM revolves around understanding the
perceptions of risk in agro-pastoral settings, how
risk perception influences behavior, and what
pragmatic strategies could be developed to reduce
vulnerability to risk. The PM is clear and fully
developed. Addressing these issues with scientific
rigor is certainly a challenge – the PIs are experts in
their field and are doing their best to venture into
areas of inquiry that have been avoided by
scientists because of the difficulty of conducting
defendable research. The fact that they have
succeeded in getting a steady stream of their results
published in peer-reviewed scientific journals
indicates that they are meeting with some success.
b) Is the scope of the research appropriate given the
budget and time frame? Does the budget accurately
reflect the needs of the project?
The various manifestations of risk perception and
response is clearly a large, complex topic. The PIs
have done a good job of tackling this subject in a
series of doable steps appropriate for the budget
and time frame.
c) How do the objectives and activities fit the problem model?
The objectives and activities are appropriate and
well constructed to address components of the
problem model.
d) Are there aspects of the PM that are missing or are
inappropriate? What are they?
The big question is whether the PIs can pull all of
their lines of inquiry together to address the
complex integrated issues embedded in the PM.
There is some evidence that the project is making
progress in this regard, but it has not come close to
reaching its potential.
e) What is the quality of research being conducted?
Does the research make a significant contribution to
the relevant field(s) of science and does it advance
understanding of appropriate development processes?
IMPROVING PASTORAL RISK MANAGEMENT ON EAST AFRICAN RANGELANDS
(PARIMA)
Report by Dr. Thomas Thurow, Professor, University of Wyoming (Team Leader and EEP Chair) and Dr.
Bernard Engel, Professor, Department of Agricultural and Biological Engineering Purdue University
ADEQUACY OF THE PROBLEM MODEL AND THE QUALITY OF THE SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH
44
External Evaluation Panel Report 2002
The quality of the research is very good – the
nature of the topic requires creative study design
and interpretation. The results are more in line
with integrating ecology and economics into social
science format for inquiry, as opposed to the much
more lock-step data collection and analysis which
typifies much of the ecological and economic
literature.
f) Does the research support a problem solving
objective and link logically with the PM? Does it
develop a technology that has development/science
value?
A component of the research is definitely oriented
toward problem solving. The PIs are cautioned,
and have been cautioned in previous EEP reviews,
that the outcomes of this problem solving effort be
based on testable hypotheses related to
development needs that are being addressed. This
is an important component of defensability and
transportablity of the conclusions, some of which
should be able to transcend analysis of ad hoc
responses to the immediacy of encountered risks at
site-specific locals.
g) How does the team’s expertise match the research
agenda? Is the level of contribution appropriate to the
area of investigation? How does the team interact?
The team is an excellent composition of ecologists,
economists and sociologists with long-term
experience in the region. The team interacts very
well; regardless of their disciplinary diversity, they
all share a deeply shared vision that their expertise
is a necessary component of a greater whole,
therefore they have a strong commitment to
understanding the perspectives that each discipline
brings to the PM.
h) Is the research agenda appropriately matched to the
projects resources? Why or why not?
The PIs have done a good job of scaling their
research to match the project resources available.
This has been helped by substantial buy-in from
the USAID-Ethiopia mission to their outreach
efforts.
i) How effectively has new knowledge been applied in
the modification of the original PM workplans?
The PIs have been very sensitive/responsive to
incorporating new knowledge into the original PM
workplans. If anything, there is a danger of being
too responsive to new information in that it can
side-track a disciplined line of inquiry needed to
address testable research hypotheses that build on
the step-by-step progress associated with building a
defendable case for investment in particular
components of risk response.
PROGRESS
a) Considering the funding history of the project,
evaluate the accomplishments of the project and
provide rationale for your evaluations?
The project accomplishments to date are
reasonable. A good number of publications have
been generated in peer-reviewed venues. A
significant amount of data has been collected that
45
Research Program -- East Africa
has not been fully analyzed and will provide a
strong foundation for continued scientific and
development contributions. The project has
generated not only significant local interest but has
actually catalyzed grassroots action in response to
project findings – in some cases secondary
adoption of risk management strategies (e.g.,
income diversification; education to enhance
access to saving/credit markets) has already taken
place even though the interventions are still in the
process of being tested where they were
introduced.
b) Should the project be continued or modified?
Provide rationale for your evaluation.
Yes, the project needs time to pull together the
complex array of risk management considerations
that transcend traditional disciplinary boundaries
of scientific inquiry. The grassroots interest of the
local public, government organizations and NGOs
regarding the ambitious array of risk management
strategies being investigated is impressive.
c) In what ways have the impacts and outputs been
significant? Evaluate the mechanisms for
dissemination of research results.
The project is having significant impacts in the
communities involved. Communities have
implemented informal education, small savings
banks, small businesses and other activities. The
primary beneficiaries of the findings to date are
local stakeholders, NGOs and other local groups
involved in development.
Additional documentation of the successful
approaches to accomplish these efforts is needed.
Documentation and generalization of the findings
in formats that can be used for development in
other locations should be pursued.
d) What, if any, are the benefits to the US?
The project is identifying strategies to deal with
risk in pastoral communities. Some of the
strategies deal with cross border issues. These
strategies are useful to the US in dealing with
development issues in regions with pastoral
communities and border issues. Successful
approaches for working with NGOs have been
demonstrated within the project. These
approaches will be useful for NGOs working in
developing areas.
POLICY
a) Do the project goals have policy implications?
What are they and how have they impacted national
development?
There are many pragmatic policy implications to
the research. This is an example of research that is
understood by the public who is willing to
participate even though they are not sure of
whether it will make a difference or not – they are
willing to try. The researchers have pieced together
an impressive mosaic of sometimes complimentary,
sometimes quite different risk management
strategies which they are in the process of
documenting. Greater effort needs to be spent on
connecting the different lines of inquiry with
46
External Evaluation Panel Report 2002
broader, transportable lessons-learned regarding
risk management strategies.
b) Has policy been incorporated in the project design?
At what level are appropriate policy makers engaged?
(Ministries, provincial, regional, local, etc.).
Policy implications are at the heart of project
design. Much of the focus is on strategies that can
be adopted on a local level, so policy makers at the
village and district level have been well-engaged.
The research also has some national and cross￾boarder ramifications; the study site is well￾situated and truly straddles the border of Ethiopia
and Kenya.
TRAINING
a) Rate the adequacy of the amount and quality of
the training. Is there an appropriate mixture of long -
and short-term training? Evaluate the impact of the
training on participants.
The project has provided an effective mixture of
both short- and long-term training. The project
has been especially effective at working with
Egerton University to facilitate graduate training of
a large number of students, in addition to some
also getting advanced degrees in the U.S. Many of
the Egerton professors were products of previous
USAID investment; it is gratifying to see how
these professors are working well with this project
to produce the next generation of natural resource
scientists.
b) How does the human capacity building provide the
basis for long-term capability to institutionalize the
goals of the project?
The evidence of short-term training influencing
community adoption of risk management
strategies are very apparent within the
communities of the study site. This short-term
training is well integrated with local NGOs and
government activity in the region.
PROJECT MANAGEMENT
a) The team has developed mechanisms to ensure that
local, national and regional needs and priorities will
continue to be incorporated into the development of
the research agenda. Regional collaborators and team
members have a substantive role throughout the life of
the project.
The regional collaborators working with local
communities identify research and development
issues and approaches that are appropriate to the
regional and local situation. Communities have
selected the approaches that were of highest
priority and these approaches (e.g. informal
education, small savings banks, etc) are being
implemented. The approach used should help to
insure that regional issues continue to be
addressed.
b) Describe the project management structure and
function. Is it appropriate for the type of research
being conducted?
The project management structure is distributed
due to the number and locations of the
47
Research Program -- East Africa
investigators. The work being conducted seems
well organized and coordinated indicating the
project is being managed effectively.
c) Evaluate the intra-project communication.
Project communication among team members and
partners seems to work quite well, particularly
given the distributed nature of the team. The team
members exhibit a genuine commitment to
integrating their disciplinary strengths with the
others.
d) Does the project management function effectively?
Why or why not?
The project management functions effectively. A
team atmosphere has been instilled among all of
the project members. The teamwork demonstrated
is one of the strengths of the project.
e) Evaluate the quality of communication with all
members including host country collaborators. Is
communication adequate, frequent enough, are there
problems?
Communication among all collaborators including
host country collaborators is excellent. The team
members were knowledgeable of the various
aspects of the project indicating communications
are working well.
f) Have regional collaborators and team members had a
substantive role throughout the life of the project?
Regional collaborators and team members play a
significant role in the project. The involvement
and teamwork of regional collaborators are a
strength of the project.
g) How effective are operational decisions? What
mechanisms have been incorporated for evaluation of
ongoing work? Are they effective?
Regional collaborators and team members are
empowered to make project decisions. The
excellent communication within the project
ensures that decisions are made in consultation
with other team members. The communication
among the team is helpful in the continuous
evaluation of the project by the team.
MISCELLANEOUS
a) Has the project leveraged significant funding from
other sources? Why or why not?
The project has leveraged some additional funding,
particularly funds for development and outreach
efforts. These funds have allowed the project to
conduct significant outreach and development
activities in southern Ethiopia.
Additional opportunities to leverage resources
within Kenya may be possible with the change in
priorities of the USAID mission in Kenya.
b) Is the project regional? Is the rationale for
regionalization clear? What are the linkages to
regional activities? How appropriate are they?
Should changes be made? Why? Are its linkages
appropriate to its regional activities?
48
External Evaluation Panel Report 2002
The project functions in northern Kenya and
southern Ethiopia. There are similarities within the
region as well as differences and border issues that
make this an appropriate study area. The project is
linked to efforts of the USAID Ethiopian mission.
The linkages are appropriate and represent a
strength of the project.
c) What is the level and quality of inter-project
collaboration?
A small effort is on-going between the LEWS
project and PARIMA project to create and assess a
marketing decision support capability for the
northern Kenya and southern Ethiopia area. This
effort had only been recently started (within the
last year) so the collaboration is still in a formative
stage, and it is not yet possible to assess it, beyond
the fact that local participants in the project very
much see the value of the effort. Opportunities for
further collaboration exist during the next phase of
GL-CRSP efforts and should be tangibly
encouraged through funding support.
d) Describe any significant linkages to other research/
development projects (CRSP or non- CRSP)?
As indicated above, there is a linkage between the
LEWS and PARIMA projects through a special
initiative started in the last year or so. The
USAID-Ethiopian mission is funding a significant
portion of the PARIMA outreach efforts.
e) Identify unexplored areas of collaboration between
projects that are feasible and have potential.
Opportunities exist to work with the LEWS
project effort to evaluate the LEWS products and
to further the decision support tool recently
initiated in collaboration with LEWS. Some of
the efforts of central/south American project and
the PARIMA project are seemingly
complementary. Opportunities for collaborative
efforts between these projects might be explored.
Collaborative efforts between these projects might
allow the results of both efforts to be more readily
globalized.
EEP RECOMMENDATIONS
❑ Of the three projects reviewed, this is the most difficult one to write comments for mainly
because the PIs are truly focused on the nexus of where ecology, economics and sociology
come together. The EEP agrees that working on issues that are at the forefront of this
interdisciplinary frontier are some of the most limiting hurdles to sustainable development.
The EEP agrees that the composition of the team and commitment to the interdisciplinary
nature of their research questions is exceptional – i.e., if anyone can make progress on this
frontier, this team can. The grassroots understanding by the local people of what the
research project is trying to investigate is impressive. The products that the project has
produced so far are thought-provoking and achieving sometimes hard-won acceptance in
peer-reviewed literature. The big question is how repeatable/transportable are the results? It
49
Research Program -- East Africa
bears emphasizing that these challenges are faced by any cross-disciplinary team that tries to
push the frontiers where disciplines overlap. The project needs/deserves more time to make
the case that emergent properties of risk management can be packaged in ways that are
relevant beyond the study site. Maybe the best way to make this point is to use an analogy:
Sammy Sosa hits a lot of home runs and also strikes out a lot – balancing the pros and cons I
would choose him for my team. The future of this project is a lot like seeing Sammy Sosa
come up to the plate. If the project can creatively make the case that emergent properties of
risk management learned on the study site can be relevant to risk management beyond the
study site they will have hit a home run – they will need several more years before the
outcome of the project is clear.
