On this thread, I wanted to raise another issue, that
is a significant theme within Tony's work on FMNR (farmer-managed
natural resources. A number of his papers are located just next door
in the document section of this discussion space, plus there's a really
good write up in the Investing in Tomorrow's Forests paper, pages
16-18.
The
issue: the time lag implied by any NRM investment, especially
those involving woody plants. And how that time lag runs in the face
of donor timeframes, especially compared with other investments. Just
how then do we SEE these changes, especially the system wide change
that one is now seeing in Niger, when that change is truly decadal?
Moniotoring and reporting systems usually don't pick it up, and if they
do, they may pick up the wrong thing - numbers of seedlings planted,
etc. - rather than the income and spreading of risk that may not kick
in for 15 years. And while a short term drought gets attention, longer
term problems, and longer term solutions are often missed. Or worse,
everyone declares defeat because short term impacts (that most likely
were either forced or misleading) seem to be so small.
In fact,
something like Tony's FMNR runs counter to the impact needs of most
funding entities, and most local politicians. In the case of ag
research, there was a time when key donors, such as USAID, turned away
from such investments because the returns seemed so marginal. Only to
find, once they waited 10-15 years, that long term impact was
significant, strategically valuable and systemic. But it required an
active effort to track long term change. When NRM activities are
seemingly only brought to the fore in the minds of policy leaders
during short term droughts, how do we keey our eyes on the longer term
prize?