BASIS CRSP External
Evaluation Panel Report,
1999
May 2000
BASIS CRSP External Evaluation
Panel Report, 1999
Broadening Access and Strengthening Input Market Systems
Provided by the BASIS Management Entity
The Land Tenure Center
1357 University Ave.
Madison, WI 53715
Tel: (608) 262-3657
Fax: (608) 262-2141
Email: basis-me@facstaff.wisc.edu
http://www.wisc.edu/ltc/basis.html
May 2000
ii
This publication was made possible through support provided by the US
Agency for International Development (USAID), under the terms of Grant
No. LAG-A-00-96-90016-00.
All views, interpretations, recommendations, and conclusions expressed in
this report are those of the external evaluators and not necessarily those of
the supporting or cooperating institutions. This report has been formatted to
conform with the BASIS Reports series but the contents have not been
edited.
Produced on behalf of the Consortium for Applied Research on Market Access (CARMA) by the
BASIS Management Entity, the Land Tenure Center, University of Wisconsin–Madison.
CARMA members. Department of Agricultural and Applied Economics, University of
Wisconsin–Madison; Harvard Institute for International Development (HIID); Institute for
Development Anthropology (IDA); Institutional Reform and the Informal Sector (IRIS),
University of Maryland; International Center for Research on Women (ICRW); International
Resource Group (IRG); Land Tenure Center (LTC), University of Wisconsin–Madison; Land
Tenure Service, Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO); Lincoln Institute of Land Policy;
Michigan State University (MSU); Rural Development Institute (RDI); Rural Finance Program,
the Ohio State University (OSU); Tuskegee University; Winrock Associates; Workshop in
Political Theory and Policy Analysis, Indiana University (IU); World Council of Credit Unions
(WOCCU).
Host-country institutions collaborating with CARMA. Central America: Fundación Dr.
Guillermo Manuel Ungo (FUNDAUNGO); Fundación para el Desarrollo Económico (FUNDE);
Fundación Salvadoreña para el Desarrollo Económico y Social (FUSADES); Universidad Centro
Americana (UCA). Central Asia: Cabinet of Ministers of the Uzbek Republic; Ministry of
Agriculture and Management (Uzbekistan); Scriabin Agricultural Academy (Kyrgyzstan);
Tashkent Institute of Irrigation and Agricultural Mechanization Engineers (TIIAME); Uzbek
Research Institute for Market Reform (URIRM); Uzbek Scientific-Production Center of
Agriculture. Greater Horn of Africa: African Centre for Technology Studies (ACTS); Institute of
Development Research (IDR), Addis Ababa University; Organization for Social Science
Research in Eastern and Southern Africa (OSSREA); Tegemeo Institute of Agricultural Policy
and Development of Egerton University. Southern Africa: Centre for Applied Social Science,
University of Zimbabwe; Centre for Social Research, University of Malawi; Institute of Natural
Resources (INR), University of Natal; Núcleo de Estudos da Terra (NET), Eduardo Mondlane
University; Programme for Land and Agrarian Studies (PLAS), University of Western Cape.
iii
Contents
Page
FOREWORD V
I. ROLE OF EXTERNAL EVALUATION PANEL 1
A. Purpose 1
B. Previous Evaluation 1
C. Current Evaluation Process 1
D. Regional Site Visit Schedule 1
II. MISSION AND PURPOSE OF THE BASIS CRSP 3
III. 1998 BASIS CRSP EVALUATION UPDATE 5
IV. SUMMARY OF INDIVIDUAL PROGRAM ASSESSMENTS 7
A. El Salvador 7
B. Nicaragua 8
C. Horn of Africa 8
D. Southern Africa—Zimbabwe, Malawi, Mozambique (Water Program) 10
E. Southern Africa—Zimbabwe, South Africa, Namibia (Land Program) 11
V. OVERALL EVALUATIONS AND FINDINGS 13
VI. RECOMMENDATIONS 15
ANNEXES: BASIS CRSP FIELD EVALUATION REPORTS 17
ANNEX I: EL SALVADOR PROJECT 19
A. Overview 19
B. Research Progress 19
C. Status 22
D. Specific Recommendations and Suggested Timeline 26
E. Appendix: Evaluation Process and Listing of Interviews 28
ANNEX II: NICARAGUA PROJECT 31
A. Overview 31
B. Research Progress 32
C. Status 33
D. List of Interviews, Description of Evaluation Process 36
ANNEX III: GREATER HORN OF AFRICA REGIONAL PROGRAM 37
A. Overview 37
B. Research Progress 38
C. Status 43
D. Recommendations and Issues to Consider 47
E. Appendix 50
ANNEX IV: BROADENING ACCESS TO WATER RESOURCES IN SOUTHERN AFRICA 51
A. Overview 51
B. Research Progress 52
iv
C. Approaches or Methodologies 54
D. Impact Indicators 56
E. Status 57
F. Specific Recommendations 60
G. Appendix 63
H. Listing of interviews, description of the evaluation process 64
ANNEX V: BROADENING ACCESS TO LAND MARKETS IN SOUTHERN AFRICA 65
A. Overview 65
B. Research Progress 66
C. Progress Relative to Workplans—Namibia 66
D. Progress Relative to Workplans—South Africa 68
E. Status 70
F. Specific Recommendations 72
G. List of Interviews, Description of the Evaluation Process 73
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Comparing progress relative to workplans—Nicaragua 32
Table 2: Comparing progress relative to workplans—Horn of Africa 38
Table 3: Comparing progress relative to workplans—Southern Africa 52
Table 4: Comparing progress relative to workplans—Namibia 66
Table 5: Comparing progress relative to workplans—South Africa 68
v
FOREWORD
In the final analysis, people are what matter. The underlying objective of the BASIS CRSP is to
improve lives via research activities which relate to issues that impact the basic quality of life. It
is for this reason that the members of the External Evaluation Panel committed to undertake this
evaluation process.
The Members of the External Evaluation Panel are as follows:
• David Abler, Professor, Department of Agricultural Economics, Pennsylvania State
University
• Elizabeth Dunn, Assistant Professor, Department of Agricultural Economics, University of
Missouri-Columbia
• Allen Featherstone, Professor, Department of Agricultural Economics, Kansas State
University
• Angelique Haugerud, Associate Professor, Department of Anthropology, Rutgers University
• Chair, B. Jean Ruley Kearns, Professor, University of Arizona, and Executive Director
Consortium for International Development
The efforts which were expanded in order to prepare this evaluation report were objective,
honest, and performed in order to provide assistance to the BASIS CRSP and to USAID. In a
work of this size and magnitude, there must be mistakes, typos, misspeaks, but such mistakes
should be viewed as inadvertent and, we hope, do not impact the value of the document.
The conclusion, findings, and recommendations in this evaluation are based on data current at
the time that each field visit was performed. Progress or changes may have taken place after the
field visits and that possibility should be taken into consideration when reviewing this
evaluation.
It is important to note that one regional program did not receive a field visit. Namely, the
Southern Africa Water Program (Zimbabwe/Malawi/Mozambique) was evaluated without a site
visit due to an emergency medical problem by the EEP Member (Kearns) scheduled to make the
visit. Due to timing constraints it was agreed that the Southern Africa Water Program would be
evaluated based on a desk review relying basically on document/report reviews and input from
the Principal Investigator for the program. It was further agreed that in order to present a
complete evaluation of the Southern Africa Water Program that an EEP member will conduct a
site visit to the area later in the year. After the site visit the present Evaluation Report will be
revised to reflect the information acquired through the site visit.
Finally, the Panel thanks the Principal Investigators:
• Michael Carter, Principal Investigator, Land Market Liberalization Project in Central
America
• Claudio Gonzalez-Vega, Principal Investigator, El Salvador
• Peter Little, Research Program Leader, Greater Horn of Africa Region
• Pauline Peters, Research Program Leader, Southern Africa Region
Their input and assistance with the data analysis is greatly appreciated. The staff of the
Management Entity led by Dr. Mike Roth and including Danielle Hartmann, Kurt Brown,
vi
Marsha Cannon, Patty Grubb, Carole Karsten, and Tara Roffler are thanked and sincere
appreciation is hereby expressed for their hard work. Frankly, without their good-natured support
the field trips could not have been planned or implemented. Even more important relative to this
evaluation process, the ME staff and Sara Herpolsheimer are thanked for generating and
distributing project documents and for typing, formatting, and preparing this report.
B. Jean Ruley Kearns
BASIS CRSP EEP Chair
I. ROLE OF EXTERNAL EVALUATION PANEL
A. PURPOSE
According to the USAID CRSP guidelines, an External Evaluation Panel (EEP) is to be part of
each CRSP. The responsibility of the EEP is to evaluate the status, funding, progress, plans, and
prospects of the CRSP research program, and to make recommendations about that program. The
EEP is to play a strong role in judging the balance of a CRSP and relevance of each project
activity to the overall program goals. The Panel should evaluate the performance and
productivity of each institution involved on each project annually and assess the appropriateness
of planned resource allocation.
The objective views and expertise of the EEP is a critical part of the balance which must exist
between possible conflicting but natural institutional biases which may be part of the CRSP. It is
important for the EEP members to learn as much about the work of the CRSP as possible.
B. PREVIOUS EVALUATION
The first EEP evaluation of the BASIS CRSP was conducted in August 1998 by Panel members
Dr. Sara Berry and Dr. Jean Ruley Kearns. The 1998 evaluation reviewed activities of the CRSP
for the period of 1996-1998. Reference is made to the 1998 report in Section III.
C. CURRENT EVALUATION PROCESS
The present evaluation had as its primary goal to assess the CRSP activity based on a multi-year
perspective. In addition to reviewing documents and reports, the EEP members interviewed
relevant personnel. However, the backbone of the present evaluation was the series of regional
site visits. The purpose of the site visits was to observe the BASIS research work firsthand and to
interview the researchers, donors, and local officials at each research site.
The Panel met in early January 2000 to discuss the evaluation process and to determine
scheduling and the reporting timetable. Details relative to the overall CRSP program were
discussed and documents were reviewed. Following the January meeting, Panel members
implemented the site visits and completed the reporting process.
D. REGIONAL SITE VISIT SCHEDULE
The Panel members conducted the following site visits (see the Annexes for site visit reports).
Central America:
• David Abler, Nicaragua, February 1-4, 2000
• Elizabeth Dunn, El Salvador, March 20-24, 2000
Southern Africa:
• Allen Featherstone, South Africa/Namibia, March 4-12, 2000
2
• Jean Kearns, Zimbabwe/Malawi/Mozambique. (This site visit did not take place. A desk
evaluation was conducted by Jean Kearns and Angelique Haugerud. A site visit to the area is
planned for later in 2000)
Horn of Africa:
• Jean Kearns, Ethiopia, November 1-6, 1999, in conjunction with the Horn of Africa Regional
Workshop: Agricultural Policy, Resource Access and Human Nutrition
3
II. MISSION AND PURPOSE OF THE BASIS CRSP
In September 1996, USAID awarded the Broadening Access and Strengthening Input Market
Systems (BASIS) Collaborative Research Support Program (CRSP) to the University of
Wisconsin–Madison’s Land Tenure Center, of the Consortium for Applied Research on Market
Access (CARMA).
The BASIS CRSP was designed to conduct collaborative research and training on ways to
improve access to and efficiency of land, water, labor, and financial markets in Africa, Eastern
Europe and Eurasia, and Latin America. In support of USAID’s Center for Economic Growth
and Agricultural Development, Office of Agriculture and Food Security, the BASIS CRSP seeks
to:
• improve access to and allocation of land, water, labor and financial resources to enhance food
security, economic growth and sustainable resource management
• strengthen partnership through collaborative research, training and capacity building
• enable or promote policy and program interventions through effective synthesis, training,
communication, and research dissemination
Through its regional study of market access and through the application of global lessons,
BASIS research aims to stimulate economic and agrarian growth in developing countries leading
to more effective access and use of resources, particularly for the poor.
BASIS is organized around certain policy problems: market liberalization without growth and/or
with widening income disparity; economic growth that is biased by gender, ethnic, racial, or
other social difference; constraints of management and institutional innovation.
Priorities for research are achieved through collaboration with professionals in the regions where
BASIS research and training take place. BASIS emphasizes collaborative research, training and
capacity building.
BASIS focuses on applied, policy-relevant research. It implements its programs through
collaborative and jointly-designed programs of research between U.S. and host country
counterparts, including researchers, policymakers and community-based organizations.
4
5
III. 1998 BASIS CRSP EVALUATION UPDATE
EEP Recommendation Status (as of April 2000)
Research Framework:
Clarify research objectives, especially in the
areas of:
• institutional change In progress
• research capacity building In progress
Specify themes for comparison across
regional programs (star diagram)
Approach to Rural Development created
Determine if and when to drop a program Policy established
The results as currently stated in the proposals
are weak. Specify long-term (5-year) results
anticipated and shorter-term (1- year)
intermediate results.
Approach to Rural Development created. Efforts are
being made to encourage more results oriented
reporting, specifically in the Activities Report,
summarizing worked accomplished.
Make link between BASIS objectives and
USAID objectives more clear and explicit.
Approach to Rural Development created
Demonstrate CRSP contributions to
country/regional mission objectives in
agriculture and non-agriculture related areas.
In progress
RPLs should provide information regarding
institutionalization in their Annual Activity
reports.
See Third Annual Report
Make explicit the institutional constraints on
and contributions to factor market access and
document changes in volume and distribution
of factor market transactions in estimating
their effects on output, productivity, and
income. State what type of information will be
collected
Indicators identified in Approach to Rural
Development
Research Management:
Determine TC leadership, role and
responsibilities of TC
Policy formalized
Determine role and responsibilities of RPLs v.
PIs.
Role drafted
6
IQCs:
Establish guidelines for decision making for
CRSP and IQC relationship
Attempted, CRSP and IQC Liaison Guidelines
drafted
Develop management structure to work with
IQC/CRSP relationship
Attempted, CRSP and IQC Liaison Guidelines
drafted
Financial:
Review other donor possibilities with BOD
and prioritize funding possibilities for RPLs.
Approach?
Targeted possible donors in regions where BASIS is
active.
Consider preparing high and low budget
proposals for USAID review
Program director has resisted further complicating
the budget process by instituting high-low ranking
system. Instead, implemented ranking of activities
and clearly identifying which sub-activities
correspond with which budget line items so that
changes can address budget fluctuations more
accurately.
Communication/Publication:
Increase collaboration/cooperation among
CARMA members, especially through
communication. Suggestions?
The ME has maintained its support of a full-time
Program Coordinator to assist in addressing this
issue. In addition, the ME has increased resource,
where possible to outreach activities. Specific
changes have been implemented including: web-first
outputs policy and monthly digest
Establish guidelines for communication with
USAID country and regional missions:
publications, email, face-to-face meetings,
visits to DC, outreach, results framework.
In progress. All Missions in countries where BASIS
is active receive the Annual Report. When BASIS
researchers are travelling in country, the Mission is
contacted and a briefing is offered regarding the
status of the project.
Develop procedure/guidelines for
communication with USAID Program Officer
No formal guidelines have been established, but the
ME is in frequent communication with the Program
Officer and more frequent trips have been made to
Washington, DC for face-to-face meetings.
Evaluate publications: to whom? How should
be published? Web or hard copy?
In progress
7
IV. SUMMARY OF INDIVIDUAL PROGRAM ASSESSMENTS
This section provides a summary of the site visits conducted by EEP members and the resulting
recommendations of the EEP. Complete Field Evaluation Reports are included as Annexes to
this report. Please refer to these Field Reports for further explanation and detail of the research
projects and recommendations.
A. EL SALVADOR
1. Status
The BASIS CRSP program in El Salvador, established in 1997, focuses on the interaction of
land, labor, and financial markets and their impact on poverty and resource conservation. The
research analyzes the performance of these markets in an effort to increase access of the poor to
factor markets and sustainable livelihoods. In addition, the research agenda seeks to explain the
dynamics of poverty and causes of resource degradation on hillsides. Work on innovation in
rural lending strategies seeks to broaden access to financial services by the rural poor.
The program in El Salvador has been a model of collaborative relationships, information and
capacity building, and policy influence. It has improved the skills of local researchers, created a
unique and valuable data set, and has the potential to generate results that are regionally relevant
and can contribute strongly to global synthesis of the BASIS findings. The BASIS El Salvador
program has also enjoyed strong support from the USAID/El Salvador mission and the
government of El Salvador, and has catalyzed a national focus on rural poverty.
There are several important features of this project. The bi-annual rural household data set is the
first of its kind in El Salvador. The collaborators come from a broad range of ideological
backgrounds, with the BASIS CRSP project being the first time that they have ever worked
together. The research is helping to focus national public attention on the issue of poverty.
As a great deal of data is being collected, greater attention is needed on disseminating the
information so that others can benefit from its availability. This will be an on-going process, but
to ensure that momentum is continued and that the current policy focus is maintained, innovative
tools for disseminating research findings are necessary.
2. Recommendations
• Provide contractual incentives for timely reporting.
• Post the Salvadoran studies on the BASIS website.
• Clarify and strengthen linkages between the CRSP and the IQC.
• Make panel data and documentation publicly accessible.
• Strengthen role of non-FUSADES local collaborators.
• Increase opportunities for technical advising.
• Formalize knowledge transfer.
8
• Find innovative tools for disseminating research findings.
• Build smooth transition at USAID/El Salvador.
• Continue collection and refinement of the panel data.
• Maintain the current policy focus.
B. NICARAGUA
1. Status
During the past 10 years Latin American countries have implemented sweeping policy reforms that
have led to the emergence of economic systems based on market orientation, openness, and
competitiveness. A remarkable feature of these historically significant events is that they have taken
place under democratic rule in virtually every country in the region. Honduras, Mexico, and
Nicaragua have all undergone major reforms that have markedly reshaped the system of property
rights regulating use, ownership, and transferability of rural land.
This research project supported by both the World Bank and the BASIS CRSP investigates how
recent market-friendly reforms in these three countries have affected the lives of the rural poor. The
research will determine if liberalized rural property rights and factor markets enhance income, land
access and accumulation potential of the poor while promoting more efficient resource allocation.
The Nicaragua component of the project is the first to be implemented in January 2000. In
Nicaragua, BASIS is collaborating with the Fundación Internacional para El Desafío Económico
Global (FIDEG), the Nicaraguan Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry (MAG), and the World
Bank on a nationwide farm household survey. The purpose of the survey is to shed light on the
impacts of land titling in Nicaragua, on access to credit by members of farm households,
particularly women, and on the degree to which farm households require access to credit in order
to be able to take advantage of the benefits of land titling.
As the project has so recently been implemented, the EEP evaluation is timely to help ensure that
plans are set for future results to be useful.
2. Recommendations
• Make plans now for seminars to disseminate the survey findings.
• Make plans now for a report on the survey findings.
• Bear in mind certain caveats as the survey data are analyzed.
C. HORN OF AFRICA
1. Status
The Greater Horn of Africa–Ethiopia in particular–is one of the most food-deprived regions of
the world. The BASIS Horn of Africa program, the largest program of the CRSP, seeks to
identify ways to improve food availability and nutrition in the region and broaden access by the
9
poor and socially disadvantaged to factor markets and sustainable resources through multiple
projects.