❑ A variety of risk management strategies are being characterized. Data should be collected
and presented in ways necessary to illustrate the degree to which risk is reduced relative to
investment in a particular approach.
❑ The Central/South American GL-CRSP project is examining aspects of risk management
that appear to be similar to what PARIMA is doing. Opportunities to collaborate should be
explored. Collaboration/methodology coordination between efforts in these two regions may
facilitate identification of emergent traits that can help “globalize” some of the site-specific
lessons learned.
❑ On several occasions PIs expressed their plans to begin collecting information on a subject
that was clearly outside their area of expertise. PIs are encouraged to focus on subjects about
which they have special knowledge, and to collaborate with other experts rather than trying
to collect information outside of their disciplinary expertise (e.g., an economist should
collaborate with a plant ecologist rather than trying to collect information on plant ecology
directly). The project has done a good job of fostering complimentary interaction among
disciplines to date and, of course, should continue to put forth the managerial effort to make
sure this coordination of effort persists within the team.
50
External Evaluation Panel Report 2002
EEP RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE MANAGEMENT ENTITY
❑ Expenses associated with EEP reviews would probably best be handled by the ME
withholding sufficient funds to cover the entire review costs. In this review the projects
covered in-country costs of the EEP creating an awkward but understandable perception that
the PIs could have used the money for other project activities if they were not spending it on
reviews (the projects did not appear to fully understand that the EEP is required by USAID
as part of the CRSP by-laws and is therefore not a discretionary activity). If the ME desires
to have the projects pay for in-country costs in the future (an understandable perspective of
the ME to keep review travel proposed by the projects reasonable), the projects should
probably be required to have a separate line in their budget for review costs, so they can see
up-front when they receive funds, that part of the condition for receiving the funds is that a
small portion be reserved by the projects for review costs.
❑ The ME is commended for shifting emphasis from long annual reports (which very few
people read) to instead having the annual accomplishments summarized in several page briefs
expressed in a format suitable for broad distribution. Some of the briefs have been largely
focused on science with little or no attention to the “So what?” and “Who cares?” element of
the story. It appears that the ME needs to continue to emphasize to the PI’s that they need
to make the connection between scientific results and applicability/impact. A section that
explicitly focuses on the pragmatic benefits of the research should be required as a
component of each of the briefs. The PIs should be encouraged to be sensitive to the fact
that success within the context of a CRSP requires that rigorous scientific products be
produced and that the take-away message from those scientific activities must be packaged in
a manner that is transportable and policy relevant.
❑ Collaboration between the GL-CRSP projects has not come close to reaching its potential.
This can be partially attributed to each of the projects having ambitious agendas embedded
in their own projects, hence they are naturally concentrating on assuring attainment of their
own project deliverables before reaching out to develop additional synergies with the other
projects. The method of initial project selection and funding-level by the GL-CRSP ensured
that the PIs would be fully occupied by their own project commitments – probably catalyst
funds would be needed to facilitate substantive project interaction which are understandably
viewed by the PIs as extra activities to what they are committed to delivering on an already
tight time-line and budget. There is probably a ME line item for getting all the GL-CRSP
projects together for information exchange and strategic planning, perhaps this portion of the
budget under control of the ME should be expanded to include a source of funds to facilitate
inter-project collaboration to pursue ideas that result from this interchange of information (i.e.,
the PIs see the value of collaboration, but in most cases they do not feel that have sufficient slack
in their existing budgets to act on collaborative ventures that are outside of scope of their initial
budget.). The example of the $150,000 RFP for collaboration between LEWS and PARIMA is an
excellent illustration of how catalytic funds can be used to facilitate cross-project collaboration.
This opportunity was created as soon as there was some budgetary flexibility to enable the ME to
pursue this type of cross-project collaboration. It would be desirable if a line-item could be
created in the ME’s budget during the next phase of the GL-CRSP that was targeted at giving the
ME more flexibility to fund these types of efforts.
51
ADDENDUM TO EEP REVIEW
POLEYC PROJECT, DAVE SWIFT, LEAD PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR
We recently received the report of the External Evaluation Panel (EEP) relative to our GL-CRSP
project (Policy Options for Livestock-based Livelihoods and Ecosystem Conservation - POLEYC).
While our project staff feel that the review was very helpful and that we learned a great deal of value to
us during the review process there are some points raised by the EEP that we would like to comment on.
We sent an expanded version of this response to the members of the EEP, but have not had a response
from them.
Early in the recommendation section the EEP expresses concerns about the transparency of
model design and parameterization decisions and seem to urge that such decisions be reached in
consultation with our collaborators, particularly with pastoral representatives. Clearly, the decisions need
to be transparent and we need to be able to defend them to all parties involved. We do not feel,
however, that it is reasonable to try to make these decisions in a participatory manner. As they point
out, correctly, in a situation such as this, there will always be an interest group that will be unhappy with
the implication of model output. Likewise there will, in many cases, be an interest group that will be
unhappy with what ever parameter is selected for a specific phenomenon. We can’t expect to get
complete agreement on many of the decisions in this realm. Certain interest groups will always promote
certain (and often incorrect) values for certain parameters for political or other reasons. We can only try
to arrive at values which best fit the data available to us, and/or which correspond to the research we do
in the area. We are able to defend these decisions. This does not mean that we will in all cases be able to
satisfy all collaborators of the correctness of individual decisions. We expect that there will always be
some collaborators unhappy with specific parameters and with specific model predictions. Our
credibility, we believe, arises from the fact that the pattern of results that we produce reflect an even￾handed approach, sometimes favorable to the position of one interest group and sometimes to the
position of another.
In paragraph 6 of the recommendation the report criticizes our “practice of focusing evaluation
on the monetary tradeoffs of crop-livestock/wildlife interactions”. We really do not feel that we are
doing this. When this issue came up during the review, several of us responded to it, including our
graduate student, Johana Roque de Pinho, who is working on the issue of Maasai perceptions of and
valuations of wildlife in the Kajiado area. She made it clear, we feel, that her approach is a distinctly
non-economic approach to valuation, aimed at determining Maasai “attitudes” toward wildlife, the
strength of these attitudes and the reasons they are held. She has selected this approach because she feels
that “monetary value as the central index of valuation has no meaning beyond the confines of certain
human societies” (her research proposal), and that the societies with which we are working fall outside of
that set. Some of our collaborators, Kenya Wildlife Service among them, would like to see us develop
some simple cost:benefit relationships relative to pastoralists and wildlife, since such relationships would
make it easier for them to make and justify decisions about wildlife. While we understand their interest
in such metrics, we don’t think trying to develop them would be fruitful because most pastoralists do not
52
External Evaluation Panel Report 2002
view wildlife in economic terms. Thus, we do not think our approach in this area represents a
“fundamental disconnect with pastoral community perceptions”, as the EEP suggests.
On the issue of building trust in model output, and whether the technology has scientific and
development value (sections 1.f, 1.h and 2.b); we feel we have been fairly successful in getting many of
our collaborators beyond the “curiosity” phase with regards to our models. The chief conservator of the
NCA specifically asked us to address some scenarios of interest to him and we did so. The Kenya
Wildlife Service is very interested in being able to use the modeling system as part of its strategic
planning and management activities for all of its National Parks and Reserves. The system is becoming
an accepted part of the repertoire of tools available to these agencies. It has proven more difficult to
develop this level of interest among the pastoral people themselves. This is not surprising considering
that many of these people are not in a position to understand the technology we use. We have made
headway with pastoralists through a series of meetings and workshops, but we are not yet at the point of
general acceptance we would like to reach. It has been stated that, “any technology, sufficiently
advanced, is indistinguishable from magic”. Indeed, we have had some success engaging pastoralists at
this level of understanding, but we would like to move beyond this stage. We continue to work with the
Maasai to develop a high level of interest and trust.
Concern was expressed about our use of NDVI values in our modeling. Evidently we did not
describe this properly to the EEP. NDVI greenness is not used as a proxy for biomass production in our
modeling efforts. Biomass is simulated in SAVANNA through processes affecting plant growth and
populations. We used NDVI images simply as a validation tool, to ensure that relative plant biomass
and phenology were being modeled reasonably well (Boone et al. 2002). Animal movements in the
model were related to simulated variables, including standing crop biomass, forage quality and distance
to water, but not to NDVI. Assumptions from annual grasslands in Turkana were not applied to NCA.
Associated with the above concern was a discussion of declining range condition and thus,
presumably, carrying capacity in East African rangelands. We are unaware of evidence demonstrating
either a four-decade decline in range condition, or a six-fold reduction in carrying capacity within
Ngorongoro Conservation Area. We recognize declining trends in range condition have been found in
other parts of Africa, but evidence does not show this to be the case in NCA. Large herbivore biomass in
Ngorongoro Crater has not changed significantly in decades (Runyoro et al. 1995; Moehlman et al.
1997). Livestock numbers within NCA have been relatively constant since the early 1960s (Kijazi et al.
1997), and from 1994 to 1999 showed a 1.2% decline, attributed to diseases associated with El Niño
rains in 1998 (NCAA 1999). Wildlife populations have not shown severe changes, except those
associated with poaching in the 1970s and 80s. In fact, during the four decades cited by the EEP, the
wildebeest population using part of NCA during the wet season has increased five-fold (but have been
relatively stable since the late 1970s).
We do not suggest that the NCA is static. For example, there have been profound changes in
vegetation composition in Ngorongoro Crater (Boone and Coughenour 2001), and continued
encroachment of unpalatable Eleusine jaegeri. But no one has quantified the effect Eleusine has on
carrying capacity. In Ngorongoro Crater, for example, the changes in vegetation have not changed
capacity, as already cited, although herbivore populations are changing (Runyoro et al. 1997). Given
that broad-scale changes in species composition have not been mapped or quantified, and may be
53
outside the realm of issues that local managers may address, we parameterized range condition to
represent current conditions, and any deviation from those conditions were reported as modeling results
of use to policy makers (POLEYC 2002).
Several times, the issue of simulating the NCA as a pure grain producing system or as an intense,
market oriented livestock production system was raised by the EEP. We have not done this for several
reasons. One, this type of analysis is outside the scope of the work we proposed to do. Second, our
models are not really well designed to simulate such situations. Our models are designed to represent
range-based livestock and wildlife systems. Scenarios such as the ones suggested would be better assessed
by crop modelers or those interested in intensive, subsidized livestock operations. Third, the Integrated
Assessment system is intended to be driven by the concerns of the stakeholders, who generate the
scenarios we examine. None of our collaborators, tribal, governmental or non-governmental has ever
asked or even suggested that such scenarios should be examined or hold any interest for them.
Citations
Boone, R.B. and M.B. Coughenour (editors). 2001. A system for integrated management and
assessment of East African pastoral lands: Balancing food security, wildlife conservation, and ecosystem
integrity. Final Report to the Global Livestock Collaborative Research Support Program, University of
California, Davis, California, USA.
Boone, R.B., M.B. Coughenour, K.A. Galvin, and J.E. Ellis. 2002. Addressing management questions
for Ngorongoro Conservation Area using the Savanna Modeling System. African Journal of Ecology
40:138-150.
Kijazi, A., S. Mkumbo, and D.M. Thompson. 1997. Human and livestock population trends. Pages
169-180 In Multiple land-use: The experience of the Ngorongoro Conservation Area, Tanzania.
(Thomson, D.M., editor). IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK.
Moehlman, P.D., V.A. Runyoro, and H. Hofer. 1997. Wildlife population trends in the Ngorongoro
Crater. Pages 59-69 In Multiple land-use: The experience of the Ngorongoro Conservation Area,
Tanzania. (Thomson, D.M., editor). IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK.
