Problem/characteristic

Way forward

Comments

1. INRM systems are complex (multi-scales, multi-stakeholders, multi-sectoral, feedbacks, time delays, nonlinearities).

Bound the system (clarify objectives, scale of research and particular intervention possibilities).

Any reference to “clarification of objectives” is self-evident, but stresses the fact that performance assessment is an integral part of the whole research and learning cycle.

Develop a conceptual model that simplifies the system and makes explicit the key components and interactions.

This conceptual model would be at the level of the particular system being studied; e.g., it could be based on a site like Chivi (Fig. 2).

Ensure careful indicator selection covering different scales, basing selection on the sustainable-
livelihoods approach (Carney 1998).

There is a need to strike a balance between simplicity and complexity.

2. Feedback, time delays, and non-
linearities mean that performance assessment is complex.

Develop simulation models as part of the performance assessment procedure.

Simulation modeling may be essential to understand systems performance.

3. Participation is central to INRM, but external actors may have very different information needs from local stakeholders.

Incorporate participatory assessment as well as more conventional systems.

The participatory component is an ingredient in a feedback or learning process that is likely to increase the effectiveness of NRM.

4. INRM is context specific, but for general lessons, we need cross-site comparability.

Situate INRM sites within a landscape or resource management domain typology.

5. Remaining integrated in the face of numerous indicators.

Use techniques that can synthesize numerous indicators that may have been measured: multivariate statistics, radar diagrams.