The core activity, “From Household to Region: Factor Market Constraints to Income and Food
Security in a Highly Diverse Environment–South Wollo, Ethiopia” is a five-year, integrated
study of the social and economic causes of food insecurity at intrahousehold, household,
community, and regional levels in South Wollo, Ethiopia. The activity addresses critical
questions of rural output and factor markets, on the one hand, and the dynamics of household
access to farm and non-farm incomes (“entitlement”), on the other.
The Cross-Border Trade study is a two-year study of regional cross-border trade (livestock and
grain) and food security. It is the first systematic study of the topic in the region. BASIS research
aims to inform policymakers about the importance of cross-border trade for regional economic
development and food security, and to reduce constraints on cross-border trade in one key
commodity−livestock−in the region.
BASIS undertook the case study research in “Linking Agriculture to Human Nutrition: A
Gender-Based Analysis of Institutional Initiatives and Experiences,” to shed light on how
institutions use integrated approaches to improve household food security. Researchers study 13
projects in Ethiopia, Kenya, Tanzania and Uganda to determine factors that make their respective
approaches work and why.
Through support from USAID/REDSO, a 3-day regional workshop, “Agricultural Policy,
Resource Access and Human Nutrition” was scheduled for November 3-5, 1999 in Addis Ababa,
Ethiopia. The purpose of the workshop was to begin a productive dialogue, to provide a forum to
share ideas and experiences on linkages between agricultural policy, resource access and the
nutritional status of poor and vulnerable groups in the Horn of Africa region. The workshop also
was an ideal time for the EEP member to travel to the region to meet many of the researchers
who came together in one location.
With the exception of a couple of activities, all of the activities appear to be on schedule. The
delays are due to border conflicts and the war. Recent famine will impact the work of the project
but the information on which this assessment was based occurred prior to the 2000 famine.
2. Recommendations
• The need for publication of results and/or methodologies is urgent. Research needs to be
published in a timely basis.
• Multi-year workplans should be prepared for multi-year programs. Updates on an annual
basis should be required but full annual workplans for multi-year programs utilizes time
which may be better used elsewhere.
Thematic conferences relative to cross regional work should be proposed to focus on “lessons
learned” as well as broader research topics.
• It is important to encourage the involvement of non-CRSP groups in joint funding situations
whenever possible.
• It is important that the African and U.S. researchers operate in a full partnership. It is
recommended that the Program Leader continue his open and cooperative work which is the
basis for the researchers’ relationship.
10
• BASIS publications should be distributed to the African researchers with enough copies so
that at least one could be filed in a relevant library.
• Non-gender-specific research activities should be examined in the planning stage and gender
(BASIS crosscutting theme) issues should be incorporated as relevant.
• BASIS research related to the pastoralists should be synthesized so as to develop a series of
recommendations for policy development.
• BASIS standing groups (Technical Committee, Board, etc.) should be scheduled a year in
advance in order to foster planning and linkages with other groups.
• Consideration should be given to restructuring Technical Committee meetings.
It is important to assure that information about BASIS be made available to USAID officers and
missions on a timely basis which meets the needs of their schedules.
D. SOUTHERN AFRICA—ZIMBABWE, MALAWI, MOZAMBIQUE (WATER PROGRAM)
1. Status
Involving Zimbabwe, Mozambique, and Malawi, the water resources project is designed to
inform policy on water resource management–particularly decentralized management systems–in
the context of ongoing water sector reform in all three countries and in the region as a whole.
The research examines current patterns of water management in contexts where water is an
exceedingly scarce resource and where there is increasing competition over its use and control.
Each country participating in the Southern Africa water project is involved in national level
reforms to establish new policies, procedures, and decentralized management structures for water
resources. Access to water is highly constrained in the region and projected to become even more
so in the coming decades. An important element in the BASIS research on water resources is to
identify and consult with key groups or categories of water users and rights holders who have an
interest in and/or will be affected by policy change.
The work proposed by the project for FY2000 includes the following:
The Malawi water project FY2000 workplan proposes to finalize agency agreements in Chilwa
basin, survey users, assess quantity and quality of water used, and analyze cases of competitive
use and conflict over water.
The Mozambique water project FY2000 workplan proposes to select a sample of various
categories of users, train assistants, survey users, evaluate conflicts and conflict resolution, and
analyze policies.
The Zimbabwe water program FY2000 workplan proposes to interview policy-makers and
implementers of reform; review policy documents; train assistants in database management; and
conduct studies of use and impacts of reform to identify access by the disadvantaged to
resources, factor markets, food security, and livelihoods.
The project has managed to continue through the crisis situation in Southern Africa. Continued
progress in Zimbabwe may be questionable at least during the upcoming few months due to
travel advisories by the British Government and travel warnings by the government of the U.S.A.
11
As the conflict in the area becomes more widespread and since some of the basic reasons for the
conflict (land and water) relate directly to the project, research progress may be very difficult.
2. Recommendations
• A U.S. PI has not yet been designated to work with the Mozambican team and the adequacy
of this situation needs to be examined during the upcoming site visit.
• Disbursing funds in the area has been a problem. If possible, this issue should be addressed.
• Communication problems of a hardware nature is a problem in the area.
• The lack of trained personnel at all levels is a common problem in most of the area. Training
needs to happen but BASIS does not have the necessary funding to complete the training
needed.
• It is important to encourage and support collaborative research, exchange and information
sharing across country borders.
• It would be beneficial to both Southern African students and to U.S. students to increase their
involvement in the research program.
• Strategy relative to the restraining funding issue must be addressed soon.
E. SOUTHERN AFRICA—ZIMBABWE, SOUTH AFRICA, NAMIBIA (LAND PROGRAM)
1. Status
The goal of the Southern Africa land project is to inform policy recommendations aimed at
broadening access to land markets and encouraging sustainable use of farmland acquired by
disadvantaged people in South Africa, Namibia, and Zimbabwe. The ultimate aim is to evaluate
the various means by which farmland is transferred and ultimately used with a specific focus on
the well being of disadvantaged people. Specifically, the rate at which farmland is
redistributed—both as a result of private transactions and public land reform programs—in
selected regions of each country is being examined. In addition, the relationships between land
tenure, managerial arrangements, farm and household characteristics, access to credit, investment
in agriculture, land use and rural livelihoods on redistributed farmland are important components
of the data collection and analysis.
Another objective was to develop local research capacity in the process of the completion of the
BASIS research. The proposed research is to span a period of five years with annual census
surveys of farmland transactions, sample surveys of households using redistributed farmland,
and a series of workshops and reports to refine methodology and reports to refine methodology
and disseminate findings. The long-term approach should allow local researchers to become
more proficient in research collection and analysis.
In South Africa, several schemes for land reform ranging from those that are heavily
government-driven to those which are heavily private sector-driven are in close proximity
providing an ideal climate for comparative analysis. In Namibia and Zimbabwe, the issues are no
less acute but are more difficult in that basic data on exact ownership patterns and how those
ownership patterns are changing are unavailable. Thus, BASIS researchers in Namibia and
12
Zimbabwe needed to do much more preliminary work before the ultimate goals of the research
stated above could be achieved.
2. Recommendations
• More research opportunity exists than researcher effort available. Therefore it is suggested
that creative mechanisms be developed for linking potential researchers (U.S. or non-U.S.
students) with available projects.
• In general, the use of common methods across countries is to be encouraged to increase
comparability. However, the partners were not on an equal footing going into the project,
thus, progress was not made at the same rate. Therefore, the common methodology is
probably a little too rigid to work well. In addition, funds were not available to allow
common methodology to develop given the status of electronic communications.
• There needs to be a distinction between deductive versus inductive collaboration. A more
inductive type of approach probably needs to be followed at this point for Southern Africa
given the funding base.
• It is also imperative to provide more lead-time to adjust to structural changes in renewals.
13
V. OVERALL EVALUATIONS AND FINDINGS
A number of strengths and accomplishments can be gleaned from the evaluations of individual
activities currently supported by BASIS:
1. The BASIS CRSP by its 4th year of operations has implemented research programs in four
regions, is managing add-ons totaling +/- $650,000 in year four, has cumulatively to date
incorporated more that 50 organizations in BASIS funded research programs, and has
engaged researchers in a broad network of collaboration and partnership.
2. BASIS programs are employing innovative methodologies. In El Salvador, Nicaragua and
the Horn of Africa, longitudinal surveys are tracking paths that individual households follow
in and out of poverty. Research in all sites spans a wide range of ideological backgrounds
and disciplines. Research in El Salvador, the Horn of Africa and Namibia is linking data
collection with GPS coordinates that are utilizing state of the art spatial analysis.
3. BASIS programs have been successful in connecting with USAID mission and regional
bureaus, particularly for work on poverty in El Salvador, land reform in Zimbabwe, and food
security in Ethiopia and the Horn of Africa. The number of add-ons obtained to date validates
evidence that BASIS research is demand driven. However, USAID missions have also
indicated vocal support for the BASIS CRSP (for example, Mary Ott’s presentation on
Poverty in El Salvador to the USAID Administrator based on BASIS data).
4. BASIS programs are contributing to policymaking. In El Salvador, FUSADES has given
presentations of BASIS results to economics and social cabinet ministers in El Salvador and
the Central Bank. Water research in Southern Africa is linking with the National Water
Authority and the Water Resources Management Group in Zimbabwe, and the Lake Chilwa
Project in Malawi.
BASIS programs have been successful in enabling collaboration and strengthening capacity of
host country researchers and their counterpart organizations including inter alia FIDEG in
Nicaragua, FUSADES in El Salvador, CSR in Malawi, NET in Mozambique, CASS in
Zimbabwe, the IDR in Ethiopia, and OSSREA for the Horn of Africa region.
Nevertheless, there are also a number of problems and constraints that are affecting the technical
mission of the CRSP:
1. Capacity constraints. Both the Horn of Africa and Southern Africa report serious capacity
constraints including problems reporting finances and disbursing funds in Ethiopia, turnover
of key personnel in Southern Africa, lack of a US principal investigator in the Mozambique
program, and time lost when researchers are hired as consultants on other projects.
2. Training. Although BASIS has done good job strengthening capacity through support of host
country researchers in hands-on-training, workshops, conferences, and visiting scholarships
to the US, the level of formal training is relatively low due principally to funding constraints.
There are notable exceptions–the training of one graduate student from El Salvador at OSU
and the training of young students in the water program in Mozambique, but such efforts are
not sufficient to address the capacity constraints affecting the region.
14
3. Impacts. While most site visits report good progress in identifying and reporting results, the
articulation, measurement and monitoring of impact indicators across program activities
remains underdeveloped.
4. Overall benefits to the US. The site evaluations note how the US has economic, political and
humanitarian interests in enhancing growth and reducing poverty in Nicaragua and Southern
Africa. The site evaluations also underscore the global importance of land reform in Southern
Africa, land titling in Nicaragua, and the applicability of the water research in Southern
Africa for the arid areas of the US west. However, research has not reached the point of
documenting or measuring these impacts. Overall, the factor market focus of the BASIS
CRSP makes it more difficult to identify US benefits as directly as under the commodity
CRSPs.
Cross Cutting themes. The crosscutting themes of gender, market integration and risk are being
addressed to varying degrees in most sites, but work is not being carried out on synthesis, and
crosscutting work in certain programs (the Horn of Africa) is weak.
Generally, the BASIS CRSP is progressing well. The research is moving forward in spite of
limited resources, host country disasters, limited support staff in the host countries, and a slower
than planned implementation. The strengths of the BASIS work lies in the involvement of
excellent researchers, assistance of supporting institutions, meaningful linkages with non-U.S.
institutions/researchers, and responsive management procedures.
The first five years of BASIS have contained many lessons which will be extremely useful as the
program goes into the second phase.
15
VI. RECOMMENDATIONS
Synthesis: At this stage in the CRSP the synthesis work should be well underway. Currently the
basic problems relative to preparing a synthesis series are (1) lack of leadership (two synthesis
directors have resigned), and (2) there is still a lack of agreement between the BASIS CRSP and
USAID on the scope and meaning of synthesis. The result is that a synthesis plan has not been
fully formulated. The need to finalize a synthesis plan of work is immediate and the principals
relative to this process are urged to reach agreement on this important issue.
Efforts have been made to synthesize the data (Labor Markets and Employment Strategies by
Peter Little; Financial Markets and the Peri-Urban Economy in Maputo, Banjul and Accra by
Douglas Graham; From Administrative Allocations to Commercial Land Transactions: Factor
Market Constraints to Economic Growth in Three Peri-Urban Household Economies, by Michael
Roth), but more is needed. In addition, the synthesis process must be overarching and should
incorporate all aspects of the CRSP.
Reporting: A very useful procedural document prepared by the Management Entity and
distributed to the researchers is the BASIS Reporting Calendar with Due Dates (undated). This
document contains Reporting Guidelines, Workplan Guidelines, Annual Budget Guidelines,
Reporting Guidelines and Proposal Guidelines. These procedures are detailed, well developed
with due dates and relevant information.
The only recommendation about this document is one related to enhancement as the basic
document is well done and should be continued. The recommendations are (1) add date (month
and year) of distribution to the document, and (2) include wording which relates to crosscutting
themes and directions for policymakers in sections related to workplans and reporting.
Cross-cutting themes: The value of crosscutting themes has been articulated in various BASIS
reports and meetings. However, the adaptation of such themes is not readily apparent in the
workplans presented by the regional plans. In some of the workplans certain topics are clearly
identified as crosscutting themes (see Southern Africa) while in others, only the central research
themes are listed (see Central America). In order for attention to be given to the crosscutting
themes, then, there should be agreement and understanding among the researchers on the content
of these themes, identification and agreement relative to a work approach and standardized
reporting on the research accomplished in areas related to the themes.
One BASIS report which related to crosscutting themes was entitled Improving Household Food
Security, by Charlotte Johnson-Welch et al., March 2000. While the information presented in the
report was valuable, the conclusions and recommendations were framed too broadly to be of
specific value to policymakers. A recommended subsequent follow-on needed relative to this
report is a concise paper with specific recommended actions including phases, timing, and
responsibilities with special emphasis on cross-sectoral actions.
In addition to developing research themes, the overall purpose of BASIS is to develop
crosscutting issues. In order to assure that the work performed on these themes and issues are
meaningful, a planned process of synthesis must be implemented. Specifically, the lessons
learned and research findings which can be transferable must be distilled and presented in a
synthesis document. Suggestions as to the theme presentations should be explored. Such a report
would be most useful to USAID as well as other donors and government units. The importance
16
of such a report or reports to countries in emergency status (or recovering from an emergency)
would be invaluable. As an example, the situations created by the recent famine in Ethiopia,
flooding in Mozambique and land seizures in Zimbabwe provide unique opportunities to provide
recommendations for action and policy development based on BASIS research. In order for the
BASIS research to be utilized by policy developers and donors, the research has to be presented
in a concise, usable form specifically developed for an audience of non-researchers who need the
“bottom line” in order to develop policy with the assurance that sound research supports the
recommendations.
Publications: The BASIS publications are well done. The need for research to be published is
urgent. It is really important that research processes and results be recorded and published as
soon as possible after the research is complete. In fact, it is equally important in some situations
depending on the nature of the research, that publications be periodically produced which
document the process of the research.
The value of research publications has been amply supported. However, the cost of review,
production and distribution is relatively high. The amount of BASIS funds devoted to
publications will rise significantly in the next several months. This will be due to the finalization
of research activities and the need to extract information for documents usable by policymakers.
In addition, the need for synthesis studies will require additional publications. A larger funding
allocation will be required for the upcoming project phase. In order to realize the “pay off” of the
BASIS work thus far, it will be necessary to get more funding for the preparation of publications.
Impact Indicators: More consideration and progress should be encouraged relative to
developing a cohesive set of meaningful impact indicators. Assuming that this is a priority for
USAID (and it should be), one recommendation that would be for the next phase of BASIS to
explicitly require that a set of globally applicable impact indicators be created within the first
period of the renewal. The set of indicators should be developed by a relatively small (3-4
people) subset of the BASIS CRSP technical committee, in collaboration with the USAID
technical representative, then vetted with the TC. Once the list is honed and the indicators are
well-defined, they could be circulated to the broader group of BASIS collaborators for comment.
It might be advisable to pull in a consultant to this process, since there is both an art and a
science to developing robust, valid, measurable, and cost-effective impact indicators. A common
problem when a large group of inexperienced people try to develop a set of indicators is that they
end up with an excessively long list, and they do not connect the conceptual indicators to specific
empirical approaches.
ANNEXES: BASIS CRSP FIELD EVALUATION REPORTS
18
19
ANNEX I: EL SALVADOR PROJECT
Prepared by: Elizabeth Dunn, EEP Member
Dates of Visit: March 20-24, 2000
A. OVERVIEW
The BASIS CRSP program in El Salvador, established in 1997, focuses on the interaction of
land, labor, and financial markets and their impact on poverty and resource conservation. The
research analyzes the performance of these markets in an effort to increase access of the poor to
factor markets and sustainable livelihoods. In addition, the research agenda seeks to explain the
dynamics of poverty and causes of resource degradation on hillsides. Work on innovation in
rural lending strategies seeks to broaden access to financial services by the rural poor.
The program in El Salvador has been a model of collaborative relationships, information and
capacity building, and policy influence. It has improved the skills of local researchers, created a
unique and valuable data set, and has the potential to generate results that are regionally relevant
and can contribute strongly to global synthesis of the BASIS findings. The BASIS El Salvador
program has also enjoyed strong support from the USAID/El Salvador mission and the
government of El Salvador, and has catalyzed a national focus on rural poverty.
B. RESEARCH PROGRESS
1. Progress Relative to Workplans
The research program appears to be following the research agenda described in the 1998
Research Planning Framework: Central America Regional Program. The research is also largely
on target relative to the more recent 1999-2000 Work Plan. More specifically, the panel data
collection is proceeding according to schedule.
2. Approaches or Methodologies
The approach for the research in El Salvador is for several diverse local and U.S. research groups
to engage in long-term collaboration to conduct a panel survey, while assigning distinct areas of
analysis to each group and/or to the individual researchers. The collaborating researchers meet
periodically to revise the questionnaire, discuss research results, and to publicize and disseminate
their findings to the broader community.
There are several innovative features of this project, including the following:
• The longitudinal data set being collected under the CRSP is the only panel data set of its kind
in El Salvador, and allows the tracking of the paths that individual households follow in and
out of poverty. As the only data set of its kind, it has attracted considerable attention from
government ministries, USAID/El Salvador, the press, and local researchers.
20
• The local collaborators come from a broad range of ideological backgrounds. It is the first
time since El Salvador’s long and divisive civil war that such an ideologically diverse group
of research organizations have worked together to share a significant, long-term stake in a
common research program.
• The BASIS El Salvador research collaboration has placed rural poverty at the forefront of
public attention and has provided a unique opportunity for ideologically conservative
research groups to focus on rural poverty. The poverty theme of the BASIS research is
critical, as it was a root cause of the civil war. Because the research findings on poverty are
being reported by a coalition of ideologically diverse organizations, the findings are more
credible to government policymakers as well as to a wider range of the general public.
• The current round of the longitudinal survey includes the collection and testing of drinking
water samples and recording of GPS location information. This will allow analysis of the
household data using GIS systems and the linking of water quality to economic and health
variables.