Ngorongoro Conservation Area Authority (NCAA). 1999. 1998 aerial boma count, 1999 people and
livestock census, and human population trend between 1954 and 1999 in the NCA. Research and
Planning Unit Report, Ngorongoro Conservation Area Authority, Ngorongoro Crater, Tanzania.
Policy Options for Livestock-based Livelihoods and Ecosystem Conservation (POLEYC). 2002.
Integrated assessment results to support policy decisions in Ngorongoro Conservation Area, Tanzania.
Report to the Global Livestock Collaborative Research Support Program, University of California,
Davis, California, USA.
Runyoro, V.A., H. Hoffer, E.B. Chausi, and P.D. Moehlman. 1995. Long-term trends in the herbivore
populations of the Ngorongoro Crater, Tanzania. Pages 146-168 In Serengeti II: Dynamics,
management, and conservation of an ecosystem (Sinclair, A.R.E. and P. Arcese, editors). University of
Chicago Press, Chicago, Illinois, USA.
54
External Evaluation Panel Report 2002
55
Appendix
APPENDIX
A: SCOPE OF WORK
B: ITINERARIES AND AGENDAS
C. LIST OF MATERIALS PROVIDED FOR EEP REVIEW
D: PROJECT TEAMS
E: FUNDING HISTORY OF PROJECTS
F: GLOSSARY
56
External Evaluation Panel Report 2002
57
SCOPE OF WORK
I) Adequacy of the Problem Model and the Quality of the Scientific Research
a) How does the Problem Model (PM) address a development issue of importance to the country(s)
in which the project functions. Is the PM clear, fully developed, and scientifically sound?
b) Is the scope of the research appropriate given the budget and timeframe? Does the budget
accurately reflect the needs of the project?
c) How do the objectives and activities fit the problem model?
d) Are there aspects of the PM that are missing or are inappropriate? What are they?
e) What is the quality of research being conducted? Does the research make a significant
contribution to the relevant field(s) of science and does it advance understanding of appropriate
development processes?
f) Does the research support a problem solving objective and link logically with the PM? Does it
develop a technology that has development/science value?
g) How does the team’s expertise match the research agenda? Is the level of contribution
appropriate to the area of investigation? How does the team interact?
h) Is the research agenda appropriately matched to the projects resources? Why or why not?
i) How effectively has new knowledge been applied in the modification of the original PM and
workplans?
I) Progress
a) Considering the funding history of the project, evaluate the accomplishments of the project and
provide rationale for your evaluations?
b) Should the project be continued or modified? Provide rationale for your evaluation.
c) In what ways have the impacts and outputs been significant? Evaluate the mechanisms for
dissemination of research results.
d) What, if any, are the benefits to the US?
I) Policy
a) Do the project goals have policy implications? What are they and how have they impacted
national development?
b) Has policy been incorporated in the project design? At what level are appropriate policy makers
engaged? (ministries, provincial, regional, local, etc.)
58
External Evaluation Panel Report 2002
I) Training
a) Rate the adequacy of the amount and quality of the training. Is there an appropriate mixture of
long- and short-term training? Evaluate the impact of the training on participants?
b) How does the human capacity building provide the basis for long-term capability to
institutionalize the goals of the project?
I) Project management
a) The team has developed mechanisms to ensure that local, national and regional needs and
priorities will continue to be incorporated into the development of the research agenda.
Regional collaborators and team members have a substantive role throughout the life of the
project.
b) Describe the project management structure and function. Is it appropriate for the type of
research being conducted?
c) Evaluate the intra-project communication.
d) Does the project management function effectively? Why or why not?
e) Evaluate the quality of communication with all members including host country collaborators.
Is communication adequate, frequent enough, are there problems?
f) Have regional collaborators and team members have a substantive role through out the life of the
project?
g) How effective are operational decisions? What mechanisms have been incorporated for
evaluation of ongoing work? Are they effective?
I) Miscellaneous
a) Has the project leveraged significant funding from other sources? Why or why not?
b) Is the project regional? Is the rationale for regionalization clear? What are the linkages to
regional activities? How appropriate are they? Should changes be made? Why? Are its linkages
appropriate to its regional activities?
c) What is the level and quality of inter-project collaboration?
d) Describe any significant linkages to other research/development projects (CRSP or non-CRSP)?
e) Identify unexplored areas of collaboration between projects that are feasible and have potential.
59
Appendix
ITINERARY -- EAST AFRICA EEP REVIEW
18 - 28 JUNE 2002
Tuesday, June 18
Lodging: ILRI Hostel
Old Naivasha Road
P.O. Box 30709
Nairobi, Kenya
Phone: 254-2-630743
Fax: 254-2-631499
3 pm – 6 pm: Room 720 at ILRI.
Introductions of EEP and PARIMA team members, followed by concise presentations that will include:
Overview of the GL-CRSP in East Africa (Layne Coppock), overview of the PARIMA project (Abdillahi
Aboud), highlights from research findings 1997-2000 (Layne Coppock), and overview of the rationale
for current research 2001-present, including quarterly repeated survey, modules, and selected student
projects (Chris Barrett and Peter Little).
6 pm – 7:30 pm: ILRI dining room for dinner
7:30 pm – 9 pm: Room 720 at ILRI
Current research results 2001-present, with a focus on the quarterly repeated survey and modules (Peter
Little, John McPeak, Getachew Gebru, and Cheryl Doss).
Wednesday, June 19
Lodging: Bekele Molla Hotel
Moyale, Ethiopia
Phone: 251-1-514601 (main Bekele Molla number)
Fax: 251-1-518223 (main Bekele Molla fax)
Schedule: 7:00 to 8:00 am: ILRI dining room for breakfast.
8:00 am to 11:00 pm: Room 720 at ILRI.
Current research results, continued (Peter Little, John McPeak, Getachew Gebru, Cheryl Doss, et al.).
Overview of research projects of students trained in the US (Peter Little, Winnie Luseno, et al.),
overview of PARIMA-LEWS joint activity (Layne Coppock and Jerry Stuth), overview of degree-training
ITINERARIES AND AGENDAS
60
External Evaluation Panel Report 2002
for students at Egerton University (Abdillahi Aboud and Frank Lusenaka), overview of outreach,
workshops, and non-degree training (Solomon Desta and Layne Coppock).
11:00 am to 12:00 pm: ILRI dining room for early lunch
After lunch travelers including Thurow, Engel, Little, Coppock, McPeak, and Desta travel to Wilson
Field to board a charter plane (MAF) to Moyale, Kenya. Check-in is 1:00 PM. Arrive at the Moyale
lower airstrip at 3:30 PM. Travelers will be met by Mr. Mollu Dika of the Kenya Arid Lands Resource
Management Project (ALRMP) for transport to the border, customs clearance, and arrival at Bekele
Molla Hotel in Moyale, Ethiopia.
Informal social, dinner, and after-dinner meeting with local Ethiopian and Kenyan officials and project
collaborators at the Yosadayo Hotel, Moyale, Ethiopia.
Thursday, June 20
Lodging: Bekele Molla Hotel
Moyale, Ethiopia
Schedule: 7 to 8 am: Breakfast at Yosadayo Hotel
8 to 9:30 am:
Tour of the Moyale cross-border livestock market led by local Kenyan and Ethiopian officials and
livestock traders.
9:30 to 10:30 am:
Visit with local Malab-Chamuk women’s groups led by Ethiopian extension agents.
10:30 to 12:30 pm:
Travel north by road on the Borana Plateau to Yabelo via Mega. Brief stop at the Melbana Deep Wells.
12:30 to 1:30 pm: Lunch at the Southern Rangelands Development Unit (SORDU) cafeteria.
1:30 to 3:30 pm:
Visit the PARIMA research site called Did Hara. Overview of key risk-management research findings.
Observe pilot outreach activities including non-formal education centers and savings and credit groups
implemented by a local NGO based on results from Participatory Rural Appraisal. Opportunities to
interview groups of Boran men and women pastoralists.
3:30 to 5:30 pm: Travel to Moyale, Ethiopia.
6:30 pm: Dinner at Yosadayo Hotel and informal discussions (opportunity to discuss research,
development impact, and information linkages to decision-making processes).
61
Appendix
Friday, June 21
Lodging: ILRI Hostel
Nairobi, Kenya
Schedule: 7 to 10 am: Breakfast and travel to the Moyale lower airstrip with the Kenyan ALRMP. The
flight is scheduled to depart by 10:00 AM. Fly south to Marsabit Mountain. Conduct flyover around
the mountain to observe ecology and population distribution.
Land at the PARIMA research site called Loglogo around noon. Have a goat for lunch. Overview of key
risk-management research findings.
Opportunities to interview groups of Rendille men and women pastoralists.
If time and interest allow, stop at the PARIMA research site called Kargi if the airstrip is deemed suitable
from fly-over inspection. Overview of key risk-management research findings. Review pilot outreach
activity including mitigation of water quality problems at the Kargi wells.
Return to Wilson Field and ILRI by early evening.
Saturday, June 22
Lodging: Sportsman Arms Hotel
P.O. Box 3, Nanyuki, Kenya
Phone: (0176) 32347/8
Fax: (0176) 22895
Email: sportsmansarms@wanachi.com
Web: http://www.sportsmansarms.com
Schedule: LEWS briefing in the morning, depart for Laikipia district (Dr. Robert Kaitho and Mr. Jay
Angerer to accompany EEP, lunch boxes on way). Drive to OSILGI pastoral community program NW
of Nanyuki and meet with Zola Gibson and community outreach officers.
Sunday, June 23
Lodging: ILRI Hostel
Nairobi, Kenya
Schedule: Visit with Nick Georgiadis, Director of the Mpala Research Center and review site
characterization and verification process with LEWS team. Depart that afternoon for Nairobi, arrive
app. 7 pm
Monday, June 24
Lodging: ILRI Hostel
Nairobi, Kenya
Schedule: There will be a full briefing by all LEWS team members from 4 host countries and an
ASARECA presentation. Each of the 4 country coordinators will outline the LEWS plan for their
respective country. Zonal coordinators will brief on their experiences in the eight monitoring zones.
Lunch break. The EEP will travel to meet with the department responsible for early warning advisories
62
External Evaluation Panel Report 2002
at the Ministry of Agriculture in Kenya. The next meeting will be with one of LEWS’ communications
partners from the Arid Lands Information Network. They will meet w/Regional Coordinator of FEWS
NET (Nick Maunder) and USGS regional representative, Gideon Galu.
Tuesday, June 25
Lodging: Landmark Hotel
Waiyaki Way, Westlands
Phone: 254-2448713/7
Schedule: Breakfast, depart to Naivasha. Tour NIRS lab at KARI’s livestock research center.
11:30 am: Debriefing, followed by lunch.
2 pm - 5:30 pm:
Meet w/Colorado State team at ILRI; POLEYC project overview with Kenyan/Tanzanian Principal
Investigators and Project Collaborators.
Wednesday, June 26
Lodging: Kibo Sloped Lodge
Loitokitok, Kajiado District
Schedule: Breakfast, demonstration of Integrated Assessment results for Ngorongoro Conservation Area,
and IA assessment approach for Amboseli project area (at ILRI). Lunch. Travel to Loitokitok, Kaijado
District. We will stop en route to meet with local collaborators, and tour Kimana Swamp agropastoral
area, Imbirikani Group Ranch, Kalesirua).
Thursday, June 27
Lodging: ILRI Hostel
Nairobi, Kenya
Schedule: Breakfast at Kibo Slopes lodge. Briefing on activities in POLEYC Kajiado project site, with
Group Ranch and Amboseli-Tsavo Group Ranch Conservation Association representatives. Travel to
Amboseli National Park Headquarters and meet with Kenyan Wildlife Service (KWS) collaborators –
Senior Park Warden/Community Warden. Lunch on the road. Travel back to Nairobi – arrive app. 6 pm.
