|
|
| English - Español |
|
 |
| Archives Web >
Publications du CRDI >
Livres en ligne >
Tous nos livres >
MANAGING NATURAL RESOURCES FOR SUSTAINABLE LIVELIHOODS >
|
ID : 43448Ajouté le : 2003-09-05 15:50Mis à jour le : 2005-01-30 17:12Refreshed: 2012-02-12 00:22 
|
|
Document(s) 12 de 15
Table A.1 The ecosystem and natural resource focus of the case studies Ecosystem/Natural resources
Table A.2 Dimensions of participatory natural resource management highlighted in the case studies
******
1 Participatory Agroecosystem Management – an approach used by benchmark location research teams in the African Highlands Initiative Ecoregional ProgrammeAcknowledgementsDonors: SDC, IDRC and the Netherlands. Collaborators: Selian Agricultural Research Institute (SARI), Department of Research and Development, Arusha Tanzania; Kenya Agricultural Research Institute (KARI), Embu and Kakamega, Kenya; Ethiopian Agricultural Research Organizations (EARO), Ethiopia; FOFIFA, Madagascar; and CIAT. BackgroundThe AHI aims to help improve land productivity and preserve the natural resource base by developing improved policies and technologies with farmers. Through the Participatory Agroecosystem Management (PAM) approach, synonymous with integrated natural resource management (INRM), the AHI involves women and other stakeholders in maintaining agroecosystem health through collective learning. The PAM approach calls for major shifts in attitudes and ways of working –from closed to open, from individuals to groups, from collecting to sharing information, from verbal to visual communication and from ‘researcher-to-village’ to ‘village-to-village’ information flow. Younger scientists have been particularly interested in this approach. The AHI has embarked upon a capacity-building programme that includes training at the regional level with follow-up mentoring at national research sites. ApproachThe PAM approach is built on four cornerstones:
The first stage of the PAM process is diagnosis and it is critical for building relationships with farmers. The aims of the diagnosis are to:
The diagnosis phase has various outputs. Secondary information, including maps, is collected and analysed. Farmers and researchers jointly identify research issues and cause–effect scenarios. Other institutional partners are identified and their perceptions are taken into account. Declines in land productivity are described and the major contributing factors are identified according to wealth group. Researchers gain a grasp of the interactions between policy, gender aspects, market forces and other factors. They also come to understand farmers’ priorities and their perceptions of productivity declines and the principal production constraints. The AHI, along with other research initiatives operating in the region, has found that researchers sometimes have difficulty in accepting and learning participatory methods. Older researchers tend to feel uncomfortable with the new style of making decisions and validity of results for scientific publications, while younger ones lack confidence. Institutional support for participatory approaches is often limited. Scientists may therefore have little motivation to adopt these approaches, particularly when colleagues who are unfamiliar with participatory research evaluate them. Largely because of these reasons, after the participatory diagnosis AHI researchers initially reverted to their original habits of controlling the research process, ignoring differences among farmers and working on isolated components of the production system. At that point, the AHI provided further in-depth training in participatory approach stages, followed, where possible, by mentoring and learning by doing. Two regional research fellows (ICRAF and PRGA-CIAT) have developed a monitoring and evaluation (M&E) process to help research personnel and teams evaluate their progress in using participatory research methods. The AHI research group collectively decided to organize the research on a geographic basis to ensure an integrated approach, to work in multidisciplinary teams to get the necessary inputs from a wider range of specialists and to use various participatory techniques such as resource flow maps, ‘niche analysis’ and farmer research group priority and agenda setting for orienting the research agenda to farmers’ varying needs and resources. Niches are areas in the landscape that can be improved, or provide opportunities for further intensification, and can be jointly identified and discussed by the different social and economic groups. The research teams also consciously worked with and strengthened farmer groups, as community representatives for the technology assessment and selection process. When recommended by these representatives, the technologies are more widely spread or shared by the groups. So far, farmers have been most interested in increasing their returns to land and labour, given they have very small, intensively farmed pieces of land. Assuming that various interventions will do this, researchers are interested in monitoring whether or not it will increase farmers’ level of investment to improve or maintain soil fertility and arrest soil