3. Impact Indicators
While the ultimate desired impacts of the BASIS CRSP in El Salvador include poverty
alleviation, democratization, increased national productivity, the equalization of economic
opportunity, and economic growth and development in general, it is not feasible to statistically
link these impacts to the program. Instead, the potential impacts of the BASIS El Salvador
research program must be inferred from measurable, effective program inputs.
The potential for creating impacts can be evaluated in four distinct areas: policy change,
collaboration, capacity building, and scientific contribution. In each of these four areas, several
impact indicators can be identified.
Impacts on Policy Change
• Number of public seminars and fora
• Number of newspaper articles, radio interviews, and television programs on BASIS findings
• Number of BASIS briefings to the Government of El Salvador (GOES), NGO, and
commercial leaders
• Number of BASIS workshops for GOES, NGO, and commercial leaders
• Number of BASIS researchers appointed to work in government ministries
• Number of policies, programs, and reforms in the public and private sectors relying on
BASIS-provided background information
Impacts on Collaboration
• Number of group or sub-group meetings of researchers from different local organizations
• Number of jointly sponsored seminars or workshops
• Number of papers co-authored by researchers from different collaborating organizations
21
Impacts on Capacity Building
• Number of Salvadoran researchers employed through BASIS
• Number of technical meetings between U.S. researchers and local researchers
• Number of BASIS papers with significant authorship by Salvadoran researchers
• Number of U.S. and Salvadoran researchers earning advanced degrees while collaborating on
BASIS research
• Number of Salvadoran researchers sponsored to attend international conferences
Scientific Contribution
• Number of M.S. theses and Ph.D. dissertations based on BASIS research
• Number of presentations at national and/or international professional meetings
• Number of BASIS publications, monographs, and non-reviewed book chapters
• Number of journal articles published in national and/or international scientific journals
• Number of citations of BASIS-related journal articles
• Number of non-BASIS organizations and scientists using the panel data set
4. Prospects for Global Applicability
The research findings are revealing important information on the factors affecting rural income
growth and poverty alleviation. In particular, the findings highlight the importance of electricity,
roads, and education in spurring income growth. These findings are directly applicable in many
developing countries in Latin America and around the world.
A valuable feature of the longitudinal data set is that it allows tracking of households’
movements in and out of poverty and analysis of the factors affecting those movements. Among
the poverty-related factors being investigated are access to factor markets, migration, asset
accumulation, and risk management strategies. These factors are relevant in many developing
countries, as well as in poverty pockets in developed countries. The research findings may
inform the development of program ideas for poverty alleviation in several countries.
The information on client profiles (characteristics) for different microfinance organizations is
relevant to the current global research agenda on market segmentation in microfinance and the
development of new products and services for microenterprise owners. In addition, the BASIS
research may potentially contribute to advances in the development of effective rural finance
strategies, which is another current topic in microfinance research.
5. Significance of Research Discoveries
See section 4 immediately above.
22
C. STATUS
1. Collaboration/Cooperation/Linkage Relations and Activities
In general, the BASIS research in El Salvador benefits from excellent linkages between and
among the lead U.S. research organization, USAID/El Salvador, the host country research
partners, various government officials in El Salvador, and several NGO stakeholders.
USAID/El Salvador and USAID/G
Mary Ott, Chief of the Economic Growth Office at USAID/El Salvador, is extremely supportive
of the BASIS project in El Salvador. Because the BASIS research focus matches the mission’s
strategic objective on economic opportunity,1
 the mission research money available for this
strategic objective has been channeled into BASIS. Since the focus of BASIS is so well aligned
with mission objectives, Ott prefers not to earmark the money, but rather to let the researchers
choose the direction of the research. For example, the recent $100,000 contribution by the
mission was not earmarked.
On the other hand, Ott considers the biennial panel data to be a critical and non-negotiable
component of BASIS. (Her exact words were “No biennial survey, no BASIS in El Salvador.”)
Earlier, when it appeared that the BASIS Technical Committee would not support a third round
of the panel study, the mission decided to contract directly through FUSADES in order to
support the survey. The mission would like to see BASIS and the panel study extended at least
through 2002 (a fourth round of the survey), when the new USAID/El Salvador five-year plan
will be written.
USAID/El Salvador communicates with the BASIS project solely through Claudio Gonzalez￾Vega, an arrangement which is satisfactory for Ott. When she wants specific analysis or data
tables from the panel study, she contacts FUSADES to request the information.
It should be noted that Mary Ott will be leaving El Salvador this summer.
The BASIS activities in El Salvador have had links to other USAID programs, including
CRECER and FORMIR/DAI. There has also been recent collaboration between Jonathan
Conning and Jolyne Sanjak of USAID/LAC’s LACTEC II Project on land tenure issues in El
Salvador.
Host country organizations
The local research collaborators (FUSADES, FUNDE, FUNDAUNGO, UCA, FLACSO) are
generally very positive about both their participation in and the results of the BASIS research. As
stated above, this is the first time that there has been collaboration across this ideologically
diverse group of organizations. The organizations report that they were initially reticent to work
together, but now feel that the collaboration has been successful. The local collaborators
typically meet together each time the program leader visits El Salvador.
 
1 The 1997-2002 strategic objective of “expanded access and economic opportunity for rural families in
poverty” seeks five key results: 1) better educated rural residents; 2) improved use of land; 3) expanded,
equitable access to financial, technological, and marketing services by the rural poor; 4) better rural
productive infrastructure; and 5) economic policy environment supporting greater equity.
23
Local researchers have a sense of ownership of the research and partnership with the U.S.
researchers. They attribute the U.S. researchers with contributing academic background and
knowledge of current literature and methods, while the local researchers have more knowledge
about local conditions. The local researchers consider their contact with the U.S. researchers on
technical issues to be a very valuable part of the collaboration, and they would like additional
contact.
FUSADES is the lead organization among the local BASIS collaborators in the sense that 1) it is
the administrative coordinator for subcontracts, billing, and payments from the management
entity; 2) it is the organization conducting the panel survey; 3) it holds the data and provides
tables and analysis to the other researchers on request; and 4) it convenes the group meetings and
its building is the site of most of the group meetings and public events. The selection of
FUSADES for these functions was a logical choice, given its administrative and logistical
capacity. However, the other collaborating organizations (FUNDE, UCA, FUNDAUNGO,
FLACSO) consider themselves to be connected to BASIS only through FUSADES. In general,
they were unaware of the structure and nature of the global BASIS project. Several researchers at
these organizations would like to have more open access to the panel data.
The BASIS researchers have maintained close, on-going contact with officials of the GOES.2
Officials of the GOES participated in the formulation of the Research Planning Framework for
the BASIS work in El Salvador. Several local BASIS researchers participated in writing the
National Plan. During the interviews conducted as part of this evaluation, a representative of the
Minister of Economics, GOES, requested the opportunity to comment on the formation of a
second phase of BASIS in El Salvador.
Important local stakeholders also include three microfinance organizations whose clients have
been interviewed in the recent round of the panel survey: Financiera Calpiá, BFA
(governmental), and CAM-FINCA. Of these three organizations, Financiera Calpiá has had the
longest and most extensive collaboration with BASIS.
Relationships with other projects and organizations
Linkages with outside organizations include collaboration on analysis with the InterAmerican
Development Bank and with GTZ, a German development agency.
2. Program/Research Benefits/Contributions
USAID goals
Because the BASIS research agenda fits so well within the mission’s strategic objective,
USAID/El Salvador has been able to channel the research money for this strategic objective
through BASIS and avoid having to contract for and directly manage the research.
The panel data provides a unique and revealing window on the poor in El Salvador, a window
that can influence policy because it can be communicated succinctly. According to Mary Ott, the
data base has been exceptional in revealing the true nature of rural poverty: “The data are the
 
2 See section D (below) for a list of briefings provided by BASIS researchers to GOES officials.
24
opportunity for the 600 families to express their concerns and needs. The information can be
distilled for busy policymakers to understand.”
The mission plans to use the BASIS data for programmatic decisions and will encourage the
GOES to do so as well. The results have confirmed some existing assumptions about rural
poverty, called some assumptions into question, and led to some surprises. Information from
BASIS has influenced at least the following USAID/El Salvador policy and program decisions:
• the selection of microfinance as a growth area,
• the finding that agricultural income is not associated with higher income levels has led to a
reduced emphasis on agriculture, and
• findings on the importance of infrastructure led to the use of the Hurricane Mitch money for
road building.
In February, Ott gave a presentation on “Poverty in El Salvador” to the USAID administrator
(Brady Anderson). For this presentation, she requested and received BASIS data from
FUSADES.
USAID/El Salvador would like to see the data, data documentation, and research papers publicly
available. The papers related to the El Salvador research should be on the BASIS website. The
data should be available for anyone to analyze, particularly for dissertation research.
Host countries/non-US partners
The local research partners feel that BASIS has been successful and that this success has been
due to the fact that all of the collaborators share a common focus on the topics of rural poverty
and rural development. They note several benefits from their participation in BASIS:
• All of the local researchers report that they would never have collaborated with each other if
it were not for their participation in BASIS. While they were mutually respectful of each
other’s work, the ideological boundaries between them had precluded collaboration. They all
report that they have gained new respect for each other and have been pleasantly surprised to
find that each group reaches similar conclusions despite beginning from different
perspectives. At least two of the organizations are now considering collaboration outside of
BASIS.
• The local researchers value the opportunity to have contact with scientists from outside of El
Salvador, especially since it is a small country with a limited number of scientists. They
place a high value on the training and support that they have received from the U.S.
collaborators.
• The strategically selected coalition of local collaborators, along with the attention paid to
public dissemination, has led the researchers to have a stronger influence on policy formation
than they had in the past.
The BASIS program in El Salvador has had a major impact in that it has helped to focus public
attention on poverty. BASIS research and its public dissemination has put poverty on the
national policy agenda. The BASIS research findings are widely accepted as credible due to the
coalition of diverse organizations participating in the research. There has been major press
coverage of BASIS-sponsored public seminars and events held in August 1999 (over 300 people)
and March 2000 (over 175 people).
25
The BASIS research is having an impact on public policy formation in El Salvador. In recent
months, FUSADES has given presentations on the BASIS results to 1) the economics and social
cabinet ministers of the government of El Salvador; 2) executives of El Salvador’s Central Bank;
and 3) personnel of Banco Multisectorial de Inversiones (BMI-2 sessions). For information on
additional briefings with policymakers, organizational leaders, and the press, see the 1998-99
annual report on the El Salvador program (in a box entitled “BASIS Research Aids
Policymaking in Central America”).
The BASIS research has provided useful information to BMI’s financial development thrust
area, which seeks to encourage the formal banking sector to provide microfinancial services,
including rural credit. The BASIS studies have helped BMI to better understand where poverty is
located and how, through credit, BMI can help the poor to develop their businesses. The specific
finding on the mobility of households in and out of poverty has helped BMI to better understand
the needs of microenterprise households.
Managers of Financiera Calpiá report that the BASIS research has benefited their organization in
several ways. It has provided valuable information on their clients’ needs and how their clients
perceive their organization and its products and services. The research has allowed Calpiá to
measure the depth of its outreach for the first time. The analysis of the Calpiá credit process has
been useful both in improving training and incentives for staff as well as in educating outside
groups about the nature of microenterprises and what is involved in providing microfinance
services, thus helping Calpia to legitimize its costs to outsiders.
U.S. universities/institutions
The Rural Finance Program at Ohio State University has been able to provide research
experience to several graduate students through the BASIS CRSP. OSU has also been able to add
depth to its existing research program in microfinance and rural finance. Jonathan Conning of
Williams College has benefited from a BASIS competitive grant. Other U.S. collaborators
include Mark Schreiner of Washington University (St. Louis).
There would be a large potential benefit to U.S. researchers from public access to the panel data
set.
Training
The BASIS CRSP in El Salvador is improving the research skills for a cadre of young
Salvadoran professionals. The local collaborators place a very high value on the technical advice
and guidance that they receive from the U.S. researchers. Through this advice and guidance, they
have been able to improve their research and analytical skills for use in BASIS and future
projects. The local research collaborators feel very fortunate to have the opportunity to work
with Claudio Gonzalez-Vega, who provides guidance while respecting their intellectual and
creative independence. There is also an appreciation of the ability to work with other U.S.
researchers who have come to El Salvador under BASIS (e.g. Southgate, Schreiner, Navajas,
Conning). The local researchers would like more contact opportunities.
One local researcher (Rafael Pleitez of UCA) has begun doctoral studies at OSU. Several local
researchers received BASIS support to attend the Annual Seminar on New Development Finance
in Frankfurt, Germany.
26
Cross-cutting themes: gender, market integration, risk
The BASIS research agenda in El Salvador places a heavy emphasis on risk management
strategies and market integration of rural households. The panel data will provide considerable
information on these topics that would be useful for global synthesis. Various types of gender￾relevant information are also available from the panel data, but gender analysis does not appear
to be a specific research theme at this time.
3. Evaluation of CRSP Fiscal/Administrative Management from Program
Viewpoint
FUSADES reports that they have efficient communication with the management entity and that
the reporting requirements are not overly burdensome. There have been some payment delays
experienced by FUSADES and, subsequently by the other local partners. FUSADES and the
other local partners attribute these payment delays to the ME.
The non-FUSADES local collaborators appear to be connected to BASIS only through
FUSADES or through direct contact with the program leader. They appear to have only indirect
knowledge of and contact with the ME.
D. SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS AND SUGGESTED TIMELINE
Make panel data and documentation publicly accessible. The panel data set and full
documentation should be posted to several websites immediately. While there is always a danger
that the data will be used incorrectly, it is more than outweighed by the potential value of
providing these data for analysis by a wide range of serious researchers in El Salvador, the U.S.,
and elsewhere. Currently, only FUSADES, OSU, and the Conning-Trigueros research team have
direct access to the data. The other local BASIS partners must make their requests for data
analysis through FUSADES.
Post the Salvadoran studies on the BASIS website. Too few documents from the BASIS El
Salvador research program are available on the BASIS website. In part, this is because of long
delays between drafting documents and finalizing them. Any second-round BASIS agreement
should clarify the time lines for finalizing and posting BASIS research papers. Future BASIS
agreements should formalize the process for developing, finalizing, and disseminating written
products (relates to later recommendation regarding contractual incentives).
Continue collection and refinement of the panel data. The panel data are considered
immensely valuable by personnel at USAID/El Salvador, numerous government ministries,
NGOs, and local research groups. This panel should be continued at least through 2002, when
USAID/El Salvador will have its next round of planning. The questionnaire is of generally good
quality, although a few sections need to be refined.3
 On the other hand, according to generally
 
3 In particular, the following criticisms could be noted (1) the section on migration and remittances
(section 17) does not have a clear unit of analysis and appears to be overly long given the focus of
BASIS; (2) a series of hypothetical questions on credit (questions #341-#343) were too difficult to convey
to the respondent; (3) there appear to be repetitive questions on land size, characteristics, and use which
could be pared down; (4) in general, redundancies should be identified and eliminated (e.g. see section
5.2, #36, and 14.2, #256-258); (5) section 13.1 is too lengthy (burdensome) when applied to every crop;
27
accepted standards, the survey interview is currently too long. Tough (but collaborative)
decisions need to be made so that the interview length can be cut at least in half for future rounds
of the survey. One way to do this would be to determine which parts of the data were not
analyzed or reported following the third round of the panel and eliminate the corresponding
questions from subsequent rounds.
Maintain the current policy focus. Future versions of BASIS in El Salvador should not turn
away from the heavy policy emphasis of the current project. BASIS is having an impact on
policy formation in El Salvador. This beneficial influence can be significantly strengthened by
continuing for several more years along the same path.
Find innovative tools for local dissemination of research findings. The personnel in
USAID/El Salvador, GOES, and many NGOs are too busy to read full research reports. Among
the possible dissemination alternatives are the following:
• research briefs (front and back of one page),
• short, bulleted reports,
• PowerPoint slide programs (could be placed on a web page or sent electronically),
• an internet newsletter with brief statements of findings sent to all stakeholders, and
• oral presentations with handouts.
Formalize knowledge transfer. The host country government officials, as well as individuals
from certain NGOs, are very eager to receive individualized briefings on the BASIS findings.
They would like the briefings to be held with subgroups of people who have similar objectives
and interests (e.g. microfinance organizations; specific government ministries), so that questions
and discussions can be tightly focused. In addition, government and NGO groups would like for
briefings to be followed by workshops in which the BASIS researchers help them to think of
ways to formulate action plans based on the research findings. Any second round of BASIS in El
Salvador should include an explicit plan and budget for knowledge transfer.
Clarify and strengthen linkages between the CRSP and the IQC. The GOES policymakers
and local NGO leaders would like for BASIS to provide them with training, technical assistance,
and policy recommendations based on the research findings. However, that is currently seen as
the role of the IQC (rather than the CRSP). In order to maximize the impact of the BASIS CRSP,
the linkage with the IQC must be clarified immediately. Currently, CRSP personnel can not
respond to requests for training and technical assistance, while personnel associated with the IQC
are (as far as this evaluator knows) uninformed about the strong foundation of data, research
findings, and collaborative relationships that have been built by the CRSP.
Strengthen role of non-FUSADES local collaborators. Currently, FUSADES sets the local
collaboration agenda in terms of deciding when and where to hold meetings and public events. In
part, this is because FUSADES has the physical and logistical capacity to host meetings and
events. In addition, FUSADES is the prime contractor and it subcontracts to the other groups.
However, the local non-FUSADES partners should feel “empowered” to call for meetings and
 
(6) the answer format for #223-#233 does not easily accommodate data from more than one laborer; and
(7) “chicks and chickens” (enough said!).
28
contribute to setting the agenda. For example, while this field evaluation was taking place, the
ME call for letters of intention were being considered by the local organizations. Several of them
were waiting to receive direction from FUSADES about how to proceed. As mentioned above,
the non-FUSADES partners do not have direct access to the data. Many of them also indicated
that they were unaware of the global BASIS CRSP and that they receive information from the
ME only through FUSADES. The ME should disseminate information directly to all local
partners.
Increase opportunities for technical advising. The local researchers place a high value on the
opportunity to meet with the U.S. researchers and receive specific advice and suggestions on
their BASIS-related research. When the U.S. researchers visit El Salvador, they spend significant
time discussing the technical approach to the research. This has had a high payoff in terms of the
quality of the research and local capacity building. Means for increasing these opportunities
should be explored, such as by increasing the number of U.S. researchers who come to El
Salvador or by increasing the length and/or frequency of the visits.
Provide contractual incentives for timely reporting. Despite the significant achievements of
the BASIS research program in El Salvador, there has been a major point of contention between
the ME and the program leader in terms of the timeliness and thoroughness of workplans,
budgets, and annual reports. The second-round BASIS activity should clearly specify the
minimal reporting requirements and build in contractual incentives for complying with
requirements and deadlines.
Build smooth transition at USAID/El Salvador. As soon as the new Chief of USAID/El
Salvador’s Economic Growth Office (Don Harrison) arrives, he should receive a series of
briefings on the BASIS work in El Salvador. He should be provided with the full set of project
documents, along with easy-to-use summaries of key findings (see above). Harrison will be
replacing Mary Ott, who has been the primary advocate for BASIS within USAID/El Salvador.