7 p.m. Meet with Meg Brown of USAID-Kenya mission
Friday, June 28
Lodging: ILRI hostel
Nairobi, Kenya
Schedule: Breakfast; meet with collaborators at KWS Nairobi Headquarters regarding POLEYC
activities in Meru National Park project area. Meet with CORE/PACT/African Conservation Centre/
African Wildlife Foundation Collaborators at CORE/PACT Headquarters. Lunch. Meet with
POLEYC team members at ILRI Lab 8. 4 pm: final debriefing with EEP team and POLEYC team
members.
63
Appendix
Project PLAN
Site Visit -- Rio Cosanga Watershed, Ecuador
7 - 8 July 2002
7 July 2002
6:30 a.m. Departure from Hotel Sur in Quito, Ecuador
7:30 a.m. Breakfast at Termas Papallacta. Check-in and leave luggage.
10:00 a.m. - 1:00 p.m.
Tour of Raquel Chunquimarca’s Farm: Review of the systems of pasture improvement, livestock
management, land management, and corn experiments.
Tour of Sailer Erazo’s Farm: Greenhouse, corn experiments, chicken houses.
1:30 p.m. Lunch in Baeza
3:00 p.m. Visit to “La Isla”, tourism project of APROPAL (Association of Producers of Las Palmas)
6:30 p.m. Return to Papallacta
8 July 2002
7:30 a.m. Breakfast in Termas
8:30 a.m. Travel to Las Palmas
9:30 to 1:00 p.m.
Tour of local research and production activities, with Mariana Valle
Tour of Alandi Torres’ Farm: Pasture improvement system (preliminary stages), land management, corn
experiments.
1:00 p.m. Lunch and meeting APROPAL members.
3:30 p.m. Conversations with the Director of the “Patronimo Municipal”, head branch of local
government and with Director of the Sustainable Development Unit of the Municipality.)
5:00 p.m. Return to Quito
ITINERARY -- LATIN AMERICA EEP REVIEW
6 - 10 JULY 2002
64
External Evaluation Panel Report 2002
AGENDA -- CENTRAL ASIA EEP REVIEW
11 JULY 2002
Livestock Development and Rangeland Conservation Tools
External Evaluation Presentations
July 11, 2002
139 Hunt Hall University of California -- Davis
8:00am Project Overview
Emilio A. Laca, Lead Principal Investigator
8:45am Linking Livestock Production to Nutrition in Kazakstan,
M Dalsin
9:30am Forage Production Module, N Saliendra
10:15am Coffee Break
10:30am CO2
 scaling up and extrapolation process, B Wylie
11:15am Animal Nutrition component and Animal model, EA Laca
12:00 Lunch (catered)
1:15pm Basic Resource Module – ACT Demonstration, F Zermoglio
2:00pm Socio-Economic Component, M Kobayashi
2:45pm Coffee Break
3:00pm Summary & Discussion
7:30pm Dinner at Soga’s Restaurant, 217 E Street
65
Appendix
LIST OF MATERIALS PROVIDED TO THE EEP
FOR ALL PROJECTS:
Annual Reports 1997 - 2001
Workplans and Budgets 1997 - 2001
Grant Proposals 1997 - 2000
Grant Proposals 1998 - 2003
Ruminations Newsletter Winter 1998 - Summer 2002
EEP Reports 1996 - 1999
BY INDIVIDUAL PROJECTS:
IMPROVING PASTORAL RISK MANAGEMENT ON EAST AFRICAN RANGELANDS (PARIMA)
1. Little, P., Smith, K., Cellarius, B, Coppock, L., and Barrett, C. 2001. Avoiding disaster:
diversification and risk management among east African herders. Development and Change
32: 401-433.
2. Smith, K., Barrett, C., and Box, P. 2001. Not necessarily in the same boat: heterogenous risk
assessment among east African pastoralists. Journal of Development Studies 37: 1-30.
3. McPeak, J., and Barrett, C. 2001. Differential risk exposure and stochastic poverty traps among
east African pastoralists. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 83: 674-679.
4. Smith, K., Barrett, C., and Box, P. 2000. Participatory risk mapping for targeting research and
assistance: With an example from east African pastoralists. World Development 28: 1945-
1959.
5. Little, P., Mahmoud, H., and Coppock, L. When deserts flood: risk management and climatic
processes among east African pastoralists. Climate Research 19:149-159.
6. Desta, S., and Coppock, L. 2002 PARIMA UPDATE. Newsletter of the Pastoral Risk
management Project (English version). Volume 1, number 1. 6 pp.
7. Copies of all nine of the PARIMA research briefs for 2002
EARLY WARNING SYSTEM FOR MONITORING LIVESTOCK NUTRITION AND HEALTH FOR FOOD SECURITY OF
HUMANS IN EAST AFRICA (LEWS)
1. Stuth, Jerry W. External Evaluation Panel Briefing Document (Zonal Overview).
2. Ndung’u, J.N. and A.J.N. Ndathi. Overview of the GL-CRSP Livestock Early Warning
System for East Africa.
3. Overview of the Structure and Function of the Livestock Early Warning Project (LEWS/GL￾CRSP) in Northwest Kenya (Turkana District)
4. Kingamkono, Margaret N. Lews Zonal Information – Northern Tanzania
66
External Evaluation Panel Report 2002
5. Overview of the Structure and Function of LEWS in the Laikipia Zone
6. The Structure and Functions of the Livestock Early Warning System (Lews/GL-CRSP)
Activities in Central Tanzania
7. An overview of the Livestock Early Warning system (LEWS/GL-CRSP) Program in Uganda
8. Overview of the Structure and Function of LEWS in the Southern Ethiopia Zone (Borana)
9. Stuth, Jerry W., Abdi Jama, Robert Kaitho, Rapheal Marambii, and Jay Angerer. Overview of
the GL-CRSP Livestock Early Warning System for East Africa.
10. Jama, Abdi, Zola Gibson, Jerry Stuth, Robert Kaitho, Jay Angerer, and Raphael Marambii.
Setting Up a Livestock Early Warning System Monitoring Zone: Site Selection,
Characterization, and Sampling for the PHYGROW Model.
11. Kaitho, Robert, Jay Angerer, Jerry Stuth, and Abdi Jama. Mapping Forage Response in the
LEWS/GLCSP Project.
12. Marambii, Rapheal, Jerry Stuth, Robert Kaitho, Abdi Jama, and Zola Gibson. Communication
Infrastructure of the GL/CRSP Livestock Early Warning System in East Africa.
13. Kingamkono, Margaret, William Mnene, Ezekiel Goromela, Steven Byenkya, Bayissa Hatew,
Jane Sawe, Joseph Ndung’u, Peter Wandera, and Angello Mwilawa. Site Verifications of
PHYGROW Model Simulation and Geospatial Extrapolation of Forage Estimates Simulations
for Monitoring Points in the GL-CRSP Livestock Early Warning System for East Africa.
14. Stuth, Jerry, Doug Tolleson, Robert Kaitho, Abdi Jama. Building Infrastructure for
Introduction of Nutritional Profiling Systems of Free-Ranging Livestock in East Africa.
15. Stuth, Jerry, Abdi Jama, and Doug Tolleson. Direct and Indirect Means of Predicting Forage
Quality Through Near-Infrared Reflectance Spectroscopy.
INTEGRATED ASSESSMENT OF PASTORAL-WILDLIFE INTERACTIONS IN EAST AFRICA: IMPLICATIONS FOR
PEOPLE, POLICY, CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT IN EAST AFRICA (POLEYC, FORMERLY IMAS)
1. IMAS Project Final Report
2. IMAS PHEWS Final Report
3. NCA POLEYC Final Report
4. NCA Disease Assessment Report
5. POLEYC Jan-Feb 2002 Trip Report
6. POLEYC Aug 2001 Trip Report
7. KiSwahili and English versions of preliminary Integrated Assessment
8. Scenarios for the Kajiado project site
9. Link to the IMAS/POLEYC web site.
LIVESTOCK DEVELOPMENT AND RANGELAND CONSERVATION TOOLS (LDRCT)
1. Second Steering Committee Meeting of the IFAD-Supported Project “Integrated Feed and
Livestock Production the Steppes of Central Asia” CAC Newsletter July – September 2000 p
9.
2. Climate Change: Prognosis and Solutions K. Akshalov, K. Erzhanov, E. Laca, T. Gilmanov, D.
Johnson In Problems of Stabilizing and Developing Agriculture of Kazakstan, Siberia and
67
Appendix
Mongolai. Almaty, KZ 2000 pp175-76 (Russian Language).
3. Carbon Sequestration – What’s it all about. Center for Rural Affairs Newsletter. April 2000 p
3 – 4.
4. LDRCT Project Determines Effects of Land Cover Type on Carbon Flux in N. Kazakstan. N.
Saliendra et al. Ruminations Fall 2001 p 1 and 10.
5. CO2 Flux Network for Central Asia Holds 2nd scientific seminar. Ruminations Spring 2001 p
6, 8.
6. Supplemental On-Site Training on CO2 flux measurements for LDRCT Team in Central Asia.
Ruminations Spring 2001 p 8-9.
7. LDRCT Represented at International CO2 Meetings. Ruminations Winter 2001 p 2.
8. Expert Workshop on Carbon Sequestration. Ruminations Winter 2001 p 2.
9. Model Developed Under SRCRSP to be revised and updated for LDRCT Project in Central
Asia. W. Pittroff. Ruminations Ruminations Winter 2001 p 4.
10. GLCRSP Links Universities and Institutions Addressing Livestock related problems in Central
Asia. Ruminations Fall 2000 p 2.
11. Value of Mulberry Foliage Subject of LDRCT Study. Ruminations Fall 2000 p 7, 9.
12. Central Asian Scientists in US for Training. Ruminations Winter 2000 p 2.
13. Characteristics of Small holder Livestock Production Systems. E. Laca, A. Breuer.
Ruminations Fall 1999 p 2, 12.
14. ALO Grant Awarded For Training and Partnership Program in Central Asia. Ruminations Fall
1999 p 2, 15.
15. Gross Primary Production of the Shidler Site 1997 (OK), and Woodward site 1997 (OK) and
Shortandy site 2001 (KZ) in relation to remotely Sensed Vegetation Indices – A report to the
Raytheon Co. T. Gilmanov 2002.
16. Dynamics of CO2
 Flux and Productivity on Three Major Rangeland Types of Central Asia:
1999 Growing Season. D. Johnson, T. Gilmanov, N. Saliendra, E. Laca, K. Akshalov, M.
Dourikov, B. Madronov, and M. Nasyrov 2000.
17. Calculation of potential sequestration on vegetated grasslands of Kazakstan. A. Nikolaenko, L.
Shabonova.
18. Smallholders’ Manual. N. Malmakov (eds) Almaty, Bastau Press 2001 195 pp (Russian
language).
19. Livestock Owing Households of Kazakstan. Part 1. Food Resources. Seasonal and Regional
Analysis. Ecology of Food and Nutrition 41: 329-371: 2002.
20. Livestock Owing Households of Kazakstan. Part 2. Food Patterns and Health. Seasonal and
Regional Analysis. Ecology of Food and Nutrition 41: 373-399: 2002.
21. Doran, M. 2001 Mulberry Foliage as an alternative feed for ruminant livestock. MS Thesis
UCD.
22. Seigies J. 2001 Regional Differences in Livestock Feed Availability in Uzbekistan. MS Thesis,
UCD.
23. Wolf, L. 2001 Landscape patterns of soil organic matter, snow, and severity of wind erosion in
North Kazakstan. MS Thesis, UCD.
24. Dalsin, M. 2000 Linking Livestock Production to Human Nutrition in the Dry Steppe, Semi￾Desert and Foothill Regions of Kazakstan, UCD.
25. Breuer, A. 2000 Patterns of Rangeland Use in the Dry Steppe, Semi-Desert and Foothill
Regions of Kazakstan, UCD.
