The Mesoamerican Agroenvironmental Program (MAP) is a regional development programme that incorporates a lot of applied research. In this presentation, experiences with MAP that are relevant to planning for CRP6 Sentinel Landscapes are outlined. This presentation formed part of the CRP6 Sentinel Landscape planning workshop held on 30 September – 1 October 2011 at CIFOR’s headquarters in Bogor, Indonesia. Further information on CRP6 and Sentinel Landscapes can be accessed from http://www.cifor.org/crp6/ and http://www.cifor.org/fileadmin/subsites/crp/CRP6-Sentinel-Landscape-workplan_2011-2014.pdf respectively.

1. Key territories of the Mesoamerican
Agroenvironmental Program (MAP): concepts
and selection
Sentinel landscapes workshop
CIFOR
October 2011

2. Justifications for this presentation
Requests in messages from Robert:
“…presentations by resource people managing similar type of long term
multi-location experiments…; …including site selection criteria…;
…model(s)” for a sentinel landscape network…; …present your own
experience in multipurpose, multi-location, long-term experiments….”
My reply:
• I propose to present the experience with MAP, a regional development
programme that incorporates a lot of applied research.
• The procedure (criteria etc) for the selection of MAP’s “Key Territories”
(equivalent to Sentinel Landscapes) were different to what might be
considered for a research only focus.
• When pathways to impact and scaling-out of research results become
major goals (CRPs), MAP is a valuable contrast (different setting and
experience) to other presentations respect long term multi-location
experiments.

3. Since 1987, research on
dynamics of tropical rain
forests, sustainable forest
management and global
change impacts: >100
permanent plots (0.2 -2.0
ha) replicated along
gradients (150 – 2800
masl) in Costa Rica
Now part of Neoselvas
network (Central Amazon,
Chiapas and Costa Rica);
extension to proposed
regional network
(Guatemala, Belize,
Honduras, Nicaragua and
Costa Rica)

4. Relevance of CATIE’s experience with
“Key Territories” for CRP 6
• The concept of Key Territories (KT) was developed in CATIE in 2008, with
Norway, Sweden and Finland, for a regional development initiative called
the Mesoamerican Agroenvironmental Programme (the “MAP”)
• Criteria and procedures for choosing and subsequently working in Sentinel
Landscapes (equivalent of Key Territories) should not be based only on
experience with regional / global research programmes
• The MAP includes a substantial amount of research for development, the
goal of the CRPs, and hence is a model that could provide valuable lessons
• Integration of different R&D teams in MAP’s Key Territories is only beginning
to be achieved after two years; the establishment of the Sentinel
Landscapes of CRP 6 is going to face some of the same challenges
• MAP’s M+E strategy (especially of impact) also has taken over two years to
develop; it could offer valuable input for the M+E of the Sentinel Landscapes

5. CATIE´s Scientific Programs and MAP

6. Q: Problems we are addressing in MAP Key
Territories
• Deforestation
• Anthropogenic degradation of natural resources (water, soils,
biodiversity, pesticide toxicity, scenic beauty, climate
change,…)
• Vulnerability (need for diversification)
• Socio-economic changes (internal, national, international)
• Need for systemic approaches
• Exclusion (equity - gender, indigenous)

7. Q: Problems we are addressing in MAP Key
Territories
• Quality of products, certification, requirements (EU, etc.):
competitiveness is increasingly affected by these issues
• Weak social organization and community structure, inter-
racial conflict, badly organized Cooperatives and
Associations, lack of “institutionality” (national / local),…
• Poor regional integration (of countries) slows progress
• Exogenous factors (both opportunities and problems):
e.g., changes in markets, geo-political shifts, infrastructure..
• Financial limitations (credit, insurance)
• Education is deficient at all levels

8. CATIE’s R&D approach in MAP Key Territories
Test participatory methods, principally using the livelihoods and
capitals framework, for integrating sectorial approaches (e.g.,
value chains) with territorial approaches (e.g., watershed
management) that can be used to develop holistic (systemic)
and specific answers to the combined economic, environment
and social challenges in each target region.

9. Value added of working in a Key Territory
• Potential to develop systemic interventions that take into
account interactions and the complexity of rural development
• Improvements in the impacts (target groups) thanks to
concentrated and longer term of efforts, working with partners and
allies in an integrated institutional framework
• Improvements in the efficiency and effectiveness of international
cooperation and CATIE, assuming that the additional costs of
coordination (donors, programmes; projects, etc) is less than the
operational and logistical benefits
• Unified institutional image that results from working in an integrated
manner
• Improved quality of CATIE’s products

10. Q: Criteria to choose Key Territories*
• Located within priority areas identified in regional or national strategies;
e.g., Mesoamerican Biological Corridor [CBM]
•
• Key stakeholders, with proven leadership and social capital, expressed
interest
•
• Potential to internalize the costs of the provision of ecosystem services
through different financial mechanisms
• Correspond to CATIE´s expertise and in areas offering potential for
synergies within CATIE and/or with partners
*p.27. Implementation Proposal for the MAP; also mentions that Trans-frontier territories will
be favoured when possible.
•