E. APPENDIX: EVALUATION PROCESS AND LISTING OF INTERVIEWS
The information for this report was gathered in El Salvador between March 20 and 24, 2000,
through formal interviews, informal discussions, observation of survey implementation in the
field, and attendance at a public presentation of BASIS documents. Additional information was
obtained from BASIS Program reports and workplans.
The following persons were interviewed as part of the evaluation:
• Claudio Gonzalez-Vega, BASIS El Salvador Program Leader, Ohio State University
• Jonathan Conning, BASIS Competitive Grants Researcher, Williams College
• Mary C. Ott, Chief of Economic Growth Office, USAID/El Salvador
• Roxana Blanco, Coordinator of Microfinance Team, Economic Growth Office, USAID/El
Salvador
• Sandra Lorena Duarte, Microenterprise Officer, Economic Growth Office, USAID/El
Salvador
• Yolanda Mayora de Gavidia, Technical Advisor to Economic Minister, GOES
29
• Roberto Rivera Campos, Director of Department of Economic and Social Studies (ESS),
FUSADES
• Anabella Larde de Palomo, Chief of Social Studies Section, ESS, FUSADES
• Margarita de Sanfeliu, Chief of Research and Information Center, ESS, FUSADES
• Mauricio A. Shi, Research and Information Center, ESS, FUSADES
• Enrique Merlos, Economics Researcher, FUNDE
• Ricardo Cordova M., Executive Director, FUNDAUNGO
• Julia Evelin Martinez, Researcher, FundaUngo
• Alvaro Trigueros, Chair of Economics Department, Universidad Centroamericana
• Rafael Pleitez, Universidad Centroamericana and Ohio State University
• Carlos Briones, Technical Advisor to Education Minister, GOES, formerly of FLACSO
• Katherine Andrade-Eekhoff, Researcher, FLACSO
• Roberto William Bonilla Garcia, Financial Manager, Financiera Calpia
• Enriqueta Claramunt de Rodriguez, Administrative Manager, Financiera Calpia
• Jose Jorge Siman J., Board Member of FUSADES and Financiera Calpia
• Sigfrido Aristoteles Esperanza, General Manager, FUNDAMICRO (formerly of Calpia)
• Roger Alfaro Araujo, Manager of Financial Development, BMI
• Guillermo Funes Araujo, President, BFA
• Carlos Rafael Huezo, Credit Specialist, CARE/El Salvador
• Sergio Navajas, BASIS Researcher (Ohio State University)
• Rodolfo Quiros, BASIS Researcher (Academia of Central America in Costa Rica)
• Michael Roth, BASIS Director, University of Wisconsin-Madison
30
31
ANNEX II: NICARAGUA PROJECT
Prepared by: David Abler, EEP Member
Date of visit: February 1-4, 2000
A. OVERVIEW
In Nicaragua, BASIS is collaborating with the Fundación Internacional para El Desafío
Económico Global (FIDEG), the Nicaraguan Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry (MAG), and
the World Bank on a nationwide farm household survey. The purpose of the survey is to shed
light on the impacts of land titling in Nicaragua, on access to credit by members of farm
households, particularly women, and on the degree to which farm households require access to
credit in order to be able to take advantage of the benefits of land titling.
The survey sample includes approximately 2,000 rural households interviewed in previous
surveys: 1,450 farms from a 1996 survey conducted by MAG, 250 landless households in a
previous survey by FIDEG, and 500 other households from other previous surveys. In cases
where a farm has changed hands between a previous survey and the current survey, both the new
household cultivating the land and the original household are to be included. In such cases, the
goal is to track down and interview the original household even if it has moved out of the area. In
this way, information on land market transactions will be obtained from both buyers and sellers.
The survey contains twelve major sections as follows:
1. Household roster and basic demographic characteristics.
2. Nonagricultural income for each household member.
3. Landownership, rental, and use; land market transactions; participation in land titling
programs.
4. Crop production and sales; crop input use and input expenditures.
5. Livestock ownership and transactions; milk production and sales; livestock input use and
expenditures; hired labor use and expenditures.
6. Agricultural machinery ownership and purchases.
7. Loans received during the previous year; the terms of each loan; whether the household
had wanted a larger loan in each case and, if so, how much; transaction costs associated
with each loan; whether the household had been turned down for a loan; why households
not applying for a loan had not done so; household debts.
8. Effects of Hurricane Mitch and other unforeseen events on the household.
9. Participation in economic, political, religious, social, and other groups.
10. The household’s agricultural history in certain key years (e.g., 1979, the year of the
Sandinista revolution).
11. The household’s physical and social environment.
12. Food expenditures.
32
Interviews began on January 31, 2000, and are expected to take approximately six weeks to
complete. The interviews are being administered by a corps of surveyors who have worked with
MAG on previous surveys. Data entry and cleaning are proceeding at FIDEG concurrently with
the survey, and are expected to be finished by some time in May.
Financially speaking, BASIS is a relatively small part of the survey administration process. Most
funding for administering the survey is coming from the World Bank and MAG. However,
BASIS personnel at the University of Wisconsin-Madison have played key roles in the design
and management of the survey, and are expected to play important roles in data analysis and in
dissemination of survey results. FIDEG appears to view the University of Wisconsin-Madison as
its key partner on this survey.
B. RESEARCH PROGRESS
Table 1: Comparing progress relative to workplans—Nicaragua
[Note: The BASIS program leader for Central America was asked to prepare this table. To my
knowledge, it has not yet been prepared. —David Abler]
1. Approaches/Methodologies
Broadly speaking, the approach being used in the case of Nicaragua is that survey research can
contribute to sound policy-making. The project investigators believe that the survey results will
provide insights into how land titling programs should be implemented, whether efforts should
be made to ensure that farm households have access to credit in order to be able to take
advantage of the benefits of land titling, and whether efforts should be made to enhance access to
credit on the part of women.
2. Impact Indicators
This project is in its early stages, with the survey having just begun, so that it is premature to talk
about impacts. However, it is not too soon to firm up plans to ensure that the project does have
an impact. This is discussed below.
3. Prospects for Global Applicability
Assuming that the survey provides useful information, particularly the “conjectural” questions on
the survey (see below), the prospects for global applicability should be good. The survey could
provide a model for surveys in other countries that are implementing, or considering
implementing, land titling programs. The survey results could potentially yield important
insights and hypotheses that researchers in other countries could use as a starting point for their
own work.
33
4. Significance of Research Discoveries
Because the project is in its early stages, no research discoveries have yet been made. However,
the survey could potentially yield important research findings about land titling and access to
credit, particularly access to credit among women.
C. STATUS
1. Collaboration and Linkages with Other Organizations
USAID
The Nicaragua BASIS program is not collaborating directly with the USAID mission in
Nicaragua, but personnel at the Mission expressed a strong interest in the survey findings when
they become available. They felt that the survey findings could provide input into their five-year
strategy for Nicaragua that they will be developing later this year.
Host Country Organizations
The Nicaragua BASIS program is collaborating with the Fundación Internacional para El
Desafío Económico Global (FIDEG) and the Nicaraguan Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry
(MAG). FIDEG is administering the survey and will be entering and cleaning the data. FIDEG
also supplied the sampling frame from a previous survey of landless agricultural households. The
head of the Women’s Studies Unit at FIDEG, Sonia Agurto, is planning to spend three weeks at
the University of Wisconsin-Madison this summer working on analysis of data from the survey.
MAG is providing funding for the survey and also supplied the sampling frame from a 1996
survey that it conducted.
Donor Organizations
The Nicaragua BASIS program is collaborating with researchers at the World Bank, which is
providing a large part of the funding for the survey.
Other BASIS Programs and Other CRSPs
The degree to which the program is collaborating with other BASIS programs is unclear,
although there is overlap in personnel between the Nicaragua program and other BASIS
programs in Central America. There does not appear to be any collaboration with other (non￾social science) CRSPs, although such collaboration may not be warranted given the nature of the
research in Nicaragua.
2. Research Benefits and Contributions
USAID Goals
The Nicaragua BASIS program should contribute to achieving USAID goals insofar as (1) its
research findings have important policy implications in Nicaragua or elsewhere and (2) those
findings are used by policymakers. One USAID goal in its Strategic Plan is to encourage broad￾based economic growth and agricultural development. Objectives underneath this goal that the
34
Nicaragua BASIS program could potentially help to achieve include strengthening critical
private markets (e.g., land, credit), enhancing agricultural development, and increasing access to
economic opportunity for the rural poor. Other USAID goals and objectives in its Strategic Plan
speak in terms of improving opportunities for women, and the Nicaragua BASIS program could
potentially help in that regard as well.
Host Country and Non-US Partners
The Nicaragua BASIS program should strengthen research capacity at FIDEG. FIDEG is
responsible for data entry and cleaning, and FIDEG personnel will be involved in data analysis.
Three personal computers have been, or will be, purchased for data entry, cleaning, and analysis.
Personnel at FIDEG emphasized the importance of projects that partner with host country
institutions and create research capacity in the host country.
US Universities and Training
The Nicaragua BASIS program should also strengthen research and training capacity at US
universities. The data should be an important source for analysis by US faculty and graduate
students. The survey data should permit analysis of the “latent” demand for credit by those who
have been turned down for credit or have never applied for credit, something that previous
surveys in Nicaragua and many other countries have not covered.
Overall Benefits to the US
This project has the potential to yield research findings that could improve policy-making in the
areas of land titling and access to credit, particularly access to credit among women. Sound
policy in these areas could potentially enhance economic growth and reduce rural poverty.
Nicaragua is one of the poorest countries in the Western Hemisphere and has suffered much
economic and political upheaval in the last two decades. The US has economic, political, and
humanitarian interests in enhancing growth and reducing poverty in Nicaragua.
Gender, Market Integration, and Risk
An important feature of the Nicaragua BASIS program is its focus on women. Previous surveys
in Nicaragua and many other countries have not given adequate coverage to women’s activities.
The Nicaragua BASIS program also addresses the integration of farm households into credit and
land markets. In addition, with a section in the survey on the effects of Hurricane Mitch and
other unforeseen events, the survey data could be used to analyze household impacts and
responses to such risks.
3. Specific Recommendations
The Nicaragua BASIS program appears to be on its way toward successful implementation of a
nationwide farm household survey. Three main recommendations emerged from my visit to
Nicaragua earlier this month regarding steps to take next:
Make Plans Now for Seminars to Disseminate the Survey Findings. In order to have an
impact on policy, it will be essential to have seminars on the survey findings targeted toward
policymakers, international donors, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), agribusinesses,
and others interested in land titling, agricultural credit, and gender equity. Well-planned seminars
35
can require months of lead time to identify suitable locations, draw up lists of people and
organizations to invite, send out invitations, handle other logistics, and ensure that people put the
seminars on their calendars before other commitments arise.
The seminars should not be one-way (speakers to audience) but should instead engage the
audience in a dialogue that could continue after the seminars are over. People and organizations
of all political persuasions should be invited to these seminars to ensure that the research is not
tarnished by associating it with a particular political viewpoint.
I was told that there are funds in the project budget for seminars on the survey findings.
However, it is not clear what actions have been taken so far to make these seminars a reality.
Personnel at FIDEG, which would be a logical partner for BASIS in organizing these seminars,
were not aware of anything that had been done.
It is important for BASIS to take the lead on these seminars in order to ensure that they happen
and that they are done properly. The Nicaraguan Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry (MAG),
another partner in the survey, has historically done a very good job of collecting information but
has apparently been weak on disseminating information to the public.
Make Plans Now for a Report on the Survey Findings. In order to have an impact on policy, it
will also be essential to have a report on the survey findings. The report should ideally be ready
in time for distribution and discussion at the seminars mentioned above.
The report should be written for an educated yet general audience, and should emphasize the
policy implications of the survey findings, particularly implications that run counter to
“conventional wisdom.” The report should minimize the use of economic and statistical jargon.
It should be visually appealing, with charts and diagrams as appropriate. There should be two
versions of the report, one in Spanish and the other in English. The report should also be
reasonably brief so that people will read it.
Bear in Mind Certain Caveats as the Survey Data are Analyzed. The survey appears to be
comprehensive and has the potential to yield important findings. However, three caveats should
be borne in mind as the survey data are analyzed. First, the survey is very long. I was told during
my field visit that the survey was taking up to four hours to complete in some cases. With a long
survey, the quality of a respondent’s answers can decline as the interview proceeds and the
respondent grows tired or restless. This should be borne in mind as data from the latter sections
of the survey are analyzed.
Second, considerable recall is required to answer some of the questions, particularly questions
about years prior to last year (1999). The sample consists mostly of poor farmers and landless
agricultural households who probably do not keep written records. Recalling from memory can
give rise to the usual problems of omission and telescoping. These problems can be compounded
if respondents feel pressured to answer a question quickly so that the rest of the survey can be
completed.
Third, while the enumerators are professionals and underwent training on the survey prior to
being sent out into the field, their experience lies in agricultural production censuses where the
questions are factual in nature. The “conjectural” questions on the current survey (e.g., whether a
household had wanted a larger loan than it received, and why households not applying for a loan
had not done so) may not be familiar to many of them. In statistical analyses of responses to
these questions it may be advisable to control for interviewer effects and for when a household
36
was interviewed (early, when an enumerator had little experience asking these questions, or later,
when more experience had been acquired).
D. LIST OF INTERVIEWS, DESCRIPTION OF EVALUATION PROCESS
My evaluation was based on the interviews listed below and on a review of the BASIS CRSP
Central America Regional Workplans for 1998-1999 and 1999-2000. I also reviewed the 1998
BASIS Research Planning Framework for Central America, as well as the research proposal
submitted to the World Bank in 1998 to partially fund the Nicaragua survey (along with research
in other Central American countries). In addition, I went on a field visit on February 2, 2000, and
sat in on a survey interview. I also attended a meeting on February 3, 2000 on rural credit at the
USAID mission in Managua. Participants at this meeting included seven officials from the
USAID/Nicaragua Mission and two officials from USAID headquarters in Washington, DC.
1. List of Interviews
January 26, 2000
Michael Carter (Professor, Agricultural Economics, University of Wisconsin-Madison and
coordinator for BASIS of the Nicaragua project), by phone
February 1, 2000
Stephen Boucher (Ph.D. Candidate, Agricultural Economics, University of Wisconsin-Madison)
February 2, 2000
Sonia Agurto (Head, Women’s Studies Unit, FIDEG)
Stephen Boucher (Ph.D. Candidate, Agricultural Economics, University of Wisconsin-Madison)
Alejandro Martínez Cuenca (President, FIDEG)
February 3, 2000
Ray Baum (Supervisor, Agricultural Development Office, USAID/Nicaragua Mission)
John Strasma (Professor Emeritus, Agricultural Economics, University of Wisconsin-Madison
and Consultant, Boston Institute for Developing Economies).
37
ANNEX III: GREATER HORN OF AFRICA REGIONAL PROGRAM
Prepared by: Jean Kearns, EEP Chair
Date of visit: November 1-6, 1999
A. OVERVIEW
The BASIS Horn of Africa Program was launched in 1997 with a series of visits to the region to
explore potential research sites and institutional collaboration, and with a research planning
workshop held in Dese, Ethiopia. The July 1997 research meeting was comprised of national,
regional, and U.S. researchers, government officials, and policymakers and helped to identify
both a national research program for Ethiopia and a regional program for the Horn. The former
was to highlight a study of factor market constraints to rural food security and incomes, while the
latter was to address cross-border trade and food security and institutional collaboration in the
region.
The Ethiopian Program, in collaboration with IDR, Addis Ababa University, is located in the
South Wollo area of Ethiopia, a region that has assumed an important—if not infamous—role in
many of the policy and theoretical debates about the causes of food insecurity and famine. The
BASIS program is engaged there in an integrated study of the social and economic causes of
food insecurity at intrahousehold, household, community, and regional levels, that examines both
questions of commodity and input market linkages, and agricultural productivity (the ‘supply’
side), on the one hand, and the dynamics of household (intrahousehold) access to farm and non￾farm incomes (‘entitlement’), on the other. It utilizes a multi-level (region, community, and
household) approach to factor market research and food security, as well as a series of case
studies on key policy and research themes. To date, this program has received support from the
BASIS CRSP, REDSO/Nairobi, and USAID/Ethiopia, and has involved eight Ethiopian and nine
US/BASIS researches. It is anticipated to be completed by September 30, 2001.
The regional program in the Horn is carried out in collaboration with OSSREA but also has
engaged researchers from Egerton University, Kenya, and the African Centre for Technology
Studies (ACTS), Nairobi. The core of the effort is focused on a two-year study of regional cross￾border trade (livestock and grain) and food security that is the first systematic study of the topic
in the region. An understanding of the informal financial/credit arrangements and capital
generation associated with cross-border trade; and of the links between cross-border trade and
food security in the three border sites (all of which are grain-deficit zones) shape the research
questions for the study. Specific methodological issues are apparent since most of the key cross￾border markets are located in dry regions, far from major urban centers, dominated by mobile
pastoral production systems, and, in most cases, poorly served by transport and other
infrastructure. These all add to the costs of standard survey approaches and have required
considerable methodological innovations, such as key actor interviews, ethnography, and rapid
appraisal techniques. On-going conflicts and random border closures in the region also increase
risks and uncertainties for merchants, producers, and researchers alike and have required
methodological adjustments. This interdisciplinary program promises to yield important
scholarly and policy-relevant findings and has been predominantly funded by REDSO/Nairobi.
38
As of December 1999, this program has involved five regional and four US/BASIS researches
and will be completed by September 30, 2000.
Management of the Horn Program: For a number of reasons, the management/leadership of the
Horn of Africa program is not obvious, nor does it follow a clear organizational/responsibility
sequence. Specifically, leadership and management are directly related to function. For example,
Dr. Peter Little is the identified research program leader for the Horn of Africa program and is
responsible for the overall coordination of activities in that program. However, this role is in
addition to his role as principal investigator for certain activities. Principal investigators in the
Horn program include approximately 11 researchers, all of whom are responsible for the research
assigned to them as a result of a review of proposals which were generated by them. The
researchers include both U.S. and African personnel and the names are included in the BASIS
CRDP Program Update document.
The resulting situation means that management responsibilities are sometimes not absolutely
clear. The management responsibility and functions are shared by Michael Roth and Peter Little.
In the case of the ICRW activity, Michael Roth provides general leadership. Depending on the
activities, the role of manager and the principal researcher seems to be shared and/or alternated
between Drs. Roth and Little. The end result is that the administration and leadership of the Horn
of Africa program appears to rest with individual activities rather than with the entire program.
The management/leadership arrangement appears to work well for the most part, but this success
is due to the personalities involved and should be reviewed periodically for possible conflict of
interest and efficiency.
B. RESEARCH PROGRESS
Table 2: Comparing progress relative to workplans—Horn of Africa
(prepared by Peter Little, December 1999)
Schedule of Activities and Status.
Activity Year I Year II Year III Year IV Year V
Reconnaissance and Planning Activities
(completed 12/97)
XXXX
Planning Workshop (Dese)
(completed 7/97)
X
National Policy Seminar (Addis)
(completed 10/97)
XX
MOU’s with National and Regional
Institutes.