68
External Evaluation Panel Report 2002
COMMUNITY PLANNING FOR SUSTAINABLE LIVESTOCK-BASED FORESTED ECOSYSTEMS IN LATIN AMERICA
(SPANISH TITLE: PLANIFICACION LOCAL AGROPECUARIA Y DE LA NATURALEZA -- PROJECT PLAN)
1. Adame, Jesús Juan Rosales, Laura Elena Flores Beltrán, Eloy Fernando Carranza Montaño, Luis
Manuel Martínez Rivera, and Martha Rosemeyer. An Agrosilvopastoral System with the
Legume Tree, Leucaena Ieucocephala: a strategy to improve the quality and quantity of cattle
forage in the community of Zenzontla, Tuxcacuesoco, Mexico.
2. Mercado-Silva, Norman. Assessment of Biotic integrity in the Ayuquila River, Jalisco, Mexico:
Implications for Watershed Management Decisions.
3. Martinez, Luis M, Arturo Carranza, Angel Aguirre, Jose J. Sandoval, Jose L. Olgun, and Eva
Judith Hueso Ayuquila. Watershed Conservation and Management.
4. Vacaflores, Carlos. Collective Access to Private Pastures: Farmers and Interdependency in the
Mountain Forests of Bolivia.
5. Moermond, Tim. Divergent vs. Convergent Problems: New Approaches to Sustainable
Agricultural Development.
6. Vacaflores, Carlos. Extensive Livestock Raising and Conflict Management in a Montane
Forest Area.
7. Carlos, Juan Pablo Esparza, Luis Ignacio Iñiguez Dávalos, Timothy Moermond, Lucina
Hernández, Francisco Santana Michel, and Ramón Cuevas. Feeding Habits of Cattle in the
Tropical Dry Forest, Sierra de Manantlan, Biosphere Reserve, Mexico.
8. Food Insecurity in Latin-American Rural Villages: A Qualitative Assessment.
9. Carlos, Juan Pablo Esparza, Luis Ignacio Iñiguez Dávalos, Timothy Moermond and Lucina
Hernández. Habitat Use by Cattle on Tropical Dry Forest Foraging Areas in Zonzontla, Sierra
de Manantlan, Biosphere Reserve, Mexico
10. Eakright, Alexis. The Role of Household Assets in Determining Patterns of Income
Diversification: Livestock Ownership and Investment in the Zenzontla Ejido, Mexico.
11. Milofsky, Tessa, Estalin Molina, Seylar Erazo, Martha Rosemeyer, and Kenneth Albrecht. The
Impact of Lotus on Kikuyu-based Pasture Systems in Las Palmas, Ecuador.
12. Calispa, Fabián, Estalin Molina, Timothy Moermond, and Ken Albrecht. Importance of
Native Vegetation for the Sustainable Management of Livestock Production in the Cosanga
River Watershed, Ecuador.
13. D., Ricardo Paita and Dr. Orlando Corzo M. Incidence of Porcine Tapeworms in Pigs from
the Watershed of Tomatirenda: One Serious Deficit of Low-cost Extensive Livestock
Production.
14. Farmers as Experimenters: Preliminary case studies of farming families in Canton La Cueva,
Bolivia.
15. Hernandez, Kattya B., Isabel Murillo M., and Gustavo Mosquera N. Land Tenure in the Rio
Quijos Valley, Ecuador.
16. Galasso, Louise. Livestock Losses to Spectacled Bears in Ecuador.
17. Lastarria-Cornhiel, Susana with Alexis Eakright, Peter R. W. Gerritsen, Kattya Hernandez,
Pilar Lizarraga, Arturo Moreno, Isabel Murillo, and Carlos Vacaflores. Natural Resource
Access and Conflicts in Project PLAN.
18. Project PLAN: Framework and Focus
19. Milofsky, Tessa, Fabian Calispa, Estalin Molina, Seylar Erazo, Martha Rosemeyer, and Kenneth
Albrecht. Study of a Maze-Legume Companion Crop System in Ecuador.
69
Appendix
20. Sustainable Management of Natural and Agrosilvopastoral Systems in the Ejido of Zenzontla
in the Sierra de Manantlan Biosphere Reserve, Jalisco, Mexico
21. Hernandez, Arturo Moreno, Guadalupe Hernadez Vargas, Cyntia Ayala G., and Ramón
Cuevas Guzmán. Traditional Medicinal Plant Knowledge in Zenzontla, Mexico.
22. Autodiagnostico y Plan de Trabajo de la Organizacion Territorial de Base de Fuerte Santiago
23. Kattya Hernández Basante. Percepciones, Estrategias Productivas Y Capital Social en la
Cuenca del rio Cosanga – Informe Final
24. Farm Productive Activity (PowerPoint photo presentation)
70
External Evaluation Panel Report 2002
71
Appendix
PROJECT TEAMS
LATIN AMERICA: COMMUNITY PLANNING FOR SUSTAINABLE LIVESTOCK-BASED FORESTED ECOSYSTEMS IN
LATIN AMERICA PROJECT (PLAN)
Lead Principal Investigator. Timothy Moermond, University of Wisconsin at Madison,
Environmental Studies/Zoology, 430 Lincoln Dr., 451 Birge hall, Madison, WI 53706. Tel:
608-262-5868; Fax 608-265-6320; Email: tcmoermo@facstaff.wisc.edu.
Country Coordinators (current): Carlos Vacaflores, Bolivia; Kattya Hernandez, Ecuador; and Luis
Manuel Martinez.
Collaborating Personnel:
Bolivia
Adautt, Samuel, Natural resource management, soils and botany, AGROSIG, Evaluation of pasture
productivity and impacts on natural vegetation
Baldivieso, Erlan, GIS expert, AGROSIG, GIS, mapping support
Beltran, Rafael, Computer expert, AGROSIG, GIS, mapping and computer support
Calla, Rhinda, Sociology, JAINA, Sociological studies; community development
Carranza, Freddy, Agronomy, JAINA, Agronomy; community development
Castro, Miguel, Director, Lawyer, CER-DET, Instit. support in application of development projects
Cuba, Ruben, Agronomy, Botany, CER-DET, Use and commercialization of medicinal plants,
community organization
Del Carpio, Ricardo, Agronomist, business, JAINA, Agronomy, community development
Espinoza, Linder, Director, Researcher, Forestry, Natural resource management, GIS Specialist,
AGROSIG, Evaluation of natural resources
Flores, Magaly, Agronomy, Forestry, JAINA, Community development; forestry and biodiversity studies
Flores, Nelson, Resource management, soils and botany, AGROSIG, Evaluation of pasture productivity
and impacts on natural vegetation
Gallarda, Norberto, Lawyer, CER-DET, Land Tenure
Gonzales, Jorge, Student, Law, JAINA, Legal analysis on resource access & community development
Jurado, Monica, Student, Agronomy, Biology, AGROSIG, Relation avifauna & agriculture
Lizárraga, Pilar, Researcher, Sociology, JAINA, Socioeconomic analyses and methodological support;
autodiagnostics, perspectives studies, and participatory work and community organization
Lozano, Angelo, Agronomist, CER-DET, Natural resource management, livestock projects
Mealla, Grover, Agronomist, CER-DET, Planning & coordination, community org. &
commercialization
Molina, Jesus, Agronomist, JAINA, Agronomy, community development
Montaño, Blanca, Sociology, CER-DET, Organization of community groups and women’s artisanal
groups, coordination of family food security activities
72
External Evaluation Panel Report 2002
Mujica, Roberto, Agronomy, ecology, AGROSIG, Quality evaluation of water resources
Paita, Ricardo, Agronomy, Ecologist, CER-DET, Agro-ecology, agronomy, livestock projects
Roth, Erick, Director, Psychology, Environmental Education, CIEC, Advice on environmental and
community education—application and strategies
Ruíz, Jorge, GIS and Agronomy, AGROSIG, Evaluation of natural resources
Vacaflores, Carlos Director, Researcher, Agronomy, JAINA, Coordination of project; socioeconomic
analyses; autodiagnostics, perspectives studies, and participatory work and community organization
Villena, Aldo, Student, Forestry, JAINA, Community forest management
Ecuador
Calispa, Fabian, Researcher, Agronomy, Terranueva, Evaluation of livestock production, pastures, and
agroecology
Castellanos, Armando, Ecologist, Jatun Sacha/CDC, Biodiversity
Cisneros, Jaqueline, Researcher, GIS, CDC, Mapping and GIS support; biodiversity inventory support
Hernández, Kattya, Researcher, Anthropology, Fundación Heifer, Local actors study, participatory work
& community organization; coordination of project activities
Larrea, Fernando, Director, Anthropology, Fundacion Heifer, Coordination of project and advice on
integrated community development approaches
Molina, Stalin, Extensionist (Representative, Community of Las Palmas), FUNAN, Support in impact
of natural resource use on vegetation; community development
Mosquera, Gustavo, Researcher, Biology, FUNAN, Biodiversity studies and environmental education
Muñoz, Juan Pablo, Anthropologist, Terranueva, Anthropological studies
Murillo, Isabel, Researcher, Sociology, FUNAN, Community studies
Peñafiel, Marcia, GIS Engineer, Jatun Sacha/CDC, Coordination of biodiveristy & GIS
Pinos, Gonzalo, Researcher, GIS, mapping, CDC, Support in application of mapping and GIS
Ronquillo, Juan Carlos, Ecologist, Jatun Sacha/CDC, Biodiversity
Ruiz, Armando, Ecologist, FUNAN, Support in animal biodiversity studies
Serrano, Manuel, Researcher, Forestry, FUNAN, Support in impact of natural resource use on
vegetation; community development
Utreras, Victor, Researcher, Biology, FUNAN, Support in animal biodiversity studies
Mexico
Aguirre, Angel, Ecologist, IMECBIO, Water quality
Alejos de la Fuente, Isidro, Student, Agronomy, Colegio de Post-graduados, Experimentation with sheep
feed
Cárdenas, Oscar, Professor, Natural Resource Management, (UW-Student, Land Resources), IMECBIO/
UW-Madison, Analysis of land use and land change due to government policies
Carranza, Arturo, Researcher, Soils, IMECBIO, Soils evaluation
Castellanos, Carla-Blanca, Student, Zoology, IMECBIO, Avian biodiversity study
Contreras, Sarahy, Researcher, Zoology, IMECBIO, Avian biodiversity study
Cuevas, Ramon, Professor, Botany, IMECBIO, Botanical and ethno-botanical studies
Esparza, Juan Pablo, Student, Zoology, IMECBIO, Cattle habitat and forage selection study
Gerritson, Peter, Professor, Sociology, IMECBIO, Socioeconomic evaluation; participatory work
Guevara, Ruben Dario, Research, Soils, IMECBIO, Soils evaluation
Guzman, German, Botanist, IMECBIO, Botany-flora
73
Appendix
Hernández, Guadalupe, Research, Agronomy, IMECBIO, Agronomy, agro-forestry experimentation
Iñiguez, Luis Ignacio, Professor, Zoology, IMECBIO, Support for animal biodiversity studies and
wildlife/agriculture interaction studies (rodents and vampire bats)
Martínez, Luis Manuel, Professor, Limnology and Watersheds, IMECBIO, Coordination of project; soil
and watershed evaluation and mapping; hydrology and water quality studies
Moreno, Arturo, Professor, Economics, IMECBIO, Economic studies; participatory work including
medicinal plants project with women’s groups
Pineda, Maria del Rosario, Professor, Botany and Ecology, IMECBIO, Botanical studies of vegetation
change
Ramírez, Manuel, GIS Engineer, IMECBIO, GIS
Rosales, Jesus Juan, Forestry, IMECBIO, Agroforestry
Sánchez, Lázaro, Professor, Botany and Ecology, IMECBIO, Botanical studies of vegetation change;
maize cultivation and agroforestry experiments; characterization of livestock production systems;
systems modeling
Sandoval, Jose de Jesus, Soil Science, IMECBIO, Conservation & classification of soils
United States
Albrecht, Kenneth, Agronomy, UW-Madison, Pasture improvement; farmer experimentation
Bleiweiss, Robert, Professor, Zoology, UW-Madison, Avian biodiversity and conservation studies; avian
pollination studies
Eakright, Alexis, Student, Conservation Biology and Sustainable Development (CBSD) and Agricultural
and Applied Economics, UW-Madison, socioeconomic and gender studies
Erdman, Joshua, Student, Zoology, UW-Madison, Avian biodiversity studies; avian pollination and seed
dispersal in Ecuador
Galasso, Louise, Student, CBSD, UW-Madison, Study of wildlife value, status, and impact
Guries, Raymond, Forestry, UW-Madison, Support in application of agroforestry and woodlot
management
Hernandez, Yoyi, Student, CBSD, UW-Madison, Bird community studies
Laca, Emilio, Professor, Range Science, Univ. California, Davis, Advice on range science and livestock
production
Lastarria-Cornhiel, Susana, Researcher, Sociologist, UW-Madison, Community autodiagnostics; land
tenure and gender studies; monitoring; project coordination assistance
Melgar-Quiñonez, Hugo, Researcher, M.D., Nutrition and Public Health, UC-Davis, CIAD,
Community nutrition, public health, food security, and nutritional assessment
Mercado-Silva, Norman, Student, Zoology, UW-Madison, Fish community studies and bio-indicators
Milofsky, Tessa, Student, Agronomy, UW-Madison, On farm pasture enrichment experiments
Moermond, Timothy, Professor, Zoology and Environmental Studies, Project development, UW￾Madison, Principal coordinator of the project; integration of conservation and development;
community organization; biodiversity studies
Nordheim, Rick, Professor, Statistics and Forestry, UW-Madison, Statistical support for project research
studies; project design; monitoring design and analysis
Rosemeyer, Martha, Agronomy, UW-Madison/Evergreen State College, Farmer experimentation;
participatory studies, pasture improvement and agroforestry
Rutledge, Jack, Professor, Animal Science, UW-Madison, Development of cattle embryo transfer
techniques to improve cattle production under tropical forest conditions in Ecuador
74
External Evaluation Panel Report 2002
Sansom, April, Student, CBSD, UW-Madison, Project coordination assistance; community development
Wattiaux, Michel, Researcher, Animal Science, UW-Madison, Animal nutrition and animal production
systems; agricultural education
Young, Andrea, Student, Zoology, UW-Madison, Biodiversity studies, impact of birds on maize
Young, Michelle, Student, UC, Davis, Farm community families, economics land use change
Yuill, Thomas, Director, IES; Professor, Veterinary Science, UW-Madison, Advice on animal health
Zepeda, Lydia, Professor, Economics, UW-Madison, Economic studies of livestock production and farm
family strategies
Zubieta, Ana Claudia, Researcher, Nutrition, UC, Davis, CIAD, Community nutrition, micronutrients,
food security, and nutritional assessment
United Kingdom
Hester, Alison, Range Scientist, Agronomy, MacCaulay Land Use Research Institute, Research of forest
grazing systems
CENTRAL ASIA: LIVESTOCK DEVELOPMENT AND RANGELAND CONSERVATION TOOLS PROJECT (LDRCT)
Lead Principal Investigator: Emilio A. Laca, Department of Agronomy and Range Science,
University of California, Davis, 249A Hunt Hall, Davis, CA 95616. Tel: 530-754-4083.