erosion or whether increased return will be used for other necessities. ReflectionsThe four main tools used by AHI have both advantages and disadvantages. Resource flow maps were found to be of multiple use and a good planning tool. They involved farmers having varying levels of resources and helped researchers understand farmers’ indigenous technical knowledge and classification systems. However, analysis was not easy and variation was difficult to handle. Resource endowment ranking helped researchers appreciate differences and incorporate them into a strategy. Initially, the tool was not used in a way that could capture gender differences. In some cases, results were not always used and integrated into the research programme, and analyses tended to be superficial. Technical scientists, who are not yet used to using these types of tools, need a deeper understanding of social and economic issues. The tool has been useful in raising awareness of these issues and in some cases has made a major difference in research approaches and technologies. Using farmer research groups enables communication with a greater number of farmers than does working with individuals, as practised in the past. Also, farmers can better impose their own organization and decision-making. On the other hand, researchers do not always know ‘who is who’ among collaborating farmers and tend to have little knowledge of indigenous groups and their dynamics. A subsequent study is planned to understand group dynamics so as to provide better guidelines to novice researchers. The PAM approach improves understanding of the agroecosystem and farmer-researcher links. It ensures a greater involvement of farmers in the research process. It was found that initially researchers lacked capacity for and acceptance of the approach and they found it difficult to work in an integrated fashion in teams. This is now changing. The farmer-led experimentation aspects pose the next greatest challenge. In participatory research, farmers and other actors play significant roles at all stages in the process – identifying and prioritizing research topics; planning, implementing, monitoring and assessing activities; and disseminating research results. Using various tools, the programme has formed a research agenda that is squarely based on issues selected and prioritized by farmers. The AHI expects that the PAM approach will facilitate technology adoption, empower farmers to share in decision-making, improve their problem-solving capacity and build local knowledge, skills and institutions. ReferenceAHI (2001) 1998 Technical Report, International Centre for Research in Agroforestry, Nairobi, Kenya 2 Participatory action research on adaptive collaborative management of community forests: A multi-country modelAcknowledgementsUnfortunately limited space and the involvement of multiple countries prohibits naming the collaborators individually. We therefore extend grateful collective recognition to the many government, research, NGO, and local community partners in Bolivia, Brazil, Cameroon, Ghana, Indonesia, Kyrgyzstan, Malawi, Nepal, the Philippines, and Zimbabwe. This research project was made possible through the generous support of the Asian Development Bank, the European Union, DFID, IDRC, WRI and CIFOR. BackgroundIn response to a community forestry environment that is complex and rapidly changing, CIFOR began a multi-country research project in 2000, which aims to enhance forest management decision-making at the local level. This research project, ‘Adaptive and Collaborative Management of Community Forests’ (ACM), explores the potential role of collaboration and social learning in forest management, including the role of criteria and indicators (C&I) as a tool within that process. Research hypotheses include that self- or collaborative monitoring systems can support communities in deepening their knowledge about local systems and impacts of management strategies, as well as creating and focusing dialogue between diverse stakeholders. The underlying assumption is that these changes can (in some conditions) support equity, effectiveness and adaptiveness in community forestry decision-making. The objective of the current research at the meta level is to generate insights into three questions. Does collaboration among forest stakeholders, enhanced by conscious and deliberate social learning processes in forest management, lead both to improved human well-being and to the maintenance of forest cover and diversity? If this is so, under what conditions does it occur? And, what are the key strategies, approaches and tools to enable these processes? These research questions are rooted in the assumption that the challenge of incorporating multiple interests at multiple scales into participatory interventions has not yet been successfully met in NRM. ApproachThe current ACM research is rooted in a participatory action research (PAR) approach. In most communities involved, diverse local people and other relevant stakeholders jointly developed a set of agreed and easily understood C&I. The process provided an opportunity for communication and learning within and across the stakeholder