(completed 4/98)
ETHIOPIA PROGRAM (WITH IDR,
DELAYED 5 MO. DUE TO WAR)
XXXX
39
Secondary Data Analysis Inventories,
and Maps
(completed 10/98)
XXXX
Regional Markets . . .
(completed 11/99)
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXX
GIS Activity
(Phase I completed 9/99)
XX XX
Community Assessments
(completed 11/99)
XXXXXXXXXXX
Rural Household Study
(to begin 1/200)
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Intrahousehold Study of Consumption
and Nutrition
(dependent on funding)
XXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Case Studies Research
(in progress)
Workshops/Seminars
(1st completed 10/99)
XX XX XX
Data Analysis, Modeling, and Final
Write-up
REGIONAL PROGRAMME
(W/OSSREA, DELAYED 6 MO.
DUE TO BORDER CONFLICTS)
CROSS BORDER STUDY
XXXXXXX
Seminar/Meetings
(1st completed 7/98)
XX
Research Design/Questionnaire
(completed 11/98)
XX
Ethiopia/Kenya Site
(completed 10/99)
XXXXXXXXX
Somalia/Kenya Site
(research completed; report 1/2000)
XXX XXXXXX
Djibouti/Ethiopia Site XXXXXXX
Final Report (in progress) XXXXXX
1. Overall objectives of Horn Regional Program
1. Establish strong collaboration with national and regional institutions and researchers:
(Collaboration has been established through MOUs with IDR, Addis Ababa U and
40
OSSREA and research collaboration is continuing with Tegemeo Institute of Egerton U
and ACTS, Nairobi; and through collaboration with more than 10 researchers in the
region).
2. Establish a national research program in Ethiopia focused on the relationship between
factor market access and food security (this has been accomplished so with IDR in S.
Wollo project); and a regional program dealing with a major cross-border/regional issue
(OSSREA cooperation in cross-border study).
3. Develop innovative research methods and techniques (in progress in interdisciplinary
programs both in Ethiopia and in the region, integrating social and economic sciences,
GIS and social sciences, rapid appraisal techniques with survey methods, and approaches
that integrate regional, community, and household levels of data collection).
4. Establish strong policy linkages with national policymakers (apparent in S. Wollo and
Ethiopia through three workshops; collaborative community and regional research with
zonal and regional officials)
5. Disseminate research findings through national, regional, and international forums and
publications (this was started in 1999 and 2000 through publications, conference
presentations [including at international meetings in USA], and national and regional
publications [especially IDR and OSSREA series]). This only began in late 1999 since
data analysis and findings are only just now becoming available from first set of studies,
but will be major focus in 2000-2001.
2. List of Research projects and Researchers
From Household to Region: Factor Market Constraints to Income and Food Security in a
Highly Diverse Environment, South Wollo, Ethiopia
US Researchers:
Dr. Gary Gaile, Co-PI for Regional Market Study and Professor of Geography, University of
Colorado, and IDA
Dr. Peter Little, Co-PI for BASIS and Professor of Anthropology, U. Of Kentucky and IDA
Dr. Peter Castro, Co-PI for Community Study and Associate Professor of Anthropology,
Syracuse University and IDA
Dr. Michael Shin, GIS specialist and Assistant Professor, University of Miami, and IDA
Dr. Michael Horowitz, Senior Researcher and Director, IDA
Dr. Michael Roth, Co-PI for Household Study and BASIS Program Director
Dr. Charlotte Johnson-Welch, Gender Specialist, ICRW
Ms. Lauren Montgomery-Rinehart, Research Assistant and graduate student, IDA
Mr. Scott McDonald, Research Assistant and graduate student, IDA
Ethiopian:
Dr. Tegegne Gebre-Egziabher, Co-PI and Director, IDR
41
Dr. Johannes Kinfu, Chair and Organizer of First Dese Workshop and Director of IDR (until
12/97)
Dr. Yared Amare, Co-PI for Community Study and Senior Researcher, IDR (and Lecturer,
Department of Anthropology and Sociology, Addis Ababa University)
Dr. Workineh Negatu, Co-PI for Household Study and Senior Researcher, IDR (and Faculty
Member, Department of Economics, Addis Ababa University)
Mr. Yigremew Adal, Researcher on Community Study and Researcher, IDR
Mr. Degafa Tolossa, Researcher on Community Study and Researcher, IDR
Mr. Melaku Eshetu, Researcher and Coordinator on South Wollo Program and Researcher, IDR
Dr. Mulat, Faculty Member, Department of Economics, Addis Ababa University
Cross Border Trade and Food Security in the Horn of Africa
US Researchers:
Dr. Peter Little, Co-Principal Investigator, BASIS Program, and Professor of Anthropology, U.
of Kentucky and IDA
Dr. Barbara Cellarius, Post-Doctoral Researcher, University of Kentucky and IDA
Dr. Michael Horowitz, Senior Researcher and Director, IDA
Mr. Scott McDonald, Research Assistant and Graduate Student, IDA
Regional Researchers:
Dr. Abdel Ghaffar M. Ahmed, Executive Secretary and Senior Researcher, OSSREA
Dr. Tegegne Teka, Co-Principal Investigator and Regional Programme Coordinator, OSSREA
Mr. Alemayehu Azeze, Researcher, OSSREA
Mr. Ayele Gebremariam, Consultant Researcher, OSSREA
Mr. Hussein A. Mahmoud, Egerton University and University of Kentucky (graduate student)
3. Approaches or methodologies
While these may be multiple innovative approaches in process within the program, the following
appear to be recognizable at this time:
• The program proposal as related to household surveys advances multi-level methodology as
it includes geographic aspects, GIS, regional market methods, community assessments, and
gender, as well as other data. The emphasis in the Horn of Africa work has been very focused
on the development of a strong methodology.
• It was the opinion of OSSREA leadership that relative to the Cross Border Trade project, the
methodology, which combined economics and social sciences, utilized techniques different
(and more effective) from those used in the past in order to acquire in depth information.
42
4. Impact indicators
Impact indicators should be assessed from a variety of bases. For this program, they appear to be
the following:
• Research studies such as the South Wollo work will provide information about the land
tenure impact on food security. The related labor issues and amount of land usage
information will be transferable to policy development. The ultimate indicator related to the
research program is whether or not policymakers utilize the data in the development of
policies. Based on the research discussions in the November 1999 workshop, the researchers
appear to be very aware of the need to make the research understandable and applicable for
use in broader policy areas. To date, two workshops have been held for policymakers from
South Wollo and the Amhara Region.
• Impact indicators relative to the host country organizations include the level of involvement,
planning for future activities dealing with the targeted topics of BASIS but taking place
beyond the life of the CRSP, joint publications and changes/modifications to the organization
due to its involvement in BASIS. These indicators are evident to a lesser or greater extent in
all of the cooperating host country organizations.
• Increased interest in international development work is evident at the U.S. universities which
are involved in the BASIS work. This is indicated by the number of researchers involved, the
number of RAs devoted to CRSP work, and the planning for joint (U.S. and African
researchers) research publications.
5. Prospects for global applicability
Some data have been developed and these data are being prepared for publication at this time.
However, there are various areas that are being examined which will be relevant for other areas
in the world, and therefore these data should be published on a timely basis. These areas include
factor markets and the way that they are researched, trader margins and relationship to markets,
irregularities in the labor market, relationships between share croppers and land usage, rural
poverty dynamics, economy operations in the absence of government, factors which most
directly relate to conflicts in border areas, and resource conflict issues/practices in dry areas.
One basic question which is being investigated in the BASIS research is, “How do institutions
work together?” A search of the literature revealed that there has been a very limited amount of
research done on this question. However, research relative to this question will be valid as cross
border issues are addressed.
6. Significance of research discoveries
Several research findings are important to the development of a knowledge base of BASIS.
Some of these are as follows:
• the impact of cross border livestock trade on the livelihood of pastorialists; and
• the market center studies and the community assessment research developed a clear picture
of the functions of market centers and enabled the development of recommendations in an
area lacking in research.
43
C. STATUS
1. Collaborative/cooperation/linkages/relations and activities
USAID mission and USAID/G
The USAID/Regional Economic Development Service Office in Kenya funded the cross border
livestock study, the regional workshop (November 3-5, 1999) and part of the South Wollo
research work. Thus far, USAID/Ethiopia has not been heavily involved in the program since
they did not have agriculture activities in 1997 when the BASIS personnel first visited the
country. Mission personnel attended the 1997 workshop and since that time they have become
more interested in the Program. Currently, the Mission is funding case studies and is
knowledgeable about the CRSP work. CRSP program leaders view the Mission involvement as
positive.
The USAID officer from REDSO most closely involved in the funding decisions noted that the
CRSP was doing good work but that more frequent information/interaction would be desirable.
BASIS personnel view the REDSO officer as supportive of the CRSP program and notes that he
understands that CRSP is not like other projects and works within those boundaries.
USAID/Africa Bureau has provided add-on funding ($300,000 and $500,000) to support several
activities. The BASIS CRSP Program Update should be referenced for specific details.
Host country organizations
Relative to this topic it appears that the Program is doing very well. A number of host country
organizations are active in various degrees in the BASIS research. The Program Leader noted in
interviews that the country organizations were closely involved in all phases of the work.
In Ethiopia one organization which participates in the program is OSSREA, an NGO which has
as its goal the networking of social research scientists. OSSREA is funded by various donors and
was part of the original Horn of Africa BASIS proposal. OSSREA is involved in the research
program and was the organization which provided logistical and organizational (non-technical)
support for the Horn of Africa Regional Workshop (Nov. 3-5, 1999). It was on the basis of the
amount of involvement OSSREA has with BASIS that they made the decision to hire another
staff person to help with the research. The Director of OSSREA is a member of the BASIS
CRSP Board of Directors.
Another organization which cooperates with BASIS in Ethiopia is the Institute of Development
Research (IDR). This Institute is part of the University of Addis Ababa and all of the staff
members are faculty of the University. Funding is provided by a variety of donors and this
Institute was part of the original Horn of Africa BASIS proposal. IDR’s work with the CRSP has
provided the organization with the need to hire a professional to do some of the required
research. IDR has taken the leadership role in policy work which is most sensitive and critical in
Ethiopia. The Director of IDR is a member of the BASIS CRSP Technical Committee. This
involvement is most important as it keeps the organization in the information loop. However, one
area that still seems to be somewhat confusing to the organization is the concept of add-ons in
funding.
44
Workplans with both OSSREA and IDR are prepared with the initial work being done by the
Principal Investigator and frequent exchanges among the researchers relative to content,
wording, timing etc. The current workplan with OSSREA is for a 2.5-year period and it deals
with cross border research. The workplan with IDR is prepared on an annual basis.
Discussions with OSSREA and IDR recently have started to focus on the future and where these
organizations will go in terms of research after BASIS is no longer active. OSSREA is
particularly proactive in their planning for ‘life after BASIS’. IDR has also started to discuss the
need to continue research related to the goals of BASIS after the CRSP is no longer active.
However, it is important to note that both of these organizations have on-going separate
programs which predated BASIS and which are not related or dependent upon the work of the
BASIS CRSP.
Interviews with the Administrators and selected staff of OSSREA and IDR indicated that they
consider that the work is going well and is of a cooperative nature. OSSREA noted that there
were some concerns on their part in the initial phase of the CRSP relative to a misunderstanding
about this role and contractual matters. However, these concerns are no longer apparent as
OSSREA leadership feels they are functioning as a full partner. IDR is currently working out the
financial procedures by which they can bill the CRSP for use of vehicles, etc. CRSP personnel
has made suggestions as to how the billing process can be implemented in a more timely manner.
Egerton University of Kenya and TEGEMEO of that country are participating in BASIS.
TEGEMEO has not yet received funding from the BASIS competitive grants program but an
initial pre-proposal writing activity was funded by BASIS for that organization. Approximately
three persons were involved in the writing. The proposal focus is to look at water and land rights
in an irrigation scheme. TEGEMEO assumes that they will hear about the funding by January
2000. The work would be accomplished in one year. TEGEMEO noted that communications
with BASIS have been adequate and when inquiries are made then the response is made in a
timely way. The proposal writers feel strongly that the subject of the research is very relevant
due to the cash crop possibility which may be realized as a result of this research. The results
would be used to prepare policy briefs for distribution to government Ministries.
Donor (non-USAID) organizations
Representatives of BASIS have had meetings with World Bank officials but have not as yet
received funding from that organization. World Bank/Ethiopia has essentially put their program
on hold until the dispute with Eritrea is settled.
The Ford Foundation is supporting land tenure work in the area and the CRSP utilizes the
information developed in the Ford program.
IDR has had some funding from SIDA and through this connection the CRSP has benefited from
use of a shared database.
4. Other BASIS programs, other CRSPs and external groups
Most collaboration with other BASIS programs has been with the Southern Africa program. This
collaboration has been at a minimum level. The need to collaborate has been discussed in the
Technical Committee but nothing has actually been done, as a mechanism incentive is not in
place. It is important to note here that the Program Leaders all appear to be ‘stretched’ in terms
of the amount of time they have for the necessary CRSP work. The lack of time to do other
45
activities and the limited funding within the CRSP combine to limit the Program Leader’s work
to one region.
Collaboration with the Livestock CRSP has involved sharing data and reports, and participation
in workshops. For example, part of the Livestock CRSP research was presented in the November
1999 BASIS workshop. In addition, data relative to cross border trade has been shared between
the Livestock CRSP and the BASIS CRSP.
2. Program/Research benefits and contributions
USAID goals
According to the Program Leader the work in the Horn does not fit totally under any one USAID
strategic objective. However it is his opinion that food security and nutrition does fit within more
than one of the strategic objectives.
The food security research carried out by the Horn program links with USAID goals according to
the CRSP Director. There have been some discussions between the Technical Committee and the
Horn program as to whether the research has had a sufficient factor market focus, especially in
the first phase of the program. Most of the researchers appear to recognize a need to focus, but
the actual prioritization (land, water, employment, finance, food security, nutrition) is not clear
cut and has not been finalized.
Host countries
Participants in the November 1999 Workshop were researchers or representatives of
organizations in Eritrea, Ethiopia, Kenya, Tanzania, Uganda, and Zimbabwe. These persons
were very articulate in their support for research which would provide data support for policy
recommendations. It was clear that they felt that modifications are urgently needed in the
represented countries but that the key to change would be policy adjustments. The need to have
solid research together with recommendations related to better methods or policies is recognized
by government as well as research leaders in the various countries.
It is interesting to note that the research activity entitled, “Improving Household Food Security:
Documenting Institutions’ Efforts to Apply Gender-Sensitive, Participatory Processes in
Developing Integrated Solutions” included researchers from Tanzania, Ethiopia, Uganda and
Kenya as well as the U.S. The African researchers are professionals well placed in the systems of
their countries to make gender sensitive changes within the government or university structure.
Such an approach will be beneficial to the institutions as well as to personnel located in
cooperating groups.
U.S. universities/institutions
The CRSP activities have benefited the U.S. universities involved in the research in various ways
including the following:
• Increased international research has been made possible because of CRSP leadership and has
helped the universities to focus on the need to hire RAs to undertake the research;
• The involvement of researchers from different universities has encouraged institutional ties
which did not exist between those academic units in the past;
46
• The CRSP has provided sabbatical possibilities for U.S. University faculty; and
• Diversification techniques, risk management and related information from research activities
in Ethiopia has provided ‘lessons learned’ data for U.S. areas where crops such as tobacco
are being phased out and the need for assistance is evident.
Training
Formal training was not included as part of the activities of the Horn program. Specifically,
training activities are not reported by the Horn researchers since the activity is not a goal of the
program. One could surmise that the training which has occurred has been of an informal basis
which occurs when researchers work together and learn from each other in areas such as
methodology, cultural mores, writing techniques, etc.
Overall benefits
The Horn program addresses BASIS CRSP objectives and USAID objectives of identifying ways
to improve food availability and nutrition in the region, and broadening access of the poor and
socially disadvantaged to factor markets and sustainable livelihoods.
The overall benefits will relate to understanding market factors and translating that
understanding to knowledge/action plans to impact policy/action, which in turn will increase
food security in one of the most food-deprived regions of the world.
Cross cutting themes
The BASIS/CRSP Annual Report, Greater Horn of Africa Program does not address cross
cutting themes. One can assume that attention is being given to gender, market integration, and
risk in a cross cutting approach, but the project reports are relatively silent on this point.
3. Evaluation of overall BASIS CRSP management and administration
The following evaluative assessments were provided in response to questions by the evaluator:
• When inquiries are sent to the ME, responses are quickly provided.
• The ME staff is very responsive to the needs as expressed in the field. The attitude of the ME
as illustrated by Danielle Hartmann is not to say no but to ascertain how a task can be done.
This positive approach is a key to the development of good working relationships between
the field and the ME.
• The Project Director is solid in the technical field and working relationships with him are
sound.
• Each activity has special needs and requirements and the flexibility on the part of the ME
assists these programs to operate well.
• The ME communicates well with the Program Leader and keeps him informed of relevant
information.
• Communications are generally positive within the CRSP. E-mail has been most helpful and
that is funded for some African researchers by BASIS. The ME is very helpful with
47
communications as messages are copied to relevant personnel so that everyone knows what
is going on in their areas of responsibility.
• The Land Tenure Center at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, has long experience with
AID and their experience is very helpful to ME in terms of working with AID in a non￾confrontational atmosphere.
D. RECOMMENDATIONS AND ISSUES TO CONSIDER
The following comments are based on interviews and observations and are presented for
consideration by those involved in the Program. Consideration was not given to possible barriers
to activating these comments and that process is left to the appropriate personnel. The comments
are as follows:
• Basically this program is a research project with emphasis upon policy influence. For various
reasons, the need for publication of results and/or methodologies is urgent. Research needs to
be published on a timely basis. The ME takes leadership in this area and it is urgent that they
push the researchers to get the data prepared for publication in a timely manner. At the same
time it is important for the ME to move the research publications along as quickly as
possible. The final editing of the papers appears to be done within the ME but some
researchers seemed confused about the process of the final editing.
It is recommended that the data need to be prepared for publication and submitted to referred
journals as soon as possible. Researchers should take responsibility in this activity, and
should submit to journals while keeping the ME in the information loop.
It is recommended that the program continue to assure that publications are jointly (U.S. and
African) prepared and published and that this process take place quickly.
• Annual workplans for multi-year programs appear to be a bit redundant and appears to
require time that is better utilized elsewhere. However, it is important that workplans be
specifically detailed so that designated activities are matched with expenditures, institutional
matching, core funding, and add-on funding.
It is recommended that multi-year workplans and programs be required to submit updates but
will not be required to submit full annual workplans.
• The BASIS CRSP has been in the implementation phase long enough that cross regional
work should be taking place.
It is recommended that thematic conferences be proposed in order to provide a venue to
address specific topics across regions and focus on ‘lessons learned’ as well as broader
research topics. For example, the value of investigating factor market constraints findings in
various geographic areas could result in global indicators and could foster data
synthesis/integration.
• The Horn program has involved a variety of non-CRSP groups and this should be continued
and encouraged. However, it is important to note that all of the non-CRSP group involvement
is funded with BASIS CRSP funds. It is important to encourage involvement of non-CRSP
groups in joint funding situations whenever possible.