Fax: 530-752-4361. Email: ealaca@ucdavis.edu.
Regional Co-Investigators: Kanat Akshalov, Muhamet Dourikov and Mukhtar Nasyrov.
U.S. Co- Investigators: Douglas A. Johnson, Richard Plant, Richard Howitt, and Wolfgang
Pitroff.
Collaborating Personnel:
United States
Laca, Emilio A., Assistant Professor University of California, Davis
Howitt, Richard, Professor, University of California, Davis
Jarvis, Lovell S., Professor, University of California, Davis
Johnson, Douglas A., ARS-USDA, Utah State University
Plant, Richard, Professor, University of California, Davis
Saliendra, Nicanor Z., Research Associate, ARS-USDA, Utah State Univ. and Univ. California, Davis
Tieszen, Larry, Director International Programs Office, EROS Data Center, S. Dakota
Gilmanov, Tagir, Assistant Professor, Biology and Microbiology Dept., South Dakota State University
Sinisa Ivanovic, Graduate Student, Biological and Irrigation Engineering Dept., Utah State University
Breuer, Abigail, Post Graduate Researcher, University of California, Davis
Carpenter, Mary, Graduate Student, University of California, Davis
Grivetti, Louis E., Professor, University of California, Davis
Kobayashi, Mimako, Graduate Student, University of California, Davis
Olmstead, Karen, Graduate Student, UC Davis
Wolf, Adam, Graduate Student, UC Davis
75
Appendix
Doran, Morgan, Graduate Student, UC Davis
Seigies, Joern, Graduate Student, UC Davis
Kazakhstan
Shabanova, Ludmila, Institute of Ecology and Sustainable Development
Karibayeva, Kuralay, Institute of Ecology and Sustainable Development
Nikolaenko, Alexandr, Institute of Ecology and Sustainable Development
Alimaiev, Iliya, Institute of Forage and Rangelands
Asanov, Kasim A., Professor, Institute of Feed and Pasture
Satybaldin, Azimkhan A., Professor, Ministry of Science-Academy of Science RK (MS ASRK)
Akshalov, Kanat, Barayev Research Institute of Grain Farming
Zhambakin, Zhapar, Director General, National Federation of Private Farmers of Kazakstan
Sarbasov, Gaziz, Institute of Sheep Breeding
Malmakov, Nurlan, Institute of Sheep Breeding
Sidelnikova, Sofia, Regional LDRCT Project Coordinator and Administrator
Turkmenistan
Durikov, Muhamet, National Institute of Deserts, Flora, and Fauna
Nikolaev, Valerii, National Institute of Deserts, Flora, and Fauna
Gedemov, Tachdurdy, Director of “Biotechnology”, Scientific Technological Centre, Academy of
Sciences of Turkmenistan
Babaev, Agadjan G., Director Desert Research Institute, Turkmenistan
Soyunova, Ogultach, Institute of Economics, Turkmenistan
Uzbekistan
Nasyrov, Mukhtar, Professor, Samarkand State University
Aripov, Uktam, Director General, Res. & Ind. Assoc. for Karakul Sheep Husbandry
Khusanov, Rasulmat, Uzbek Research Institute of Market Reforms Ministry of Agriculture
Bakhtiyor Mardonov, Range scientist, Samarkand Division of the Academy of Sciences
ICARDA
Iniguez, Luis, ICARDA, Aleppo, Syria
Aw-Hasan, Aden, Agricultural & Resource Economist, ICARDA
Suleimenov, Mekhlis, ICARDA
Mustapha Bounejmate, ICARDA.
EAST AFRICA: EARLY WARNING SYSTEM FOR MONITORING LIVESTOCK NUTRITION AND HEALTH FOR FOOD
SECURITY OF HUMANS IN EAST AFRICA (LEWS)
Lead Principal Investigator. Dr. Jerry Stuth, Department of Rangeland Ecology and
Management, 2126 TAMU, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX 77843-2126.
Work Phone: 979-845-5548; Fax: 979-845-6430; Email: jwstuth@cnrit.tamu.edu.
76
External Evaluation Panel Report 2002
Collaborating Personnel:
United States
Jay Angerer, Assist. Research Scientist, Texas A&M University
Jim Bucher, Systems Analyst, Texas A&M University
John Corbett, Mud Springs Geographers, Inc. (Adhoc)
Paul T. Dyke, Research Scientist, Texas A&M University
Robert Blaisdell, Assist. Research Scientist, Texas A&M University
Abdi A. Jama, Assist. Research Scientist, Texas A&M University
Clint Heath, Senior Systems Analyst, Texas A&M University
Jerry W. Stuth, Kelleher Professor, Texas A&M University
Doug Tolleson, Assist. Director, GANLAB, Texas A&M University
Kris Williams, Lab Manager, GANLAB, Texas A&M University
Kristen Zander, Systems Analyst, Texas A&M University
Jeff Vitale, Assistant Research Scientist, Texas A&M University.
Ethiopia
Azage Tegegne, Animal Scientist, International Livestock Research Institute
Gebre Berhane, Professor, Mekelle University
Abule Ebro, Animal Scientist,
Adami Tulu Agri. Research Center
Kassaye Hadgo, FARM Africa, Afar Region
Bayissa Hatewu, Ethiopian Agricultural Research Organization
Amsalu Sisay, Animal Production Researcher, Adami Tulu Agri. Research Center
Dubale Adamsu, FARM Africa, Afar Region
Salvador Fernandez, ILRI- Addis
Tesfaye Kumsa, Institute of Agricultural Research
Abdissa Abalti, DVM, Adami Tulu Agri. Research Center
Ashenafi Mengistu, Adami Tulu Agri. Research Center
Dawit Negessa, Lab Technician, ILRI-Debre Zeit,
Zinash Sileshi, Animal Prod. Researcher, Ethiopian Agricultural Research Organization.
Kenya
Henry Cheruiyot, Director Research Inst, Kenya Agricultural Research Inst. (KARI)
Philip Leparteleg, Drought Preparedness Intervention and Recovery Program, Office of the President
Mahboub Maalim, Aridland Resource Management Project, Office of the President
Nicholas Georgiadis, Director, Mpala Research Centre
Robert Kaitho, SANREM/LEWS/KARI/ILRI, Liaison Research Scientist
Peter Kamau, Range Animal Scientist, Egerton University, Kenya
Roger Kamidi, Data Analyst, International Livestock Research Institute.
Raphael Marambii, Information Officer, International Livestock Research Institute.
Russell Kruska, GIS Researcher, International Livestock Research Institute.
Salim Shaabani, Aridland Resource Management Project, Office of the President
William Mnene, Rangeland Management, National Range Research Center
Jean Ndikumana, Network Coordinator, International Livestock Research Institute.
77
Appendix
Jane Sawe, Animal Prod. Scientist, Egerton University
Peter Wandera, Animal Prod. Scientist, National Dryland Farming Res. Center
John Kariuki, Animal Scientist, Naivasha National Animal Husbandry Research Centre.
Francis Mwangi, Lab technician, Naivasha National Animal Husbandry Research Centre.
Joseph Ndungu – KARI, Marsabit
Aphaxard J.N. Ndathi, KARI, Marsabit
Tanzania
Suleiman Kaganda, Animal Scientist, Ukiriguru Agricultural Research Institute
Rashid Kidunda, Range Ecologist, Sokoine University, Tanzania
Angello Mwilawa, Range Scientist, Mpwapwa Agricultural Research Institute
Stella Niyikiza Bitende, Director of Livestock Research, Ministry of Water and Livestock Development
Ndelilo Urio, Coordinator, Animal Scientist, Sokoine University, Tanzania
Nicholaus Massawe, Animal Scientist,Selian Agricultural Research Institute
Rashidi Kadunda, Range Ecologist, Sokoine University, Tanzania
Margret Kingamkono, Animal Scientist, Selian Agricultural Research Institute
Uganda
Felix Bareeba, Professor, Makerere University, Uganda
Stephen Byenkya, Forage Scientist, National Agricultural Research Organization.
Grace Ebiyau, Technician, National Agricultural Research Organization
Cyprian Ebong, Livestock Production, National Agricultural Research Organization
Sarah Ossiya, Range Scientist, National Agricultural Research Organization
Rose Omaria, Vet. Officer, National Agricultural Research Organization
Emily Twinamasiko, Vet. Officer, Agricultural Research and Development Center, Mbarara.