11. What was initially considered when
choosing a Key Territory (KT) for MAP?
Where
National and CATIE priority according to physical, biological and socio-
economic characteristics
– Water
– Poverty, environmental concerns and inequity (gender)
– Biological connectivity

12. What was initially considered when
choosing a Key Territory (KT) for MAP?
Size
Geographical area of variable size (large >100.000 ha) containing much
smaller potential sites for direct intervention where the actions of various
initiatives (projects etc) could be integrated

13. What was initially considered when
choosing a Key Territory (KT) for MAP?
Who
• At least two CATIE R+D programmes agreeing that the Key Territory is
central to their agenda
• Existence of an good institutional base where other actors and service
providers are active and with whom CATIE can work in order to
achieve “institutional anchorage”, scaling out and hence wide scale
impact

14. Additional criteria used to select
potential Key Territories
•
What
• Potential of MAP thematic areas to contribute to livelihoods in the
zone
• More than one principal land use (e.g. livestock, forests and coffee)

15. Additional criteria used to select
potential Key Territories
How
• Logistical feasibility, infrastructure, accessibility, security
• Representative of other areas / potential for scaling-out

17. Actual Key Territories of MAP
• Trifinio (Honduras, Guatemala, El Salvador): water is a central
theme (Climate Change and Watersheds programme) but actions of
CATIE Programmes focused on coffee, horticultural crops, forestry,
livestock and value chains are needed to achieve impact
• Bosawás (Centre- North Nicaragua)*: changing land use is a
central theme (Livestock and Environmental Management
Programme) but actions of CATIE Programmes focused on coffee,
cacao, forestry, CC-Watersheds and value chains are needed to
achieve impact
*CRP 3.7 (Livestock) has identified the same area of Nicaragua as well as part of
Southern Honduras as a target zone

18. Final list of characteristics used to justify
Key Territories selected for MAP
Characteristics of MAP Key Territories Trifinio Bosawas
REQUIREMENTS
Inter-institutional governance platform in the territory X X
At least two CATIE programmes active X X
Pilot area of at least two MAP projects X X
Land use diversity X X
Potential to develop MAP thematic areas X X
National and/or regional priority area X X
DESIRABLE
Trans-frontier territories X
Cultural diversity (includes indigenous groups) X X
Poverty and dependency on natural resources X X
Vulnerability to climate change X X
Environmental relevance (Mesoamerican Biological Corridor; Water) X X
Scale-out resources available (in the territory) X X
Representativeness (possibilities for extrapolation) X
Infrastructure and basic services X (x)

19. Reasons for choosing Bosawas as a Key Territory
1. High value for biodiversity conservation (buffer zone for the
BOSAWAS biosphere reserve; also Musun y Quiragua reserves;
Mesoamerican Biological Corridor)
2. Water quantity and quality is a central problem in this territory,
principally due to unsustainable management and use of soils; focus
on water facilitates the establishment of co-management initiatives
3. Predicted (extreme) effects of climate change and variability; includes
dry, transition and wet forest life zones (contrasting effects of CCV)
4. Dominance (and overlap) of coffee, pastures and cacao in adjoining
parts of the Key Territory facilitates the interaction of programmes
5. Presence of Coffee Innovations, Watersheds, Mesoterra and Central
American Cacao projects

20. Reasons for choosing Bosawas as a Key Territory
6. Organization of farmers: e.g., coffee cooperatives and NGOs
7. High poverty index in rural areas (Poverty MAP Nicaragua 2005)
8. FDL (“Local Development Fund”) and other micro credit mechanisms like
Fondeagro (project) supporting the implementation of best practices
9. Interest (and confidence) of local decision makers; presence of
Government and other strategic partners who have, are or wish to work
with CATIE
10. Possibility of replication in much larger areas
11. Continuity/ credibility of CATIE actions in this region

21. Q: Lessons learnt from MAP Key Territories
• “Integration” is the key word
• The shared testing of research and development
methodologies (e.g., multi-theme Farmer Field School) lead to
integration of disciplines, projects and programmes
• Few Key Territories: don’t choose too many
• Importance of previous presence, continuity and confidence
• Risk analysis: probability of long term favourable conditions?
• Selection: top-down together with bottom-up process
• Anchoring: key consideration when selecting partners

22. Lessons learnt from MAP Key Territories
• Differing needs / histories / commitments of research +
development groups: takes time to achieve the necessary
integration (e.g., CATIE programmes or CRP components)
• To achieve significant impact we need to support work in a
larger area than our pilot zones: we need criteria to select
research + development sites within the Key Territory (these
differ between components/ projects of MAP)
• Donor inconsistency
• Monitoring and Evaluation (M+E) contributes to integration
• Livelihoods and capitals approach: framework that permits
integration (e.g., socio- economic with ecological; value chain
with territorial; …)