48
• The relationship between the Horn Program Leader and the field researchers appears to be
one which consists of frequent communication. The fine line between taking over an activity
and supporting that activity is sometimes difficult to maintain but the Program Leader
appears to have mastered the technique. It is important that the African researchers feel a
partnership role and it is recommended that the Program Leader continue his open and
cooperative work. Since some of the Africans interpreted early behavior in the project as one
which tried to dominate the situation it is very important to assure that the situation is one of
equality in all aspects.
One area that is a cause of concern to the African researchers is the selection of counterparts.
Specifically, when U.S. counterparts are proposed, the African researchers would like to be
involved and receive a copy of the proposed counterpart’s resume. This situation could be set up
in such a way that the African researchers are part of the information loop and feel that they have
an opportunity to voice considerations.
Program Leaders makes the allocation of funds and the researchers learn about the action after it
is accomplished. More collaboration is needed in this area and input is encouraged. The positive
aspect about collaboration is that everyone feels involved and has ownership. However the
negative aspect may be that involvement may indicate that decisions can then be made as a
group. When dealing with a limited budget and without knowledge of the entire program on the
part of the researchers then the allocation responsibility remaining in the hands of the Program
Leader may be the best and most efficient method of operation. Consideration should be given to
possible actions in this area which would invite input.
• BASIS publications should be distributed to the African researchers with enough copies so
that at least one could be filed in a relevant library. The BASIS Newsletter is an important
communication item and that should be distributed on a regular basis.
• Gender issues have been addressed in various studies and that should be continued. In
addition, other non-gender specific research should be examined in the planning stage and
gender issues should be incorporated as relevant. It is not enough to state that gender does
not impact, but it is important to include gender in research topics that relate to policy.
Since gender issues have been identified by the CRSP leadership as one cross cutting issue then
all proposed research proposals should be reviewed for possibilities of including gender related
information. There are several African researchers who are specialists in the field of gender
research and they should be utilized to review interview schedules, questionnaires and research
proposals relative to gender issues.
It is important to recognize that the time to review research with attention to gender issues is not
after the research is completed but rather when it is in the design phase.
• The research related to the livelihood and quality of life of the pastorialists is important to
every country in the Horn of Africa. The whole topic of pastorialists is urgent and the need
for policy recommendations is immediate. It is recommended that the BASIS research related
to the pastorialists be synthesized so as to develop a series of recommendations for policy
development. Unique ways to bring policymakers together to discuss and understand the
research in this subject matter area should be examined and attempts should be made to bring
the data into a policy mode and prepared for policymakers use. The pastorialists network
49
proposed by OSSREA should be part of the interactive research methodology utilized by
BASIS.
Guidelines should be given (probably were) to writers of reports to be presented in conferences.
For example, relative to the required workshop in November 1999, every writer should be
identified as in the “Agricultural Policy, Employment and Resource Access: Micro Foundations
for Sustainable Nutritional Improvements” report. All reports should be dated. Specific date is
not necessary, but month and year would be important to include on all reports produced within
BASIS.
• It is recommended that meetings of BASIS standing groups (technical committee, Board etc)
be scheduled a year in advance. In addition, these meetings should be scheduled so that the
presence of the group member is utilized to the max. The example which relates to this
recommendation was from a Board member who noted that he had four days of travel for one
day of meetings. He suggested that if at all possible the meetings should be scheduled around
other meetings especially for those who travel from another continents to attend.
• It is important to develop and/or maintain connections between policymakers and
researchers. It appears that such connections are not common and most researchers require
assistance as to how this can be accomplished. The CRSP would serve a real need if
assistance could be provided relative to making the connection and encouraging research in a
reinforcing role for policymakers. Workshops or special forums may be considered by the
CRSP in order to make these connections. Donors should be explored to fund such meetings.
An additional issue relative to policy is the need to understand how policies are formulated.
This is another area in need of research.
• Consideration should be given to restructuring the Technical Committee meetings. At the
present time, the TC meetings consist of every attendee presenting their research programs.
However, time is not allocated to the discussion of mutual problems and how to solve them.
It is recommended that the TC consider a meeting format which would move from
concentration on allocation of resources and onto the next level of sharing experiences on
substantive issues.
• When dealing with various cultures and organizations with differing expertise it is important
to be very clear from the beginning as to who will do what. Roles, responsibilities and
outcomes should be defined early and articulated to all involved personnel. Rolling decision￾making should be avoided.
Activities should be designed with consideration of the strengths and capacity of the institution.
Personnel and equipment requirements should be considered when determining proposed work
for a cooperating institution.
• Linkages are important but researchers who come from the U.S. with specific task
assignments do not often provide opportunities for linkages with their home institutions. Is
there some way that BASIS could encourage linkages between researchers’ home institutions
and host country institutions?
• While there is not a requirement that BASIS report to or keep USAID informed, it is
important to keep the Mission and REDSO in the information loop for several reasons.
BASIS operates more independently than other projects and while there is a relationship with
USAID it is not as close as with other projects. Very simply, there is less reporting and less
50
collaboration. Since buy-ins occur through the Missions and the REDSO it is important to
send reports to the project officers and send update information. In addition, project officers
should be included in field visits especially when those visits are to areas where Mission or
REDSO monies are being utilized.
The REDSO officer tasked with BASIS could be of significant assistance in getting regional
programs underway. His knowledge and connections should be used whenever relevant.
It is also important for the CRSP to assure that information is available to the USAID officers on
a time basis related to their schedule. For example, if the REDSO officer is required to begin
development of the 2001 budget in December 1999 then BASIS should make sure that the
officer is provided with budget information prior to December 1999. Such information would
probably be brief in nature but would provide the officer with a reference point for making
budget recommendations for BASIS in the planning process in his unit. Forward planning
documents would be very helpful in this context.
E. APPENDIX
The information for this report was acquired through interviews, informal discussion,
observations and attendance at the Horn of Africa Regional Workshop in November 1999. In
addition, information was accessed through Program reports and reports related to issues or sub￾issues.
Persons interviewed formally included the following:
• Peter Little, BASIS Res. Program Leader, Horn of Africa, USA
• Abdel Ghaffar M. Ahmed, Executive Secretary, OSSREA, Ethiopia
• Tegegne Teka, Regional Project Coordinator, OSSREA, Ethiopia
• Alemayehu Azeze, Project Coordinator, OSSREA, Ethiopia
• Tegegne Gebre Egziabher, Director, IDR, Ethiopia
• Yared Amare, Researcher, IDR, Ethiopia
• Karl Schwartz, Program Officer, USAID, Ethiopia
• Laketch Mikael, USAID, Ethiopia
• John Dunlop, REDSO/ESA, Kenya
• Christopher A. Onyango, Ministry of Educ., Science & Tech., Kenya
• Charlotte Johnson-Welch, ICRW, USA
• Theresia Peter Msaki, Food Security Dept., Tanzania
• Bogalech Allemu Reta, Women’s Affairs, Ethiopia
• May Sengendo, Makerere University, Uganda
• Kisamba Mugerwa, Agriculture Minister, Uganda
• Michael Roth, CRSP Project Director, USA
51
ANNEX IV: BROADENING ACCESS TO WATER RESOURCES IN
SOUTHERN AFRICA
Zimbabwe, Malawi, Mozambique
Prepared by: Angelique Haugerud, EEP Member
Jean Kearns, EEP Chair
A. OVERVIEW
Since 1997, the Southern Africa program has centered around land and water issues. This
evaluation focuses upon the water resources part of the Southern Africa program. The Water
Resources project was designed to inform policy on water resource management, particularly
decentralized management systems, in the context of ongoing water sector reform in Zimbabwe,
Mozambique, and Malawi and in the region as a whole.
It should be noted that this region is subject to current specific stresses. The impact of the floods
in Mozambique together with displacement of population and food limitations added to the stress
already present in that economy. The outcome of legislative, policy, and political situation in
Zimbabwe is unpredictable at this time. However, it is reasonable to predict that both situations
(Mozambique and Zimbabwe) will suffer negative impacts. These situations provide unique
opportunities for regional research in the middle of change and undergoing great difficulties.
Water, like land, is the focus of increasing competition (and sometimes conflict) over its control
and use in Southern Africa. It is also the focus of important policy reforms to which BASIS
research can contribute. In the Malawi and Mozambique water projects, BASIS researchers are
observing and documenting the policy-making process as it unfolds, and are collecting
information on the effects of new policies that can be used to inform key policy-makers. The
Malawi water project focuses on the Lake Chilwa basin in the southern part of the country and
addresses current patterns of water use and access, conflict resolution, and water management
policies (e.g., decentralization). The Mozambique water project in the Umbeluzi basin in the
south shifted its focus in 1999 from physical measures of water flow to analysis of patterns of
use and rights in relation to new legislation and administration. Government decentralization
programs are still largely in the planning phase in this area. The Zimbabwe water resources
project addresses water management issues, especially decentralized management systems, as
water sector reforms. Research examines current patterns of water management and use; new
institutional authorities and procedures such as the new catchment organizations that emerged in
Zimbabwe following new water policy legislation; changes in (or elimination of) tenure and
property rights systems; linkages among water, land, labor, and finance at the water user level;
and linkages and contradictions across policies and across institutional and administrative
dimensions of water management (such as the Ministry of Agriculture and the Department of
Fisheries).
52
B. RESEARCH PROGRESS
Table 3: Comparing progress relative to workplans—Southern Africa
(prepared by Pauline Peters, RPL, Southern Africa Region, March 2000)
Workplan activity Status
Zimbabwe
Attend key meetings of new water management
organizations in the three catchments (Sanyanti,
Mazowe, and Manyame): 10/99-9/2000
Activity is underway but is on hold because of disturbances in
the country.
Interview policymakers and implementers of water
reform, review key policy documents: 10/99-9/2000
40 interviews with subcatchment council members have been
conducted. The researchers will begin soon to interview the
catchment members.
Training research assistants in data input and
analysis programs (Nud*1st for qualitative and SPSS
for quantitative): 10-11/99.
SPSS data entry will begin upon the receipt of a new
computer and SPSS program. Training is expected to occur at
the end of April, 2000.
Conduct studies of water use and impacts of water
reform to identify the degree of access by poor and
other disadvantaged categories to water resources
and, more broadly, access to factor markets, food
security and livelihood: 10/99-5/2000
200 surveys of water use and awareness have been completed
in Sanyati and Mazowe catchments and data entry begins at
the end of April, 2000.
Analysis of surveys, interviews and case studies: 3-
9/2000
The activities are on track and/or underway. Some delay
caused by Zimbabwean PI’s pregnancy but ameliorated by
U.S. researchers being in country for much of 1999-2000.
Currently negotiating to see if replacement can be made for
Zimbabwean PI (from same institution i.e. CASS) for rest of
fiscal year 2000.
Workshop with members of Catchment Councils
and policymakers to present preliminary findings of
research: 2/2000
This on hold because of political disturbances. Earlier
meetings were conducted.
Workshop with teams from other two countries in
water research project to discuss findings and
lessons, and develop 2000-2001 workplan: 3/2000.
Planned for early July 2000 in Malawi.
53
Workplan activity Status
Mozambique
On basis of previous year’s work on water flows,
select sample of categories of water users in
Umbeluzi basin; select and train students and
assistants.
Completed under supervision of new senior researcher, Joel
das Neves Tembe, under Arlindo Chilundo’s overall
supervision.
Survey of water users in Umbeluzi Basin to
establish types of water use, water rights, costs and
evaluation of water, conflicts and conflict
resolution: 9/99-2/00
Survey is underway though delayed due to floods. Status is
unclear as of April 17, 2000.
Analysis of policies on water, and those affecting
water use.
Status is unknown.
Workshop with teams from other two countries in
water research project to discuss findings and
lessons, and develop 2000-2001 workplan: 3/2000.
Info from PI is very limited. The normal lack of good
communications with the Mozambican team has been
exacerbated by the floods. The RPL received a reply in the
middle of April 2000 from Dr. Chilundo saying they had been
“greatly disrupted by the floods but that they had finished the
last part of the work”. Whether this refers to the survey is
unclear.
54
Workplan activity Status
Malawi
Finalize collaborative agreement with other
agencies working in Basin (especially the
DANIDA-funded environmental project).
Collaboration in actual research proved infeasible (Peters was
with Khaila in October 1999 for the meeting with DANIDA.
The DANIDA team has provided BASIS team with their
documents and high quality computer info.
Survey of categories of water users in Chilwa basin:
main topics to be covered include the following:
9/99-2/00:
• assessment of quantity and quality of water
used by different categories of users
• economic evaluation of water by user
categories
• gender aspects of water use
• relation between water rights and land rights
• health and sanitation regarding water sources
This survey was started in November 1999 and is continuing.
But there have been serious delays and hiatuses due to the
inability of the senior PI to supervise. The U.S. researcher
(Anne Ferguson) was in country from late January to late
March 2000 and managed to get some tasks back on track. As
of April 2000, new assistants were being trained and it is
hoped that CSR will provide a senior researcher to take over
from Dr. Khaila on day-to-day supervision.
Study of conflicts over water use and mechanisms
for resolution: 9/99-2/00
This is not done. Probably will have to be pushed into next
year.
Analysis of existing policy documents and practices
regarding water.
Most water policy documents have been collected–
N’gong’ola paper made use of them in developing a water
policy for the country. Interviews have been carried out with
policymakers, program directors, etc. In water related sectors
(MOAI, water department, ministry of health, fisheries, major
NGOs) these interviews together with findings from the field
research have resulted in identification of major types of
conflicts that exist over water in the Chilwa basin.
Workshop with teams from other two countries in
water research project to discuss findings and
lessons, and develop 2000-2001 workplan: 3/2000.
Planned for July 2000.
C. APPROACHES OR METHODOLOGIES
1. Competitive grants
The BASIS CRSP Program Update, October 1999 contains a listing of competitive grants for the
1997 to October 1999 period. There does not appear to be any competitive grants for Zimbabwe,
Malawi, or Mozambique for this time period. However, the Southern Africa Program report in
the Global Research and Competitive Grants proposal (1 January to 30 April 1998) notes that
two competitive grants, one for two small planning grants on the theme of “Restructuring
55
Markets, Improving Food Security and Securing Sustainable Livelihoods” and one for two
stocktaking exercises would be allocated funds.
No responses to the stocktaking RFP were submitted so the funds were rolled back into the
overall program. One of the two small planning grants was awarded to Dr. Mataya of Bunda
College of Agriculture (Malawi) and one to Dr. Aquah of the University of Botswana. Drs.
Mataya and Aquah met with Drs. Carter and May to discuss a comparative design in 1997.
Delays in the process were caused by funding problems for Mataya and by Aquah’s sabbatical.
Proposals were received from Aquah in October 1999 and from Mataya in March 2000. These
have not yet been reviewed.
2. Innovative policy
The three country research programs employ different approaches and methodologies to meet the
goal of developing policy. Overall the methods employed show flexibility, with the researchers
utilizing, changing, or modifying research approaches as conditions change. An overview of
these country projects follows.
In the Zimbabwe water project, BASIS-funded research builds on studies that began in 1997
by the University of Zimbabwe’s Centre for Applied Social Sciences (CASS). Attention had
focused in part on two catchments (Mazowe and Mupfure) chosen by the Zimbabwe government
as pilot sites for two new forms of water administration; by mid-1999 a new Zimbabwe National
Water Authority (ZINWA) had been established and these two catchments were discontinued as
official pilots. The research plan was subsequently adjusted and current research focuses on three
catchments (Mazowe, Sanyati, and Manyme). Approaches/methodologies in the field research
include interviews with policymakers and implementers of water reform, water users, and
stakeholders (e.g. indigenous large-scale farmers, other large-scale commercial farmers, large
scale miners, small-scale miners, small-scale urban farmers, and communal area farmers); focus
group meetings, and observation of water management practices and water catchment council
meetings at all administrative levels.
For comparative purposes, a household survey that was designed (based on non-BASIS research
by Dr. Peters for Malawi has been adapted by the teams in Mozambique and Zimbabwe. The
survey has been conducted in Malawi and new rounds are planned. The survey was started in
Mozambique, but due to the floods the status of its completion is unclear. The Zimbabwe team is
adapting the survey for the local situation.
The Malawi water project has included participatory methodologies to identify water user
categories and water use patterns; collection and review of key documents on policy and
administrative procedures that affect water use and management in the Lake Chilwa basin; and a
workshop for agencies and groups working in the basin or interested in its resources. The 1999-
2000 workplan outlines a program of field research in the Lake Chilwa basin to document water
supply and demand parameters (using existing data sources); analyze multiple and apparently
conflicting policies and administrative procedures that affect water resource management;
analyze a sample of water users to identify key patterns of use, rights and claims; problems such
as water shortage and quality, and cases of conflict and conflict resolution; undertake detailed
case studies of specific sites focused on conflict or other issues emerging from the research
procedures listed above; observe and analyze the implementation and enforcement of water
policies and administrative actions.
56
The Mozambique water project in 1998-99 included a workshop, review of documents on the
new legislation and river basin authorities, preliminary assessment of water service delivery
(conducted by 10 students from Eduardo Mondlane University under the supervision of BASIS
researchers), study of ecological minimum runoff of the lower Umbeluzi River, assessment of
storage potential in the lower Umbeluzi river, and training students in research techniques and
the use of computer models.
D. IMPACT INDICATORS
1. Current
Impact indicators at this point in the CRSP activities include progress towards workplan
objectives, data analysis, and data collection. In addition, the Southern Africa water related
activities are currently yielding rich observations on local institutional structures, dynamics and
constraints broadly representative of research management procedures.
2. Outcome
Increased research capacity is an important impact indicator for the Southern Africa CRSP
(water related) activities. The need for direct policy intervention is obvious in the geographic
area. Research to support policy changes is urgently needed. However, this research should be
implemented in the region with leadership provided by indigenous scientists. The procedures
adapted by the BASIS CRSP are designed to fully involve, in a cooperative way, both in-country
and U.S. scientists. This approach is focused on developing their research capacity and assisting
the scientists to work cooperatively to ascertain reasonable policy actions.
3. Results
Generally, it is too early to expect final results. However, the need to plot significant
performance indicators in a time continuum in order to accomplish workplan goals is obvious. If
the planned results are to be realized, the timetable for the bench mark activities need to be
developed and adhered to tightly.
4. Prospects for global applicability
BASIS CRSP research has established three primary and three secondary special objectives. The
primary objectives are designed to examine ways to:
• Encourage efficient and competitive land, water, labor, and financial markets;
• Enable formation of land, water, labor, and financial markets in contexts of asset
redistribution and economic restructuring; and
• Broaden access of the poor and socially disadvantaged to factor markets and sustainable
livelihoods.
The water projects in Zimbabwe, Malawi, and Mozambique include elements related to each of
the primary objectives.
57
A review of the goals together with the factor market research clearly indicates the usefulness of
the research globally. Specifically, indicators developed by organizations such as World Watch
as well as other futurists appear to agree that water is and will be an increasingly critical factor in
the future. Critical issues related to policy development, market factors, ownership, quality,
agricultural impacts, and other water related issues are emerging. These require research results
that can be adopted in a variety of situations and support policy recommendations.