EAST AFRICA: INTEGRATED ASSESSMENT OF PASTORAL-WILDLIFE INTERACTIONS IN EAST AFRICA:
IMPLICATIONS FOR PEOPLE, POLICY, CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT IN EAST AFRICA (POLEYC)
Lead Princiapl Investigator: David Swift, Natural Resource Ecology Laboratory, Colorado State
University, Ft. Collins, CO 80523. Telphone: (970) 491 5599; Fax: (970) 491 1965; Email:
davesw@nrel.colostate.edu
Collaborating Personnel:
United States
J. Else (Professor of Veterinary Science, Tufts University
T. McCabe (Associate Professor, Institute of Behavioral Science, University of Colorado)
J. DeMartini (Veterinarian, Department of Pathology, Colorado State University)
M. Coughenour (Principal Investigator, Senior Research Scientist NREL- CSU)
D.Swift (Lead Principal Investigator, Senior Research Scientist NREL- CSU)
K. Galvin (Senior Research Scientist, NREL- CSU)
78
External Evaluation Panel Report 2002
R. Boone (Post-Doc, NREL-CSU)
S. BurnSilver (Project Manager, Research Associate, NREL-CSU)
Kenya
R. Reid (Program Director- People Livestock and the Environment, ILRI)
P. Thornton (Programme Co-ordinator, Systems Analysis and Impact Assessment)
J. Kinyamario (Kenya PI, GL-CRSP project, and Meru Project Leader Chairman/Professor in the Dept.
of Botany, University of Nairobi)
John Mworia (PhD Student, University of Nairobi)
G. Olukoye (PhD Student, Kenyatta University)
W. Mutero (GIS Specialist, Kenya Wildlife Service)
P. Mulama (Spatial Analyst, KWS)
R. Bagine (KWS, Director of Research)
N. Georiadis (Ecologist/Researcher, M’pala Research Center)
Ole Kamuaro (Ministry of the Environment, Kenya)
W. Otichillo (Director, RCMRD)
J. Gathua (Researcher, Department of Remote Sensing, Resource Surveys)
C. Situma (Spatial Analyst, DRSRS)
J. Wandera (Land Use Planning Coordinator, SARDEP- Kajiado)
P. Rwambo (Veterinarian, Biosystems)
H. Cheruiyot (Director, Kenyan Agricultural Research Institute)
J. Grootenhuis (Veterinarian, Veterinaires sans Frontieres)
J. Njoka (Professor Range Science Department, University of Nairobi)
S. Mbogoh (Agricultural Economist/Professor, University of Nairobi)
J. Ndathi Mwai (Environmental Conservation Dept.- M.E.N.R.)
D. Western (Ecologist, African Conservation Center)
T. Kasaine (Secretary- Eselenkei Group Ranch (GR))
E. Kesoi (Treasurer- Eselenkei GR)
J. Likampa (Treasurer- Imbirikani GR)
L. Partimo (Treasurer- Olgulului GR)
J. Leyian (Chairman- Amboseli Tsavo Group Ranch Conservation Association (ATGRCA)/ Chairman￾Eselenkei GR)
J. Kilitia (Secretary ATGRCA/ Secretary- Imbirikani GR)
Tanzania
V. Runyoro (Principle Ecologist, Ngorongoro Conservation Area Authority)
Angelo Mwilawa (Livestock Research Scientist, Livestock Production Research Institute)
Allan Kijazi (Tanzanian PI, GL-CRSP, African Wildlife Foundation)
Patricia Moehlman (Biologist, IUCN/SSC-Equid Specialist Group)
E. Gereta (Ecologist, Tanzanian National Parks)
E. M’talo (Researcher, University College of Lands and Architectual Studies)
F. Banyikwa (Professor, Botany Departmen, University of Dar es Salaam)
C. Nahonyo (Professor, Zoology Department, University of Dar es Salaam)
M. Maige (Tanzanian Wildlife Department)
79
Appendix
EAST AFRICA: IMPROVING PASTORAL RISK MANAGEMENT ON EAST AFRICAN RANGELANDS (PARIMA)
Lead Principal Investigator: D. Layne Coppock, Department of Rangeland Resources, Utah State
University, Logan, UT 84322-5230. Telephone (435) 797-1262, Fax (435) 797-3796,
Email: LCoppock@cc.usu.edu.
Regional Co-Principal Investigator: Abdillahi Aboud, Department of Natural Resources, Egerton
University, Njoro, Kenya.
Co-Principal Investigator: Peter D. Little, Dept. of Anthropology, University of Kentucky and
Christopher B. Barrett, Dept. of Applied Economics and Management, Cornell University.
Collaborating Personnel:
United States
Dr. DeeVon Bailey. Professor, Department of Economics. Utah State University, Logan, Utah.
Dr. Christopher Barrett. Associate Professor, Department of Applied Economics and Management.
Cornell University, Ithaca, New York.
Dr. Paul Box. Assistant Professor, Department of Geography & Earth Resources. Utah State University,
Logan, Utah.
Dr. Layne Coppock. Associate Professor, Department of Rangeland Resources. Utah State University,
Logan, Utah.
Dr. Cheryl Doss, Director of Graduate Studies, International Relations Program.Yale University, New
Haven, Connecticut.
Dr. Peter Little. Professor, Department of Anthropology. University of Kentucky, Lexington, Kentucky.
Ethiopia
Dr. Simeon Ehui. Head, Livestock Policy Analysis Program. International Livestock Research Institute
(ILRI).
Dr. Gezahegn Ayele. Research Economist, Ethiopian Agricultural Research Organization (EARO).
Ms. Janet Paz Castillo. Project Development Officer, USAID Mission to Ethiopia.
Mr. Naseer Mohamed. Monitoring and Evaluation Specialist, USAID Mission to Ethiopia.
Ato Dadhi Amosha. Technical Expert and PARIMA Liaison, Oromia Agricultural Development Bureau
(OADB).
Mr. Steve McCarthy. Technical Expert, Volunteers in Cooperative Action (VOCA).
Dr. Tafesse Mesfin. Technical Expert, FARM Africa.
Dr. Fisseha Meketa. Senior Expert, Save the Children (SCF/USA).
Ato Sora Adi. Senior Expert, Borana Lowlands Pastoral Development Project (BLPDP/GTZ).
Ato Aliyu Hussen. Research Coordinator, Oromia Agricultural Development Bureau (OADB)
Wzo. Feleketch Lemecha. Senior Staff Member, Oromia Agricultural Development Bureau (OADB).
Kenya
Prof. Abdillahi Aboud. Associate Professor and Dean, Faculty of Environmental Studies and Natural
Resources (FESNARE), Egerton University.
Mr. Frank Lusenaka, Lecturer, Department of Natural Resources, Egerton University.
Dr. Jean Ndikumana, Team Leader, Crisis Mitigation Office (CMO), International Livestock Research
Institute (ILRI).
80
External Evaluation Panel Report 2002
Ms. Miriam Cherogony, Staff Member, K-REP Development Agency.
Ms. Allyce Kureiya, Staff Member, SNV-Isiolo.
Mr. Boru Halake, Staff Member, Arid Lands Resource Management Project (ALRMP).
Mr. Godana Doyo, Staff Member, Arid Lands Resource Management Project (ALRMP).
Dr. Francis Lelo, Senior Lecturer and Chairman, Department of Environmental Sciences, Egerton
University.
Prof. Dankit Nassiuma, Associate Professor and Director of Post-Graduate Studies, Egerton University.
Dr. William Shivoga, Senior Lecturer, Department of Environmental Sciences, Egerton University.
Dr. Daniel K. Too, Senior Lecturer and Chair, Department of Natural Resources, Egerton University.
Dr. P.K. Rono, Lecturer, Department of Sociology, Egerton University.
Dr. W.S.K. Wasike, Senior Lecturer and Chair, Department of Economics, Egerton University.
81
Appendix
ALLOCATIONS BY PROJECT
LDRCT: Integrated Tools for Livestock Development and Rangeland Conservation in Central Asia
POLEYC (formerly IMAS): Integrated Assessment of Pastoral-Wildlife Interactions in East Africa: Implications for People, Policy, Conservation and Development
LEWS: Early Warning System for Monitoring Livestock Nutrition and Health for Food Security of Humans in East Africa
PARIMA: Improving Pastoral Risk Management on East African Rangelands
PLAN: Community Planning for Sustainable Livestock-based Forested Ecosystems in Latin America (Spanish Title: Planificacion Local Agropecuaria y de la Naturaleza)
Projects 1996/1997 1997/1998 1998/1999 1999/2000 2000/2001 2001/2002 TOTAL
LDRCT $135,817 $401,423 $322,100 $300,000 $368,000 $368,000 $1,895,340
POLEYC/IMAS $117,678 $325,000 $350,000 $300,000 $137,500 $350,000 $1,580,178
LEWS $130,930 $353,000 $275,000 $300,000 $350,000 $350,000 $1,758,930
PARIMA $110,973 $325,000 $308,000 $328,418 $360,000 $350,000 $1,782,391
PLAN $104,655 $120,000 $100,000 $156,250 $350,000 $350,000 $1,180,905
LEWS/PARIMA $0 $0 $0 $0 $50,000 $50,000 $100,000
Subtotal: $600,053 $1,524,423 $1,355,100 $1,384,668 $1,615,500 $1,818,000 $8,297,744
82
External Evaluation Panel Report 2002
83
Appendix
GLOSSARY
A-AARNET ASARECA Animal Agriculture Research Network
AAU Addis Ababa University
ACT Almanac Characterization Tool
AFRNET African Feed Resources Network
AGRIS International Information System for the Agricultural Sciences and Technology,
FAO
AGROSIG Servicios Agro-Informaticos de Apolyo a la Planificacion para el Uso y Manejo de
los Recursos Naturales
AID Agency for International Development, Washington D.C., USA
AIGACAA Asociacion Integral de Ganadevos en Camelidos de los Andes Altos
ALIN Arid Lands Information Network
ALO Association Liaison Office for University Cooperation in Development
ALRMP Arid Lands Resource Management Project
ANPP Annual Net Primary Productivity
AP Animal Production
APEX Multi-crop simulation model
APROPAL Association of Producers of Las Palmas
ARC Agriculture Research Council
ARD Association for Rural Development
ASARECA Association for Strengthening Agricultural Research in Eastern and Central Africa
ASF Animal Source Foods
ASP Agrosilvopastoral
ASPADERUC Asociacion para el Dasarolla Rural de Cajamarca
AT Assessment Team
ATI Appropriate Technology International
84
External Evaluation Panel Report 2002
AVHRR Advanced Very High Resolution Radiometer
AWF American Wildlife Federation
BIFAD Board for International Food and Agriculture Development
BLUE Best Linear Unbiased Estimator
BPP National Rubber Research Institute, Indonesia
BPT Balai Penelitian Ternak, Bogor, Indonesia (Animal Husbandry Research Institute)
BR Bowen Ratio
BS Bachelor of Science degree
C Carbon
CA Central Asia
CAP Common Agricultural Policy
CAR Central Asian Republics
CARDI Caribbean Agricultural Research and Development Institute
CARE Cooperative for American Remittance to Europe, Inc.
