SCALING UP IN WATERSHED MANAGEMENT RESEARCH PROJECTSJ.Rubiano1, A. Peralta2 and N. Johnson31 King’s College University of London jerubiano@gmail.com2 Michigan State University, USA.3 International Livestock Research Institute.2nd International Forum on Food and Water, Ethiopia 10th to 14th of November 2008

OutlineWhat makes a project successful in terms of dissemination and scaling up? Key factors to keep into accountGood practices, which are these?2nd International Forum on Food and Water, Ethiopia 10th to 14th of November 2008

Guide FrameworksGündel, S., J. Hancock, and S. Anderson. 2001. Scaling-up Strategies for Research in Natural Resources Management:A Comparative Review. Chatham, UK: Natural Resources Institute.DFID-Natural Resources Systems Progamme (DFID-NRSP). 2002. Scaling-up and communication: Guidelines for enhancing the developmental impact of natural resources systems research, 8 pp. http://www.livelihoods.org/post/Docs/NRSP_scaling.pdf

A definition of Scaling upTo efficiently increase the socioeconomic impact from a small to a large scale of coverage” (Hancock et al. 2003

Contextual issues for successful scaling up at the pre project and implementation phasesRepresentativity (with parallel sites on biophysical, social, institutional and/or economic characteristics) Scale (thresholds/boundaries detected within a continuum that corresponds to specific levels of organization within a hierarchical system, Marceau, 1999)Project Outputs (Generic or site specific?)Uncertainty (Realization of expectations)Budget (Resources allocated in the project)

Good Practices for Scaling up (1)

Good Practices for Scaling up (2)

Projects’ SampleFive of the projects were mainly Theme 2Two are mainly Theme 1 One mainly Theme 4. Located in all the CPWF benchmark basins with the exception of the Yellow RiverThree projects work in more than one basin

2nd International Forum on Food and Water, Ethiopia 10th to 14th of November 2008Table 1. List of Challenge Program on Water and Food research projects participating in this study.

ConclusionsA supportive environment for project development seems to be the most crucial factor that warrants scaling up.Rather than biophysical, institutional scale dependency seems to be the most critical for the studied water projectsInstitutional scale dependency was found rarely used as the criteria for site selection.Indicators, planning of monitoring and evaluation methods seems to be the more objective way to trace implementation and success of scaling up activities.Budget figures for scaling up activities averaged 17% of total budgets (capacity building, institutional reform, networking strengthening, multi-media dissemination)The importance of partnerships as a strategy to scale up research is contradictory

A supportive environment for project development seems to be the most crucial factor that warrants scaling up.

Rather than biophysical, institutional scale dependency seems to be the most critical for the studied water projects

Institutional scale dependency was found rarely used as the criteria for site selection.

Indicators, planning of monitoring and evaluation methods seems to be the more objective way to trace implementation and success of scaling up activities.

Budget figures for scaling up activities averaged 17% of total budgets (capacity building, institutional reform, networking strengthening, multi-media dissemination)

The importance of partnerships as a strategy to scale up research is contradictory

Thanks