5. Significance of research discoveries
The significance of potential research discoveries appears to be high. It will be important to
monitor the research process and ensure that results and conclusions meet scientific standards.
BASIS research on water management is intended to improve understanding of the water
markets in Malawi, Mozambique, and Zimbabwe, and how access to water impacts economic
growth and natural resource conservation. The research should contribute significantly to
understanding the effectiveness of policy reforms intended to improve capacity to deal with
scarcity and conflict; to improve individual access to water, especially among disadvantaged
peoples; and to increase regional capacity to manage transboundary natural resources. In
addition, the research will consider the extent to which decentralized water management systems
imply a wider “culture of democracy.”
E. STATUS
The project has managed to continue through the crisis situation in Southern Africa. Continued
progress in Zimbabwe may be questionable at least during the upcoming few months due to
travel advisories by the British Government and travel warnings by the government of the U.S.A.
As the conflict in the area becomes more widespread and since some of the basic reasons for the
conflict (land and water) relate directly to the project, research progress may be very difficult.
The work proposed by the project for FY2000 includes the following:
The Malawi water project FY2000 workplan proposes to finalize agency agreements in Chilwa
basin, survey users, assess quantity and quality of water used, and analyze cases of competitive
use and conflict over water.
The Mozambique water project FY2000 workplan proposes to select a sample of various
categories of users, train assistants, survey users, evaluate conflicts and conflict resolution, and
analyze policies.
The Zimbabwe water program FY2000 workplan proposes to interview policy-makers and
implementers of reform; review policy documents; train assistants in database management; and
conduct studies of use and impacts of reform to identify access by the disadvantaged to
resources, factor markets, food security, and livelihoods.
1. Collaboration/cooperation/linkage relations and activities
USAID
Researchers are very aware of the importance of involving relevant USAID missions in the work
of the CRSP. During the first project year, D. Rubin (USAID) met with the USAID Regional
58
Mission to explain the project. Based on intelligence from that meeting, Dr. Peters and project
leadership followed up on the water theme and transboundary national resource management,
which were topics in which the mission personnel expressed interest. Dr. Peters made another
visit to the Regional Mission in October 1999. Thus far, none of the meetings guaranteed funds
for the program. Currently, the Zimbabwe Mission is kept routinely informed of BASIS work.
However, attempts to make contact with the Mozambique Mission have not been successful. Dr.
Peters visited with the Malawi Mission in 1997 to inform them of the CRSP work. Follow-up
contacts have not been attempted in Malawi since Peters’ visit.
Michael Roth has also met with USAID personnel related to the Southern Africa water program.
He and Dr. Peters visited with the Regional USAID Mission in Gaborone several times. In
addition, Dr. Roth met with the Mission in Mozambique and Zimbabwe. Dr. Roth has
communicated frequently with David Atwood and Dennis Weller in USAID/Africa Bureau in
Washington, DC.
Host County organizations
Researchers from Host country institutions are active in the project as collaborators. The Centre
for Applied Social Science (CASS), at the University of Zimbabwe, Nucleo de Estudos de Terra
(NET), at Eduardo Mondlane University, and the Centre for Social Research (CSR), affiliated
with the University of Malawi have personnel linked to the water project. In addition to
experienced researchers, the host country institutions also realize benefits to overall research
programs and possible involvement of graduate students in dynamic research activities.
Institutions collaborating on the water program also include the Zimbabwe National Water
Authority (ZINWA), the Water Resources Management Strategy Group (WRMS) in Zimbabwe,
the Lake Chilwa Project in Malawi (locally managed but funded by DANIDA), ARA-Sul
regional river basin authority in Mozambique, and a new Dutch-organized regional organization
called Water Net.
BASIS hosted a workshop on Malawi in January 1998 that included participants from agencies
and groups working in the Lake Chilwa basin. A network of stakeholders has been established
(government representatives at all levels, NGOs, community groups) in Mozambique also.
A planning workshop, organized by the Centre for Applied Social Science (CASS) at the
University of Zimbabwe and in collaboration with John Bruce (LTC) and Pauline Peters (HIID),
was held in Zimbabwe in July 1999. This workshop brought together researchers, government,
and non-government organizations.
Donor organizations
Members of the Steering Committee met with IDRC personnel in Johannesburg to inform them
of the proposed work of the CRSP. Fundraising with IDRC has not been successful though
discussions with organizations active in the area should be viewed as worthwhile as such
activities lay a foundation for future cooperative work.
A meeting was also arranged by project leadership with the UNDP Gaborone office. The purpose
of the meeting was twofold: to inform and to seek additional funds. The funding has not been
realized as yet but the organization was informed.
59
Other BASIS programs, other CRSPs and external groups
There has been some collaboration with the Horn of Africa Program but scarce funds and limited
time available to the program leaders have curtailed this collaboration. At present, a formal
mechanism for ensuring that collaboration occurs is not in place.
There appears to be good working relationships among Bill Derman, Anne Ferguson and Pauline
Peters and between the U.S. researchers and their counterparts. The two American researchers on
the water project (Derman in Zimbabwe and Ferguson in Zimbabwe and Malawi) both received
Fulbright-Hayes fellowships to support their research.
2. Programs/Research Benefits/Contributions
USAID goals
The BASIS CRSP is in the process of conducting collaborative research on factor markets in an
effort to address USAID/AFS objectives of increasing food availability, creating economic
growth, and conserving natural resources. The researchers link to the USAID/AFS objectives
using the BASIS Approach to Rural Development (see chart in BASIS CRSP Second Annual
Report: Activities and Workplan, October 1998). The Southern Africa water research is within
the mainstream of this Approach.
Host countries/non-US partners
The Southern Africa water activities have involved researchers from the University of
Zimbabwe, Eduardo Mondlane University, and the University of Malawi.
Each country participating in the water project in Southern Africa is also involved in national
natural resources reform processes to establish new policies, procedures, and decentralized
management structures for water resources. Access to water is highly constrained in the region.
An exception to this is the overabundance of water in the recent flooding in Zimbabwe and
Mozambique. The excessive flooding in the latter country raises the issue of cross-country
agreements about regulation of dams and river flow. Such emergency situations provide a unique
opportunity for host country researchers and U.S. researchers to acquire information in the
middle of a crisis. The importance of such research to the host countries is apparent.
All of the country teams have put a great deal of effort into communicating with and involving,
as much as is feasible, key “stakeholders” in the research. These include government
representatives, at local, district, and national levels, relevant NGOs, and community groups. In
Mozambique, they have set up a network of such people, along with researchers, concerned with
water resources. In Malawi, the PI, Dr. Khaila, has spent considerable effort ensuring such
communication–through a large initial meeting to introduce the research, and through more
informal contacts with the individuals and institutions in the country. In Zimbabwe, the team has
managed to link their research very closely with key groups from the community up to the
national level. While the “products” of such communication and involvement seem slight so far,
the researchers feel that they will be essential in the longer term for the best use of the research.
U.S. universities/institutions
In an effort to encourage efficient and competitive water markets, the Southern Africa regional
program aims to identify whether and how new planning institutions and procedures manage
60
water allocation and use. Various U.S. sites currently have or will have need for this information
relative to the looming water problems, especially in the western part of the U.S. The present and
continuing need to establish policies in water-short areas, according to all indications, will not
reduce but will become more urgent. Issues related to water source ownership, agriculture vs.
housing development, water education programs and others are becoming more frequent in the
western U.S. Whatever lessons can be learned from the CRSP research will be useful as the
western U.S. cities face policy issues related to water.
Several of the researchers (both U.S. and non-U.S.) have managed to involve their students in the
research. Mozambique and Zimbabwe have done so. The researchers and the PI support this very
important aspect of BASIS-funded research as one that might be more emphasized in future
work. Malawi probably has not gone this route because the CSR is a research unit without strong
ties to faculties. This might be changed in future. More involvement of U.S. students would
benefit both those students and Southern African students. Generally, bringing U.S. students into
the program has been difficult. Part of the reason is that it is very expensive to get a U.S. student
into the field for any length of time and the current level of funding is not adequate enough to
support such a program.
Training
Formal training programs are not a part of the Southern Africa water program. However, because
the project is collaborative in nature, researchers from the region and the U.S. share
commonalities of the situations they are facing, both regionally and internationally.
Collaborative work provides training for all participants.
By involving young researchers in the project, the Southern Africa program is building the
capacity of the professional researchers in the region. The U.S. researchers are committed to
assisting the young researchers (U.S. and host country) to learn various research and analysis
techniques so they will be able to establish similar projects in the future.
Cross cutting themes: gender, market integration, and risk
The cross cutting themes of relevance in this project include gender, market integration, and risk.
The Southern Africa BASIS program should help improve the access of women and
marginalized peoples to scarce water and land resources, by improving their representation in
local resource management bodies, and influencing legal reform and policy experimentation.
3. Evaluation of overall CRSP fiscal and administrative management from
program viewpoint
Issues related to communication, scarcity of trained personnel, and other related items are
discussed in the recommendations section of this report. Basic responsibility for these issues
cannot be assumed totally by the BASIS program.
F. SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS
• A U.S. PI has not yet been designated to work with the Mozambican team and the adequacy
of this situation needs to be examined during the upcoming site visit. Mozambican water
research has focused strongly on physical and geological aspects of water management,
61
though Pauline Peters’ interventions late in 1999 may have helped to broaden that focus.
Progress of this project is uncertain as it is one of the few without a proposal indicating
timelines and expected completion dates. The water research team in Mozambique set up a
network of researchers, policy-makers and others interested in water resource management,
and they have met several times with the ARA-Sul, the regional agency in the project area.
The potential is high for this activity and it is recommended that planning be a priority.
• The summer 2000 visit by the EEP member should address questions about: the extent and
effectiveness of collaboration within and across the countries in this region; possibilities for
institutionalizing the research (not the results) in a policy-making body or within a body that
has influence over the policy-making process; the degree to which the research is oriented
toward practical policy advice as opposed to scholarly journal articles; extent to which
researchers or policy-makers understand the potential long-term benefits/results of the
BASIS CRSP mission; and the appropriateness of the research focus.
• One of the water project researchers raised concerns about BASIS’ assumption that the water
project is trying to influence policy; this researcher says that they have not told their local
collaborators that they are trying to influence policy but rather that they are studying the
outcomes of their policies and interactions with a range of stakeholders. S/he asks for
clarification – and a larger team discussion – about the underlying principles of the research,
and suggests that USAID should “simply support a catchment council ... to see if it can affect
differences in policy by working with one and improving it. The Germans, the Brits, the
Dutch are all there supporting institutional change and assessing their effectiveness.” Since
this appears to be an issue of interest to at least one researcher, it is recommended that a
dialogue be instituted which would address the topic.
• As with other similar projects, the water project suffered from major problems in disbursing
funds throughout the region. INR (associated with the University of Natal) had been
designated the disbursing agency, since all partners agreed that South Africa had the best
banking and financial systems in the region. However, the disbursing of funds from INR to
other countries in the region proved extremely slow and costly. The cumbersome
bureaucratic problems included delays in monies being transferred from the South African
bank to banks in the various countries. Several times, this resulted in the “loss” of funds
transferred to Malawi, due both to problems in the foreign exchange procedures of the banks
and to university hitches. All led to research delays and to exasperation among the
researchers. In addition, the bureaucratic problems were exacerbated by the serious illness of
Jenny Mander in the INR and the almost complete breakdown in communication between her
and the researchers as well as the PI and the ME. Eventually, over the course of almost two
years, these financial transfers improved. However, the internal accounting systems of the
researchers’ units and the universities within which the units operate are very poor and the
invoices remain behind schedule. The evaluators do not have a suggestion to make relative to
this issue but point it out as a source of continuing delays.
• There have been and continue to be communications problems (of a hardware nature) and
currently these are the worst for Malawi and Zimbabwe, although a new modem has
improved the situation somewhat in Malawi. In Zimbabwe, the U.S. researcher has a separate
email connection, which works better than the CASS (university) link. This is a seriously
underestimated problem and one which would be useful to bring more to the forefront in
planning for and funding collaborative research.
62
• Generally, the lack of trained personnel at all levels is a common problem in most of Africa.
Local programs are impacted by the lack of trained and competent administrative and
secretarial help. Senior professionals are often put in the position of taking care of routine
office work if it is to be done. This situation results in imposing high demands on the time of
the professionals. Office work detracts from research activities and results in delays and
limitations as to what is accomplished. This situation is common and donors should
recognize the severe limitation of trained support personnel. Funds should be made available
by donors such as USAID to train staff assistants.
• One important fact about the project as a whole is how valuable all of the Southern African
researchers felt it was to encourage and support collaborative research, exchange, and
information sharing across borders. They have experienced the largely “north-south” flows of
aid and information: from “northern” agencies to individual countries or groups within
countries. A few agencies, such as the Ford Foundation and some of the Scandinavian
groups, are beginning to foster regional networks, but the need is far greater than the
capacity. All agreed that the aim of BASIS Southern Africa program to encourage inter￾country, regional research is an important one and one which should be continued.
• Local fuel and transportation costs have escalated in the area. These costs have become a
significant obstacle to field research. Unfortunately, the obvious answer to this problem is to
increase the budget, but due to an overall tight funding environment the solution to the
problem is not easy.
• There is a need for more frequent meetings among the researchers. The purpose of these
meetings would be to foster regional networks and develop comparative work. The value of
such meetings is significant for U.S. researchers, but even more significant for the Africa
researchers. The cost of such meetings is significant and therefore the possible “trade-off” of
meetings versus research must be carefully considered.
• It would be beneficial to both Southern African students and to U.S. students to increase their
involvement. Meetings involving students and researchers would be of value to the
development of the students. Involvement of U.S. students in the project is to be encouraged.
Sponsoring agencies should continue to be explored for funding support.
• A central problem for research in the region, including the water project, concerns research
personnel, especially the difficulty of researchers being able to put sustained time into
research. Countries outside of South Africa have extremely small pools of competent social
scientists who have very high demands on their time from their universities (teaching and
administration), their governments (most of the senior researchers are on several government
level committees and boards), and consultancies. The latter are usually undertaken because of
the need to make money: the salary levels in the region are low and have been losing value in
recent years. One result is that there are frequent changes in key research personnel in the
project with many of the best researchers are “poached” by international agencies. Thus, Dr.
Nhira left CASS to join IDRC in Johannesburg, leaving the water project without a PI until
Bev Sithole, who was then doing her doctoral dissertation, took over. Another result of these
demands is that research goes more slowly than desirable. In the case of Malawi and
Mozambique, PIs are also Directors of their units (CSR and NET, respectively). While both
Dr. Khaila and Dr. Chilundo are highly competent researchers in their own right, they are
constantly drawn into managing their units’ activities, raising funds, conducting research or
63
workshops for various agencies within their countries, and traveling abroad on these multiple
tasks. Each has sought to bring others in as PIs, but delays and problems continue.
• The lack of a significant mass of trained personnel is a common one in developing countries.
The answer is complex and to the knowledge of these evaluators the issue has not been
addressed completely in such a way as to identify a practical plan of attack. Related to the
lack of research personnel is the issue of the lack of trained support personnel (mentioned in
a previous recommendation).
• A review of the overall southern Africa water work clearly indicates a need for: cross￾country comparative research; an enlargement of the scope of the research program (topics
identified through the research process); more work in BASIS cross-cutting themes;
increased involvement of graduate students in the research; and other tasks. However, the
limitations of funds and lack of incoming add-ons provides a real questions about the amount
of work which can be accomplished under present circumstances.
Strategy relative to the funding issue should be addressed very soon. Hard questions must be
asked about the sustainability of the water activities in three countries, how to capture add-on
funding and ultimately what activities must be continued, finalized, added, or terminated. The
BASIS reconciliation process must include attention to the possible sustainability of the current
research program.
G. APPENDIX
• In addition to other documents, the following reports and studies were reviewed:
• BASIS Annual Activity Report, October 1998-September 1999: Broadening Access to Water
Resources in Southern Africa
• BASIS Annual Workplan: Southern Africa, October 1999-September 2000
• BASIS CRSP Program Update, October 1999
• BASIS CRSP Second Annual Report: Workplan, October 1998-September 1999
• BASIS CRSP Southern Africa Water Trip Report, Bill Derman, January 4-25, 1999
• BASIS CRSP Trip Report, Anne Ferguson, March 12-29, 1999
• BASIS CRSP Trip Report, Danielle Hartmann, July 23-August 5, 1999
• BASIS Research and Training Program in Southern Africa: Synthesis of the Southern
African Regional Planning Workshop, June 1997
• BASIS Southern Africa 1 October 1998-30 September 1999 Workplan
• BASIS Southern Africa Program, memo from Michael Roth, February 24, 2000
• BASIS Southern Africa Reconnaissance Mission Report, 2-13 March 1997
• BASIS Southern Africa Second Planning Meeting for Research Agendas on Water Resource
Use in Malawi, Mozambique, and Zimbabwe, 7-9 September, Joanne H. Leestermaker
• BASIS Trip Report, Michael Roth and Pauline Peters, January 5-27, 1999
• Broadening Access to Water Resources in Southern Africa, Pauline Peters, undated
64
• Research Proposal: BASIS Southern Africa Second Planning Meeting for Research Agendas
on Water Resource Use in Malawi, Mozambique, and Zimbabwe, 7-9 September 1998,
Harare, Zimbabwe
• Research Proposal: Broadening Access to Land Markets in Southern Africa
• Research Proposal: Water Resource Management and Water Policy Formation in Four
Countries
• Southern Africa: BASIS CRSP Research Projects, undated
• Trip Report, Pauline Peters, October 20-November 20, 1999
H. LISTING OF INTERVIEWS, DESCRIPTION OF THE EVALUATION PROCESS
Due to unforeseen problems which prevented the scheduled field visit, it was determined to
prepare a desk review of the program in order to meet the deadline for the EEP report
submission. The desk review was prepared by EEP members Drs. Angelique Haugerud and Jean
Kearns. Each evaluator reviewed documents independently and prepared separate statements
which, after finalization, were combined into the final report.
Thus, without the information which would be acquired in a site visit, this evaluation must be
viewed a preliminary. As previously stated, it was important to prepare this evaluation within a
certain time frame so the report could be utilized in the EEP CRSP evaluation.
In order to assure accuracy, it is planned that a member of the EEP will visit the project site
(Zimbabwe, Malawi, and Mozambique) before September 2000. At that time, the report will be
revised to reflect information acquired in the site visit.
65
ANNEX V: BROADENING ACCESS TO LAND MARKETS IN
SOUTHERN AFRICA
Namibia, South Africa, Zimbabwe
Prepared by: Allen M. Featherstone, EEP Member
Dates of visit: March 4-12, 2000
A. OVERVIEW
Cross-Cutting Objective: To inform policy recommendations aimed at broadening access to land
markets and encouraging sustainable use of farmland acquired by disadvantaged people in South
Africa, Namibia, and Zimbabwe. Specifically, the rate at which farmland is redistributed — both
as a result of private transactions and public land reform programs — in selected regions of each
country. In addition, relationships between land tenure, managerial arrangements, farm and
household characteristics, access to credit, investment in agriculture, land use and rural
livelihoods on redistributed farmland. The proposed research is to span a period of five years
with annual census surveys of farmland transactions, sample surveys of households using
redistributed farmland, and a series of workshops and reports to refine methodology and reports
to refine methodology and disseminate findings.