groups, especially with regard to visions and goals. The C&I set also provided a framework for later monitoring and assessing of key factors and their direction of change. This monitoring process creates the opportunity to feed information and learning back into the community forest management system. It thus serves to guide future action, helping to increase the sustainability of the community’s forest resources. It was initially the researchers who offered and provided the framework for the social learning process; since that time local users have begun to adapt and apply these processes themselves. The ultimate goal is to completely transfer these, including the necessary facilitation skills. Community forestry systems are complex and dynamic settings with multiple stakeholders, overlapping and differing interests, capabilities, and a myriad of challenging livelihood activities and processes. In some countries, such as those in Zimbabwe, the action research focus on collaboration has included power relations and negotiations between local peoples and other stakeholders. In other sites, such as Nepal, the focus has been primarily on stakeholder relations and equity within the local forest user groups (FUGs). Researchers there have tried to understand the stakeholder diversity within the FUG – based on overlapping categories including gender, caste, ethnicity, wealth and geography – in terms of issues of equity, power and access to resources and decision-making. The short-term outcomes of the self-monitoring processes and follow-up actions appear to be contributing to positive change in this area. In follow-up to the monitoring workshops, for example, some of the forest user groups are shifting their committee-based decision-making processes (which were generally dominated by the elite) towards hamlet and interest group-based processes, including building mechanisms for feedback to the committee. Especially given the linkages between hamlets, ethnicity and wealth in some of the FUGs, these changes have the potential to help address some long-standing local equity issues. A PAR methodology in isolation would present challenges in terms of producing generalizable results (a CIFOR mandate); thus, to enable generalizability, the PAR is embedded in a larger multi-site framework of scientific analysis. Specifically, in all research sites, researchers have laid the foundations for the comparative research by conducting a series of background studies elaborating stakeholder relations, historical, biophysical and socioeconomic contexts and initial levels of adaptiveness and collaboration. The studies took a consultative form of participation, but allowed researchers the time to build relations and the groundwork with local stakeholders for the main PAR phase of the research. Additionally, processes and learning in all sites are regularly recorded by researchers in a framework and format that is comparable across countries and sites. Other methods are also being used to triangulate the results across sites, countries and regions, key among these being the use of multivariate analysis across all sites and the analysis of the outcomes of the participatory modelling in Zimbabwe, Indonesia and Cameroon. Whereas the multivariate analysis is expected to provide a quantified picture of key drivers for the success or failure of adaptive collaborative management processes, the analysis of the simulation models (including the discussion with local partners of the emergent scenarios) is expected to provide insights into the causality of failure or success arising out of the structure and behaviour of these processes. Ultimately, these elements of the larger framework for analysis will enable greater depth of understanding within each site and highlight findings that emerge across varying community forestry conditions. ReflectionsThis is an ambitious project with high local and research expectations, and as such it faces some significant challenges. At the meta level, two of the most critical challenges are those of working across so many diverse sites and countries, compounded by the limitation of a very tight three-year time frame. Key challenges to working at the community level include: complex and pervasive hierarchical local stakeholder relations; low social capital; unstable political climates; and geographical isolation. However, key strengths include that, on the whole, community stakeholders, district and national partners, and field researchers have a high level of commitment to exploring the process and seeking local benefits – both social and environmental. The PAR and collaborative approach to the research incurs time costs to researchers but is enabling lessons to be relatively rapidly shared and incorporated to the research as it progresses. Past CIFOR C&I research fulfilled its intention of generating useful and valid insights for some national, regional and global stakeholders through traditional social and biophysical research. In that research context, relatively few benefits were intended to accrue, nor did accrue directly to the communities where the research took place. The current research is focused on community-level