CATIE Centro Agronomico Tropical de Investigacion y Ensenaza
CBE Commercial Bank of Ethiopia
CBPP Contagious Bovine Pleuropneumonia
CBSD Conservation Biology and Sustainable Development
CCD Convention to Combat Desertification (United Nations)
CCPP Contagious Caprine Pleuropneumonia
CDC Centro de Datos para la Conservacion
CEDEP Centro de Estudios para d’Oesarrollo y la Participacion
CER-DET Centro de Estudios Regionales para el Desarrollo de Tarija
CGIAR Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research
CHDC Child Health and Development Center
CIAT Centro Internacional de Agricultura Tropical
CIDICCO Centro Internacional de Informacion Sobre Cultivos de Cobertura
CIEC Centro Interdisciplinario de Estudios Comunitarios (Interdisciplinary Center for
Community Studies)
85
Appendix
CIESTAAM Center for Economic, Social, and Technology Research on World Agriculture and
Agribusiness
CIP Centro Internacional de la Papa - International Potato Center
CLAS-UMSS Centro de Levantamientos Aerospaciales y Aplicaciones de SIG
CMO Crisis Mitigation Office
CNA Confederacion Nacional Agropecuario
CNCPS Cornell Net Carbohydrate and Protein System
CNG Confederacion Nacional Ganadera
CNL Crocker Nuclear Laboratory
CONDESAN Consorcio para el Desarrollo Sostenible de la Ecoregion Andina
CORAF Conference de la Recherche Agronomique des Responsable Africains et Francais
CP Crude protein
CPV Capripox virus
CRES Center for Resource and Environmental Studies
CRIAS Coordinating Research Institute for Animal Science, Indonesia
CRSP Collaborative Research Support Program
CSIRO Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization
CSSG Center for Sheep Selection and Genetics
CSU Colorado State University
CT condensed tannins
CUCSUR Centro Universitario de la Costa Sur, Universidad de Guadalajara
CURLA Centro Universitario Regional del Litoral Atlantico
DANIDA Danish International Development Agency
DOM Digestible Organic Matter
DM Dry Matter
DPG Dual Purpose Goat
DPIRP Drought Preparedness Intervention and Recovery Program
DSS Decision Support System
EEC European Economic Community
86
External Evaluation Panel Report 2002
EEP External Evaluation Panel
EHNRI Ethiopian Health and Nutrition Research Institute
ELISA Enzyme linked immunosorbent assays
EMBRAPA Brazilian National Agency for Agricultural Research
ENNIV Peruvian Living Standards and Measurement Survey
ENSO El Nino and Southern Oscillation
EPG Eggs per Gram
EPIC Erosion Productivity Import Calculator
EU Edgerton University
EW Extension Worker
EWS Early Warning System
FA FARM Africa
FAO Food and Agriculture Organization, United Nations
FCC Fertility Capability Classification System
FD Full-day
FDC-PROSAT Fondo de Desarrollo Campesino -- Programa del Servicio y Assistencia Tecnica
FEWS Famine Early Warning System
FIA Fundacion Interamericana
FIRA Fideicomisos Instituidos en Relacion con la Agricultura
FISO Food Information System Unit
FLACSO Facultad Latinoamericana de Ciencias Sociales
FMD Foot and Mouth Disease
FOSS First in Food Analysis
FUNAN Fundacion Antisana
GAN Lab Grazingland Animal Nutrition Laboratory
GEF Global Environmental Facility (World Bank)
GIEWS Global Information and Early Warning System (FAO)
GIS Geographic Information System
GLCI Grazing Lands Conservation Initiative
87
Appendix
GO Government Organization
GPS Global Positioning Systems
GSE Greater Serengeti Ecosystem
GTZ Deutsche Gesellschaft für Technische Zusammenarbeit (German Agency for
Technical Cooperation)
ha Hectare
HPI Heifer Project International
HSPC Human Subject Protection Committee
IADB Inter-American Development Bank
IAE International Agricultural Economics
IAP-MU International Agriculture Programs - Missouri University
IAR Institute for Agricultral Research
IARC International Agricultural Research Center
IBTA Instituto Boliviano de Technologia Agropecuaria
ICA Instituto Colombiano Agropecuaria, Colombia
ICARDA International Centre for Agricultural Research in the Dry Areas
ICIMOD International Centre for Integrated Mountain Development
ICIPE International Centre of Insect Physiology and Ecology
ICRAF International Centre for Research on Agroforestry
ICRISAT International Crops Research Institute for the Semiarid Tropics
ICRW International Center for Research on Women
IDIAP Agricultural Research Institute of Panama
IDRC International Development Research Centre (Canada)
IEMUT French Tropical Veterinary Institute
IFAD International Fund for Agricultural Development
IFPRI International Food Policy Research Institute
IGADD International Governmental Authority on Drought and Development
IICA Interamerican Institute for Cooperation in Agriculture
IIML Integrated Information Management Laboratory
88
External Evaluation Panel Report 2002
IIN Instituto Investigacion Nutricional
ILRAD International Laboratory for Research on Animal Diseases
ILRI International Livestock Research Institute
IMAS Integrated Modeling and Assessment System
IMECBIO Instituto Manantlan de Ecologia y Conservation de la Biodeversidad
INCALAC Industria Cajamarquina de Lacteos
INCAP Instituto de Nutricion para Centro America y Panama
INEGI Instituto de Estadistica, Geografia e Informatica
INIA Instituto Nacional de Investigacion Agrarias
INIFAP Instituto Nacional de Investigaciones Forestales y Agropecuarios
IP2TP Installation for Research and Assessment of Agricultural Technology
IPB Bogor Agricultural University
ISLP Integrated Small Livestock Project
ISNAR International Service for National Agricultural Research
JAINA Comunidad de Estudios
JDA Joint Development Associates
JS Fundacion Jatun Sacha
KARI Kenya Agricultural Research Institute
KCB Kenya Commercial Bank
KDPG Kenya Dual Purpose Goat
KDRSRS Kenya Department of Resource Surveys and Remote Sensing
KEVEVAPI Kenya Veterinarian Vaccine Production Institute
kg kilogram
KLDP Kenya Livestock Development Program
KNP Katavi National Park
KRTISB Kazakh Research and Technological Institute of Sheep Breeding
Ksh Kenya Shilling
KUSCCO Kenya Union of Savings and Credit Cooperatives
KWS Kenya Wildlife Service
89
Appendix
KWVA Kenya Women’s Veterinary Association
KZ Kazakstan
LAC Latin American Countries
LAI Leaf Area Index
LDC Lesser Developed Country
LDRCT Livestock Development and Rangeland Conservation Tools (GL-CRSP Project)
LEWS Livestock Early Warning System
LGCA Loliondo Game Area
LINDA Livestock Information Network Development for the Americas
LPRI Livestock Production Research Institute
LS Livestock
LU Livestock Units
M Composite Population Sheep: 25% St. Croix, 25% Barbados Blackbelly, 50%
Sumatran Sheep
MALDM Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock Development and Marketing
MCF Malignant Catarrhal Fever
MDP Marsabit Development Project (GTZ)
ME Management Entity
MIAC MidAmerica International Agricultural Consortium
MOA Ministry of Agriculture
MoARD Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development
MOH Ministry of Health
MOU Memorandum of Understanding
MRC Mpala Research Center
MUCIA Midwest Universities Consortium for International Agriculture
NAARI Namulaonge Agricultural and Animal Production Research Institute
NAFTA North American Free Trade Agreement
NARO National Agricultural Research Organization
90
External Evaluation Panel Report 2002
NARS National Agricultural Research System
NCA Ngorongoro Conservation Area
NCAA Ngorongoro Conservation Area Authority
NCSU North Carolina State University
NDF Neutral detergent fiber
NDVI Normalized Difference Vegetation Indices
NES Nucleus Estate Smallholder
NFTA Nitrogen Fixing Tree Association
NGO Non-Governmental Organization
NIH National Institute for Health
NIRS Near Infrared Reflectance Spectroscopy
NIS Newly Independent States
NOAA National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration
NOVIB Counterpart International (Uzbek NGO)
NRC National Research Council
NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service
NREL Natural Resource Ecology Laboratory
NR Natural Resources
NSDV Nairobi Sheep Disease Virus
NSF National Science Foundation
NUTBAL Nutritional Balance Analyzer
OADB Oromia Agricultural Development Bureau
OAU Organization of African Unity
OCPB Oromia Cooperative Promotion Bureau
ODA Overseas Development Administration
ODI Overseas Development Institute
OFDA Office of Foreign Disaster Assistance
OMD Organic Matter Digestibility
OMI Organic Matter Intake
91
Appendix
OPC Ovine pulmonary carcinoma
OPMM Outreach Research Project at Membang Muda
OPP Outreach Pilot Project
OPS Outreach Project for the Sosa
ORP Outreach Research Project
OvLV Ovine lentivirus
PA Participatory Appraisal
PAC Program Advisory Committee
PAR Photosynthetic Active Radiation
PARIMA Pastoral Risk Management Project (GL-CRSP)
PCV Packed Cell Volume
PEM Protein-Energy Malnutrition
PENHA Pastoral and Environmental Network in the Horn of Africa
PHYGROW Plant Growth/Hydrology/Yield Simulation Models
PI Principal Investigator
PL480 Public Law No. 480
PLAN Planificacion Local Agropecuaria y de la Naturaleza (Spanish title for GL-CRSP
project: Community Planning for Sustainable Livestock-based Forested
Ecosystems in Latin America)
PM Problem Model
POLEYC Policy Optons for Livestock-based Livelihoods and Ecosystem Conservation
(formerly known as IMAS project)
PRA Participatory Rural Appraisals
PROMETA Proteccion del Medio Ambiente Tarija
PRR Proyecto de Reconstrucion Rural
PSICA Information System and Agricultural Census Project
PVO Public Volunteer Organization
RAINAT Research and Assessment Installation for Agricultural Technology
REDSO East African Region USAID
92
External Evaluation Panel Report 2002
RERUMEN Latin American Network of the Small Ruminant CRSP
RF Range Forage
RFA Request for Assistance
RFP Request for Proposals
RGR Rukwa Game Reserve
RH Relative Air Humidity
RIAP Research Institute for Animal Production, Bogor, Indonesia
RISPAL Latin American Network for Animal Production Systems Research, IDRC
RMSC Root Mean Square Corrected
RS Remote Sensing Technologies
RS Resident Scientist
RSG Ranching Systems Group
RVFV Rift Valley Fever Virus
S Sumatra Sheep
SA Small Animals
SACCAR Southern African Centre for Cooperation in Agricultural Research
SAGAR Secretaria de Agricultural, Ganaderia y Desarrollo Rural
SALTLICK Semi-Arid Lands Training and Livestock Improvement Centres of Kenya
SANREM Sustainable Agriculture and Natural Research Management CRSP
SARI Selian Agricultural Research Institute
SBPT Balai Penelitian Ternak, Sei Putih, Indonesia (Animal Husbandry Research
Institute)
SCT Spatial Characterization Tool
SE Socio-Economic
SEAD Servicios de Apoyo al Desarrollo
SECOFI Secreatria de Comercio
SEIR Susceptible, Exposed, Infected, and Removed
SEMARNAP Servicio Nacional del Medio Ambiente, Recursos Naturales y Pesca
SES Socio-economic Status
93
Appendix
SICA Proyecto Censo Agropecuario y Sistema de Informacion
SNIM Servicio Nacional de Informacion de Mercados
SORDU Southern Rangeland Development Unit
SPAN Strengthening Partnerships with National Agricultural Systems
SR-CRSP Small Ruminant Collaborative Research Support Program
SRNET Pan-African Small Ruminant Research Network
SRUPNA Small Ruminant Production Systems Network for Asia
TACIS Technical Assistance to the Commonwealth of Independent States
TANAPA Tanzania National Parks
TAMU Texas A&M University
TCP Technical Cooperative Program (FAO’s assistance Program)
TE Terraneuva
TK Turkmenistan
TNC The Nature Conservatory
TT Technology Transfer
UACh Autonomous University of Chapingo
UCD University of California, Davis
UCR University of Costa Rica
UCV Universidad Central de Venezuela, Maracay
UMC University of Missouri-Columbia
UN University of Nairobi
UNALM Universidad Nacional Agraria La Molina
UNAM Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico
UNDOS United Nations Development Office for Somalia
UNDP United Nations Development Program
UNICEF United Nations Children’s Fund
UNMSM Universidad Nacional Mayor de San Marcos
URIMR Uzbek Research Institute of Market Reform
US United States
94
External Evaluation Panel Report 2002
USAID United States Agency for International Development
USAMRID United States Army Medical Research Inst. of Infectious Disease
USDA United States Department of Agriculture
USGS United States Geological Survey
USU Utah State University
UT Utah
UW University of Wisconsin
UWI University of West Indies
VOCA Volunteers in Overseas Cooperative Assistance
WAICENT World Agricultural Information Center
WAN Wide Area Network
WB World Bank
WHO World Health Organization
WKO West Kazakhstan Oblast
WMO World Meterological Organization
WSU Washington State University
WI Winrock International Institute for Agricultural Development
WILD Women in Livestock Development
WINS Women Infant Nutrition Support
Wsoil Soil Moisture
WTO World Trade Organization
WWF World Wildlife Fund
ZONISIG Proyecto Zonification Agro-ecologica y Establecimients de una Base de Datos y
Red de Sistema de Informacion