Land reform is a crucial issue in Namibia, South Africa, and Zimbabwe (hence referred to as
Southern Africa in this document). The recent events in Zimbabwe have illustrated this point.
Land reform in Southern Africa has important political and economic consequences of which
there is a natural tension between the achievement of political and economic goals. The
achievement of a political goal may have unstable economic consequences and vice versa.
Various mechanisms for land reform exist in the region ranging from those which are heavily
driven by the public sector to those that allow the private market allocate land. A number of
mechanisms for land reform lay between those extremes.
In South Africa, several schemes for land reform ranging from those that are heavily
government-driven to those which are heavily private sector-driven are in close proximity
providing an ideal climate for comparative analysis. In Namibia and Zimbabwe, the issues are no
less acute but are more difficult in that basic data on exact ownership patterns and how those
ownership patterns are changing are unavailable. Thus, BASIS researchers in Namibia and
Zimbabwe needed to do much more preliminary work before the ultimate goals of the research
stated above could be achieved.
The goal of this project is to examine the issues of broadening access to land markets and
sustainable use of farmland by disadvantaged people in selected parts of Southern Africa. The
ultimate aim is to evaluate the various means by which farmland is transferred and ultimately
used with a specific focus on the well being of disadvantaged people. Because the issue is not
only transfer, but subsequent use, this project was by necessity designed to be two consecutive
five-year projects.
A specific set of deliverables and phasing for the work was set out in the proposal beginning in
January 1998 and ending in 2003 for the first five-year project. Specific deliverables and
dissemination plans were put together, with much of the dissemination coming towards the end
66
of the five-year program. Another objective was to develop local research capacity in the process
of the completion of the BASIS research.
B. RESEARCH PROGRESS
Research progress will be mainly discussed in South Africa and Namibia as these were the two
countries visited. When I discuss recommendations, I will provide a more comments on
Zimbabwe. I will discuss the progress relative to workplans, methodologies, impact indicators,
prospects of global applicability, and significance of research discoveries for Namibia and then
South Africa.
The research progress of Namibia and South Africa was good, although generally uneven. Much
of this unevenness arose from the linking of partners that were not equally far along on tasks
when the project began. South Africa was very far along with regards to the census work.
Namibia and Zimbabwe needed to develop the procedures from ground zero. As a result, initial
stages in Namibia and Zimbabwe were more difficult than in South Africa. However, the payoff
from the initial stages will likely be higher in Namibia and Zimbabwe than in South Africa.
C. PROGRESS RELATIVE TO WORKPLANS—NAMIBIA
Table 4: Comparing progress relative to workplans—Namibia
Activity Dates Percent Complete
Process data on the Survey January-March 2000 95
Consultation with national partners February-March 2000 60
Data Cleaning and checking of Census February-June 2000 15
Data Collection for Census February-June 2000 15
Transferal of Census Data to Microsoft Access
and ArcView
February-June 2000 50
Preparation for Regional Conference March-July 2000 10
Reporting on census August-October Not started
Annual Reporting October – November Not Started
67
The table above presents the progress on the Namibian project relative to the workplans as
prepared by Ben Fuller. In general, based on this Table and the general sense obtained on the site
visit, the work seems to be progressing well relative to the time table. The timeline for the
project is generally met with regards to the phase 1, 2, and 3 of the project proposal. The
household survey was completed on 30 households and is in the process of being analyzed. It
should be noted that the progress of the project was affected by the fact that there was a change
in researchers mid way through. The original PI was Dr Hangule, the Director of the Multi￾Disciplinary SSS in the University. But very early in the program, he was directed by the
government to be on the team negotiating over the Caprivi strip disagreement with Botswana.
Otto Kamwi, the junior researcher who had been most actively involved, resigned to take up a
civil servant post. Dr. Fuller did not become officially involved until recently. This has caused a
need to streamline some of the projects such as the household survey.
1. Approaches and Methodologies
The general approaches and methodologies follow those developed by South Africa with regards
to the general census. Innovations in methodology include the use of ArcView to map land
transfer patterns. The incorporation of the census land transfer data into a geographic mapping
system is a very innovative approach to determining landownership and land transfer patterns.
As other data become available in this form the relationships between other variables and land
transfer will be able to be fully investigated.
2. Impact Indicators
The impact of the work is generally good. The Namibian government is very aware of the work
and is looking forward to obtaining the ArcView information for policy analysis. The collection
and assembly of the data in electronic form for use in a geographical information system will
provide a useful product in and of itself. The data will allow the government to look at ownership
patterns so that land could be more efficiently acquired for distribution purposes. The
examination of the outcomes of the land transactions will be very useful for longer-term land
reform policy.
The Namibian Nature Foundation is also very aware of the work for their use in land use
analysis. They intend to look at land use and landownership patterns and relate those to optimal
returns and bio-diversity. The ability to have access to the landownership data electronically will
provide an excellent foundation for further work.
A working paper entitled “An Analysis of First Census Survey of Commercial Agricultural Land
Transactions in Namibia: 1990 to 1998” has been completed. Other impacts from the work are
anticipated as the household survey analysis is completed and the results analyzed. Continuing
the census will also provide additional impact. Finally, it should be noted that there is some
interest in this work from the commercial farmers union.
3. Prospects of Global Applicability
Because of the use of methodology and the global importance of the issue, the project has
excellent global applicability. Land reform, while being an issue in Namibia, is also an issue in
68
numerous regions around the world. As economies struggle to move into market economies,
movement from state ownership to private ownership is very important. The historical success of
land reform has not been good. While the reason for land reform is not necessarily the same for
Namibia as for other parts of the world, lessons learned from this process will have global
applicability.
With regards to the methodology, the ability to link and analyze various databases in a spatial
format is cutting edge. This type of work is currently going on in other parts of the world,
however, the methodology is probably no further along than it is in Namibia. Therefore, the
potential exists for applicability from a methodological standpoint if researchers are provided the
resources to pursue these avenues.
4. Significance of Research Discoveries
The significance of the research discoveries is rather limited at this point given the length of the
project to this point. Preliminary work suggests that over 7% of available commercial farmland
has been transferred to those defined as disadvantaged. However, it was found that if white
women are factored out of the analysis, the rate of transfer decreases to 4.2%. As work
continues, there is excellent potential for significant research discoveries to occur as discussed
above.
D. PROGRESS RELATIVE TO WORKPLANS—SOUTH AFRICA
Table 2 presents the progress relative to the workplan. Based on this Table and the general sense
obtained on the site visit, the work seems to be progressing well relative to the time table. Each
of the deliverables was provided in the time frame outlined in the proposal. It was anticipated at
the time of my visit that the 3rd round of the census would be completed before the end of the
year.
Table 5: Comparing progress relative to workplans—South Africa
Activity Dates Status
Analyze 2nd Census Survey August to December 1999 Completed
Conduct 3rd Census Survey July to October 2000 Planned to be Completed
Analyze 1st Household Survey August to December 1999 Completed
Attend Land Market Workshop July 2000 Planned to be Completed
Visit by Doug Graham June to July 2000 Planned to be Completed
69
1. Approaches and Methodologies
The general approach for Namibia and Zimbabwe was developed by the South Africa
researchers. The variety of mechanisms being used in South Africa for land reform vary from a
government assisted approach to a private sector approach. This provides a rich setting for
comparative analysis. As information regarding the subsequent performance of farmers under
various methods of land reform becomes available, a rich set of information should become
available.
2. Impact Indicators
The impact of the work is excellent. Mr. Paul Zille, who is in charge of the Land Reform Credit
Facility for Khula Enterprise Finance Ltd., is very aware of the work being done by the team in
Pietermaritzburg. Professor Mike Lyne provided insight into the development of the Land
Reform Credit Facility. Mr. Zille indicated that without the input from Professor Lyne, there
would not have been a product. In addition, the Minister of Land Affairs has requested a meeting
with Professor Lyne to discuss land reform.
There has also been a professional impact from the work done in South Africa. Several papers
have been produced including the “Land redistribution in KwaZulu-Natal: an analysis of
farmland transactions in 1997” published in Development Southern Africa. Other working papers
have been produced and are at various points in the publication process. These include a mini￾symposium accepted for the meetings of the International Association of Agricultural
Economists (IAAE). In addition, a contributed paper is in review for those meetings.
3. Prospects of Global Applicability
The issue of global applicability is much the same as stated above for Namibia. Land reform is
an important issue in many parts of the world. Information on characteristics of successful land
reform programs will be of interest in other regions of the world. The ability to study a broad
variety of schemes for land transfer to disadvantaged people groups should allow for rich
comparative analysis. Finally, the acceptance of a mini-symposium dealing with land reform at
the triennial meetings of the IAAE is a signal of the global interest and perhaps applicability of
the results.
4. Significance of Research Discoveries
Results from the work suggest that land transferred via government grants was of lower quality
than land purchased privately. In addition just 0.35% was transferred to disadvantaged people.
Relative to government assisted transfers, private market transfers to disadvantaged people
accounted for a smaller share in terms of quality but a larger share in terms of value
redistributed. In other work, it was found that tenure security adds to agricultural performance. It
was also found that tenure arrangements on government assisted land reform projects are less
secure than the private market. Thus, work in South Africa has documented that the private
market has a role to play in land reform. The potential for other significant research discoveries
to occur is high as the performance of the new occupants is followed over time.
70
E. STATUS
1. Collaboration/Cooperation/Linkage Relations and Activities
USAID Mission
Neither South Africa nor Namibia is collaborating directly with USAID. Gary Cohen of
USAID/Namibia was interested in the work. He felt that the results of the work would be of
importance in understanding landownership patterns in Namibia.
Host Country Organizations
South Africa has had contact with the Land Reform Credit Facility of the Khula Enterprise
Finance Ltd. As stated above, the BASIS researchers have provided important input into the
design of land reform schemes. In addition, a meeting has been requested by the Minister of
Land Affairs to discuss land reform.
Namibia has had contact with the Namibia Nature Foundations, Environmental Affairs, and the
Ministry of Lands, Resettlement, and Rehabilitation. The work is extremely important for
various reasons to these individuals.
Donor Organizations
South Africa has identified alternative sources of funding within country. At the time of my visit,
it was likely that they would use those funding sources and not renew with BASIS.
Namibia BASIS has made contacts with other donor organizations. The Ford Foundation
provided N$40,000 for field work. In addition, a small grant was obtained from the Finnish
National Academy of Sciences for this work.
Other BASIS Programs
The main collaboration among BASIS programs is among researchers in the three countries.
Two annual meetings have been held where the teams from the three countries have interchanged
information. A third meeting is scheduled in Namibia this July. South Africa had contact with
Ragan Petrie (Land Tenure Center) and Douglas Graham (Ohio State). Namibia had contact with
John Bruce (Land Tenure Center) and Douglas Graham (Ohio State).
2. Program/Research Benefits/Contributions
USAID goals
The Southern Africa BASIS program should contribute to achieving USAID goals related to
policymaking in Namibia and South Africa. Findings from these projects are likely to impact
policymaking in both Namibia and South Africa. As both of these countries try to strengthen
there economies, the agricultural sector will be key. Providing opportunity for those currently
disadvantaged has the potential to provide the stability necessary for these countries to continue
economic progress.
71
Host countries/non-U.S. partners
The BASIS project has provided research support for many organizations discussed above. In
addition, BASIS has an excellent link with the University of Namibia and the University of
Natal-Pietermaritzburg in South Africa. The linkages provided to scholars at these institutions
should strengthen both the teaching and research capabilities within those Universities. The
projects have provided research opportunities for the host countries.
U.S. Universities and Training
BASIS in South Africa has maintained contact with Ohio State University through Douglas
Graham. In addition, Andrew Graham worked on the BASIS project as part of his master’s
program at the University of Natal-Pietermaritzburg. Ragan Petrie of the Land Tenure Center at
the University of Wisconsin-Madison also benefited from the BASIS project as it provided data
for her research. There is some discussion about making the data from Namibia available on the
web. If that occurs, the potential for training and research will be excellent.
Overall
The research has the potential to yield research benefits to the U.S. Land tenure is such an
important issue in Africa and other parts of the world. Increased understanding of mechanisms
that successful lead to the redistribution of land to the disadvantaged will have important geo￾political implications in this region of the world and other parts of the world. Thus, the U.S. has
economic, political, and humanitarian interests in enhancing growth and reducing poverty in
Southern Africa. It was also mentioned by Mr. Kapiye in the Ministry of Lands, Resettlement,
and Rehabilitation of the crucial need for the project to not stop with the census portion but to
actually analyze the effect on households as is planned in the future.
Cross cutting themes: gender, market integration, and risk
The BASIS project in Southern Africa does address the cross cutting themes of gender, market
integration, and risk. Gender is especially addressed in the census of transactions as land
acquisition by gender is one of the variables being monitored. Ragan Petrie’s work focuses
specifically on the gender issue. Market integration is also addressed by this project in the very
nature of the land reform. Macroeconomic policy to stimulate growth of the agricultural sector is
at the very core of land reform. The ability to study multiple approaches allows a rich setting for
comparative analysis. Risk has not been substantially addressed up until this point in the project.
However, the ability to study households over an extended period of time will allow a rich
setting to examine the risk households face under different land reform mechanisms, the
strategies they use to cope, and the success of those strategies.
CRSP Fiscal and Administrative Management
A few issues came up with regards to fiscal and administrative management. The project
suffered early due to a lack of communication among individuals. It seems that for the most part
many of these difficulties have been dealt with over time. A few points are worth noting. The
first is the importance in dollar denominating all disbursements. There was a concern regarding
exchange rate fluctuations. Secondly, it was suggested that the dispensing agent needs to be
involved with the project to build trust among the parties. It seems that unfamiliarity with the
personalities led to some problems. In addition, it seems that communication is key. In some
72
cases, electronic communication systems did not work leading to difficulties. In addition,
communication with more than one individual at an institution seems to be necessary. In one
case, an individual was unaware the reports that were delegated to someone else were not being
filed in a timely manner. It may be useful to consider disbursing all funds from the management
entity instead of subcontracting the accounting function out on a regional basis. It was indicated
that the intermediary did not have much success in obtaining complete accountability for all
funds disbursed from the receiving parties.
It was also indicated that the reporting requirements were more than what was initially
anticipated. It seems that the reporting requirements anticipated by the researchers were different
than those required. One recommendation would be that reporting expectations be clearly
defined before the projects are initiated. In addition there seemed to be concern that the reporting
was somewhat repetitive. It would be useful to streamline the reporting requirements as much as
possible along with being more clearly defined up-front.
F. SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS
The BASIS project in Southern Africa appears to be positioned to make some important
contributions regarding the land reform research. These issues are of widespread importance not
only regionally, but globally. However, this project, as any multi-national projects, has not
occurred without suffering some difficulties. Specific recommendations revolve around two
basic themes: the research mission and the organizational dimension.
1. Research Recommendations
It appears that the opportunity exists for substantial contribution from the project given the
immense amount of data gathered. However, the projects are understaffed. Thus, the potential
impact of the first phase may be limited because of the sheer amount of analysis that could be
produced. More research opportunity exists than researcher effort available. Therefore it is
suggested that creative mechanisms be developed for linking potential researchers (U.S. or non￾U.S. students) with available projects. It may be useful to set up a thesis or dissertation grant
process where the projects would be defined. Funds could be allocated to fund a student for the
field research portion of the work and an advisor site visit.
It appears that there is some concern with the use of common methods. In general, the use of
common methods is to be encouraged to increase comparability. However, the partners were not
on an equal footing going into the project, thus, progress was not made at the same rate. This has
caused frustration among the researchers through no fault of their own. In addition, issues and
opportunities arise that need to be addressed within the country to have immediate impact within
the policymaking arena in individual countries. Therefore, the common methodology is probably
a little too rigid to work well. In addition, funds were not available to allow common
methodology to develop given the status of electronic communications. Therefore, without a
substantial infusion of funds, it is likely that a common methodology will not be able to be pulled
off. Again, this is not unique to this research project. Coordination needs to be more grassroots
that top-down. Does that mean that comparative analysis cannot be pulled together? This is
probably not the case. It is likely that the comparative analysis will be more of an inductive
rather than of a deductive nature than was initially envisioned. I think allowing the participants to
73
interact towards the end of the project would allow for comparative analysis and future
recommendations.
2. Organizational Dimensions
I think that there needs to be a distinction between deductive versus inductive collaboration.
Deductive collaboration is going to be much more expensive than inductive collaboration.
Deductive would involve a common methodology to be used in various countries. It would by
necessity involve more intense face to face contact (perhaps on a monthly or quarterly basis). In
addition, it would probably involve purchasing a larger amount of the researchers time than an
inductive type approach. The approach could have worked if the BASIS funds would have been
able to be leveraged substantially. While some leveraging has occurred as discussed above, it has
not occurred to the point to fund a deductive approach.
Therefore to still provide useful comparative analysis, a more inductive type of approach
probably needs to be followed at this point for Southern Africa given the funding base. It seems
that good scientists were identified that had a common interest in land reform issues. Providing
those individuals “seed” money to further work in the region on those issues in a flexible manner
with annual meetings to coordinate and interact, is probably about all that can be expected. Using
“field” work grants could expand the amount of U.S.-Host Institution collaboration.
It is also imperative to provide more lead time to adjust to structural changes in renewals. The
need to develop relationships with partners in a short time frame was perceived as an
insurmountable barrier. This could probably be alleviated somewhat by trying to expand the
existing pool of researchers available to partner with. Perhaps providing opportunities to pull
potential BASIS collaborators in by sponsoring a BASIS program and providing travel grants to
targeted individuals could facilitate this.
G. LIST OF INTERVIEWS, DESCRIPTION OF THE EVALUATION PROCESS
My evaluation was based on the interviews listed below and on a review of the BASIS
workplans available. Briefing memos were provided by Pauline Peters and Michael Roth. In
addition, I also reviewed the documents produced from the research including progress reports,
working papers, and journal articles. Finally, I visited both South Africa and Namibia from
March 6 through March 10.
1. List of Interviews
March 6, 2000
Mike Lyne (BASIS researcher and Associate Professor, University of Natal-Pietermaritzburg)
and Mark Darroch (BASIS researcher and Senior Lecturer, University of Natal-Pietermaritzburg)
Paul Zille (Manager, Land Reform Credit Facility, Khula Enterprise Finance Ltd.), by phone
Jenny Mander (Director, Institute of Natural Resources, Administers the Financial Aspects of the
Land Reform work)
74
March 7, 2000
Andrew Graham (Graduate Student and BASIS researcher) Also met with two of the principals
associated with the Ignome project. Andrew provided a site visit to Ignome and Durban. These
provided a contrast between Land Reform projects that are successful and those that are
struggling.
March 8, 2000
Ben Fuller (BASIS researcher and Senior Research Fellow, Social Sciences Division, University
of Namibia)
March 9, 2000
Dr. Chris Brown (Director, Namibia Nature Foundation)
John Mandelson (Director of Environmental Affairs)
Gary Cohen (Special Projects Officer, U.S. Agency for International Development
USAID/Namibia)
March 10, 2000
Mr. Kapiye (Ministry of Lands, Resettlement, and Rehabilitation)