23. Lessons for CRP 6 Sentinel Landscapes
from MAP’s experience with Key Territories
• Linking existing initiatives of different research groups, even if they operate
in the same zone, will not create a KT (SL); it will only show that a
conglomerate of different initiatives exists
• In order to implement systemic approaches for rural R+D, such as CRP 6
proposes, a new approach is required where each research group has to be
prepared to commit research resources rather than results to a mutually
agreed plan of work; i.e., share decision making respect research planning
and priorities and be prepared to integrate into a team

24. Lessons for CRP 6 Sentinel Landscapes
from MAP’s experience with Key Territories
• The vision of the role of partners in “Research for Development” requires a
change of attitude by researchers; e.g., institutional “anchoring” becomes an
important goal requiring true participation of the local and national partners
in all stages (participatory R+D) rather than treating the partners as a
conduit for the dissemination of results
• Rigid definitions of the borders of a KT (SL) can not be made
• Researchers have to be prepared to participate in development activities
(e.g. publications in English for international journals are not enough) but for
efficiency scaling-out is the role of local and national partners
• ?R&D (resources) based on territorial projects rather than disciplinary
projects?

25. MAP an ambitious intersectorial platform designed
to achieve sustainable land use that improves
human wellbeing in rural areas of Mesoamerica

26. Criteria for selecting Sentinel Landscapes*
• Comparable sites (= geographical [site] differences)
• Where we can study trends (= temporal differences)
• Research for Development (= where impact can be obtained)
• Strong partners wish to collaborate
• Many initiatives (especially other CRP) find appropriate
conditions
• Suitable conditions for long-term Research + Development
(security, political support, priority [for donors + countries] ,…)
*Possible criteria to select Sentinel Landscapes – summary of
information taken from Annex 4 of the CRP 6 proposal

27. Criteria for selecting Sentinel Landscapes*
• Interdisciplinary research + development (especially socio-
economic with ecological) is facilitated
• Local people and organizations wish to participate
• A forest transition exists, is dynamic and could be influenced
• Relevant work/ information) is already underway/ available (=
don’t start from zero)
• Impact (livelihoods + environment) can be measured
• It is feasible to apply standardized methods
*Possible criteria to select Sentinel Landscapes – summary of
information taken from Annex 4 of the CRP 6 proposal

28. Who participated in the choice of MAP Key
Territories?
Internally: workshops, meetings and exchanges involving
project personnel, programme leaders and national technical
office representatives; more bottom-up than top-down
Externally: local and national government, civil society,
Universities, representatives of regional organizations (e.g.,
IUCN) and of international cooperation respect both the topics
and location of MAP interventions (demand and relevance); both
bottom-up and top-down

29. Monitoring and evaluation (M&E) system
• The integration of pre-existing regional projects and other R+D
mechanisms was a major challenge when developing MAP’s M&E
system
• MAP indicators and targets, and procedures for defining these, have
evolved continuously during the first two years of the programme
• Final version based on XX products (outputs), YY capitals, direct
(programme objective) and indirect (development objective) ZZ impact
as well as UU performance indicators : the poverty alleviation focus,
through MAP’s Sustainable Land Management focus, goes far
beyond financial capital

30. Sustainable Land Management (SLM); AFS, Social and ecological resilience (CC);
Environmental Services
NATURAL CAPITAL
Diversification and
L development of value chains
i FINANCIAL CAPITAL
v
e
l
Improvement of productive i
infrastructure and equipment
h
for families
BUILT CAPITAL o Strengthening of grass roots
o organizations
d SOCIAL AND POLITICAL
s CAPITAL
Wisdom and dialogue
HUMAN AND CULTURAL
CAPITAL Capacity development and
reinforcement
HUMAN CAPITAL

31. Final proposal for MAP’s Logical Framework
Development objective
Indicators (indirect impact indicators developed for each dimension)
Programme objective
Indicators (direct impact indicators developed for each dimension)
Result / component / Result / component / Result / component / Result / component / Result / component /
dimension 1 dimension 2 dimension 3 dimension 4 dimension 5
(farm/ family) (local) (national) (regional) (CATIE)
Products R1 Products R2 Products R3 Products R4 Products R5
Capitals: human, natural, Capitals: human, natural, Capitals: human, natural, Capitals: human, natural, Capitals: human, natural,
financial, social, political and financial, social, political financial, social, political financial, social, political financial, social, political and
physical physical
Performance Impact Performance Impact Performance Impact Performance Impact Performance Impact
indicator indicators(dir indicator indicators(dir indicator indicators(dir indicator indicators(dir indicator indicators(dir
ect / indirect) ect / indirect) ect / indirect) ect / indirect) ect / indirect)

32. Definitions of the limits of a MAP Key Territory
• The geographical extent of a key territory can not be fixed
with precision as it can for a watershed; it has to be flexible
according to the needs of the different R+D lines (themes).
For example, the limits are different for a municipality,
interested in a town’s water supply, to those considered by a
coffee cooperative interested in capturing coffee production in
the same zone.
• A landscape is a social construction whose geographical
expression is related with the interests of the human
population located in and interdependent with that territory.