Summary

Effective agricultural services (agricultural research, technology development and dissemination) are vitally important to rural development and change. In countries dependent on agriculture, without appropriate and improved agricultural technologies and practices, and wider sharing of agricultural knowledge improvements in living standards and reductions in poverty will be hard to achieve.

In developing countries across the globe, a number of processes have resulted in a new division of roles between public bodies, the private sector, civil society organisations and farmers in the areas of agricultural research and extension. The most important processes common to many countries, and promoted by donors, are: the State ceasing to provide certain services; economies opening up to the market; structural adjustment; and the creation of decentralised and locally accountable political and administrative bodies. At the same time, rural development research and practice have shown the merits of increasing competitiveness in the research and extension systems so that agricultural services become more relevant to diverse development needs. In this context, competitive funds have recently been promoted by a number of donors as a route to supporting institutional change in the way agricultural services are delivered and as a way of involving a wider range of state and non-state actors (NGO's, private sector etc) in service delivery. Such changes are thought to increase the efficiency and development relevance of agricultural research and extension through funding conditions that require rigour, a demonstration that research responds to demand, and that it produces clear, development-oriented outputs (i.e. improved technologies that are widely adopted by the poor).

This study draws lessons from an on-going project funded by the UK's Department for International Development (DFID) on the relationship between the policy context and institutional setting and its contribution to achieving sustainable livelihood objectives. In this case, the project analysed is the Hill Agriculture Research Project (HARP) and one of its components, the Hill Research Programme (HRP). It also draws lessons about the broader development and implementation of the sustainable livelihoods approach.

Key activities in the study included:

• literature review and e-mail survey of Nepal rural development specialists;
• two visits to Nepal to interview a wide range of stakeholders, including one case study of a research project;
• and feedback to key stakeholders (HARP, NARC and DFID-Nepal).

Key issues the study sought to understand include:

• the interaction between the national political, policy and institutional setting and the project;
• the role that competitive funds can play in improving livelihood impact of agricultural research;
• the aims of HARP and the specific institutional and organisational change processes that the project seeks to foster in collaboration with its partners and the means by which these aims are being pursued;
• how HARP's aims and work undertaken so far contribute to the creation of sustainable livelihoods and the degree to which research projects are practically relevant to livelihood needs, development-oriented, and demand led;
• lessons from a case study on how a research project supported by the HRP, and the staff involved, have managed to develop new approaches to their work;
• the strengths and weaknesses of the change process so far.