Hill Agricultural Research Project (HARP), Nepal: lessons for the policy, institutions and processes dimensions of the Sustainable Livelihoods approach

How does the policy and institutional environment constrain agricultural research? Do competitive research funds improve agricultural extension services? This report by Karim Hussein and Sarah Montague describes the situation of the bilaterally funded Hill Agricultural Research Project (HARP) in Nepal, and it's subsidiary the Hill Research Programme (HRP).These were set up in 1996 to provide support for institutional change in the public sector Nepal Agricultural Research Council (NARC) which was taking over the previously DFID-supported hill research stations of Lumle and Pakhribas.They also aimed to develop an improved hill agricultural research system which would have a greater impact on the sustainable livelihoods of farmers.One tool for this was a new competitive research funds system.These arrangements took place in a context of the recent restoration of democracy, nascent decentralisation hampered by political instability, and an agricultural policy concentrated mainly on increased production in the fertile lowlands.Institutional support to NARC was focused on the management of research, the development of mandates for all hill stations, and improving information flows both within and external to NARC. The study identified several constraints and achievements of the HARP project, including:i) The period of hand-over to NARC of the Lumle and Pakhribas stations was rushed, resulting in lack of ownership of the process, ill-will, and staff losses. An incentive system to attract and retain hill research staff has not yet been achieved ii) Differences in both funding levels and operational styles of the two stations and NARC projects have not yet been resolved, but HARP provides an incentive framework and continuity of funding while the change process occurs. iii) The competitive grants system was implemented without real consultation or explanation, but HARPis succeeding in demonstrating the advantages of the system, including that output-oriented research can improve the livelihoods at least of middle-level farmers. iv) Instability at the senior levels of NARC, due to political patronage in accordance with changing political regimes causes difficulties with consistent policy and decision making, but research management support and reform of the research planning process is on-going.This experience highlights several issues for policy around sustainable livelihoods:i) Successful institutional change takes proper consultation and exchange, a long-term commitment, and the installation of appropriate incentives to encourage different working methods. ii) Although the poorest people can be difficult to reach and often cannot afford to take up new technologies, a proportion of research funds should be allocated to working with them. iii) The monitoring and evaluation system currently being established must be such that it can be managed with the relatively limited resources available to NARC. iv) Donors and NGOs need to increase the transparency of their own decision-making processes on interventions they wish to fund, and to provide information on the internal structures and funding mechanisms that govern their engagement with national institutions.