processes and makes a conscious effort to bring good science into a coherent, integrated framework with local learning and benefits. The outcomes are not yet assured – the approach is new and certainly bears some risk. But the indications so far are that, in the context of these issues at least, a synergy exists between functional and empowering participation that will be well worth the costs. ReferenceCIFOR (2001) ‘Learning to Learn’, CIFOR News, 29:4–5,: http://www.cifor.org/news-online/nepal.htm 3 The farmer-driven Landcare Movement: An institutional innovation with implications for extension and researchBackgroundWatershed degradation does not have to be an inevitable consequence of using sloping land for agriculture. Smallholders can farm and manage natural forest resources in a manner that is both productive and resource conserving. Awareness of this fact has focused attention on evolving approaches to watershed resource management that are demand-driven and community-based. In such approaches, those who occupy the land actively participate in managing and sustainably using their local watershed resources for multiple purposes. Watershed farming systems are enormously variable, and simple recipes do not solve their problems. Often, the issues need to be tackled at a larger scale than the individual household, cooperatively at the community level. In Asia, the role of local organizations in the management of forest and other common natural resources has received much attention. Joint forest management in India, forest users’ groups in Nepal, and community-based forest management in the Philippines are notable examples. Similarly, local organizations may apply knowledge to solve problems in agriculture through improved land husbandry. In countries where power and fiscal responsibility are being decentralized, democracy is reaching the village level, and rural people are acquiring new leadership skills. These skills provide a basis for developing farmer-led organizations that can develop practical ways of achieving a more sustainable agriculture. ApproachLandcare is a particularly noteworthy model for strengthening local initiatives to reverse land degradation. Through this approach, local communities organize efforts to solve agricultural and environmental problems in partnership with public institutions. Landcare groups are voluntary and self-governing. They engage local communities in a search for innovations that are suited to the diverse and complex environments of smallholder farming. They mobilize communities to address problems of water quality, forest and biodiversity protection, soil conservation and others at the landscape level. The Landcare movement in the Philippines began in Claveria, Mindanao, in 1996. Now, about 200 village-based Landcare groups are working in Claveria and other municipalities in northern, central, southern and eastern Mindanao, with a membership of several thousand households. The groups have established more than 1500 conservation farms and more than 200 community and household nurseries that have produced hundreds of thousands of fruit and timber tree seedlings, all with local resources. Conservation farming based on contour buffer strips has become popular as a result of collaboration between ICRAF and Landcare groups in the Philippines. With a view to diversifying farm enterprises, the groups have also established nurseries for new species of fruit and timber trees. At the community level, Landcare has proved itself a powerful force for creating initiatives that protect the whole watershed. Because the group members determine agendas, they have addressed a wide range of issues, including beef and dairy farming, cut-flower production and vegetable crop farming. Landcare provides important opportunities for improving how farmer participatory research is done. Landcare groups can manage such research, enabling them to diversify their experimentation, ensuring a better understanding of the performance and recommendation domains of technical innovations and offering more effective and less expensive alternatives to technology-transfer approaches. The farmer field school approach for conservation farming is currently being explored as a means of initiating Landcare groups. These groups exhibit some similar characteristics to the farmer field schools made popular in integrated pest management (IPM). Landcare groups, however, are more formalized and aim at a broader range of land degradation and sustainability issues. Some distinguishing features of Landcare groups are that:
ReflectionsThe sustainability of the Landcare movement gives rise to three significant concerns. First, given its growing popularity, the movement runs the risk of ‘projectizing’, that is, attracting the support of projects that do not understand the concept, and that provide funds in a top-down, target-driven mode, defeating the whole basis of a farmer-led movement. Second is the issue of long-term sustainability. Networking and the stimulation from outside contacts are considered to be crucial for long-term success. This can be achieved through Landcare federations, as has evolved locally in Claveria, and through provincial and national federations, which are currently being explored in the Philippines. Third, group leadership is a time-consuming and exhausting task, particularly when undertaken on a voluntary basis. Landcare is still young in both the Philippines and Australia but leadership ‘burnout’ has already raised concerns. The ICRAF analysis indicates some steps for further releasing the power of the Landcare concept. Public institutions and NGOs need to facilitate group formation and networking among groups, enabling them to grow, developing their managerial capabilities and enhancing their ability to capture new information from outside local communities. Such organizations can also provide leadership training to farmer-leaders, thus helping to ensure the sustainability of the Landcare groups. External financial assistance is also needed with an emphasis on the use of trust funds that enable farmer groups to compete for small grants to implement their own local Landcare projects. This approach has been remarkably successful in the Australian Landcare movement. Experience in the Philippines and Australia suggests that Landcare may provide an effective means of generating and sharing technical information, spreading the adoption of new practices, enhancing research and fostering farm and watershed planning processes. In the southern Philippines, Landcare groups are forming partnerships with local governments and technical research and extension agencies. Local governments are actively assisting the movement through financial and political support. This has attracted the attention of the national government, resulting in a national strategy of watershed management based on Landcare that will spread its principles and experiences to other parts of the Philippines. 4 The Farmer Research Group (CIAL) as a community-based natural resource management organizationAcknowledgementsJacqueline Ashby, Carlos Arturo Quirós, José Ignacio Roa; Investigación Participativa con Agricultores (IPRA), CIAT, Cali, Colombia; Sally Humphries; University of Guelph, Canada; Juan Gonzales, José Jimenez and Fredy Sierra; Investigacion Participativa en Centro America (IPCA), La Ceiba, Honduras; The WW Kellogg Foundation; participating farmers and national organizations in Latin America. BackgroundA Comité de Investigación Agrícola Local (CIAL) or Local Agricultural Research Committee is a research service belonging to, and managed by, a rural community. The research group is made up of volunteer farmers, chosen for their aptitude in experimentation. The CIAL links farmer-researchers with formal research systems, increasing local capacity to exert demand on the formal system and to access potentially useful skills, information and research products. A CIAT team developed the CIAL concept, which was first tested in Colombia. Five CIALs were formed in Cauca, Colombia, in 1990 and NGOs began their involvment in 1991. During 1995–1996, the CIAL project spread to other countries, involving rural communities, GOs, NGOs and universities. At present, over 250 CIALs are active in eight Latin American countries. Experience has shown that the CIAL can benefit the wider community as well as individual CIAL members. Mature CIALs often launch small businesses, selling improved seed or other products or services. Many take on a broader role in the community, seeking access to credit and training, preparing and submitting proposals and acting as ambassadors in relationships with research and development (R&D) actors. ApproachThe main CIAL principles are:
Each CIAL has at least four elected members (many expand beyond this) and a facilitator. The facilitator may be a trained agronomist from a supportive formal research centre or university, an extension service or an NGO, or a trained farmer, who has served on a CIAL. The facilitator plays a key role in developing the CIAL’s competence in the research process, and provides feedback on farmers’ priorities and research results to formal research and extension services. The CIAL process cycles through the following stages:
ReflectionsEcological interactions and local knowledge gaps are not always considered explicitly in the CIAL process, and no formal mechanism is incorporated to develop an understanding of the agroecological principles and interactions that may underlie the issues being researched. Such knowledge may be essential for the design of meaningful experiments. Methods for analysing the scale of action needed for successful intervention are not sufficiently developed. This can be limiting if the research issues are related to pests, diseases and many NRM situations. Relationships with the community depend strongly on the quality of social capital. In areas where trust is low and association along non-kinship lines is rare, forming and/or sustaining CIALs may be difficult. However, many advantages accrue. Farmers systematically evaluate technological options such that minimal risk is incurred. They learn basic research principles that provide for developing a common language and two-way communication with research and extension professionals. In some conflict-ridden communities CIALs have provided an entry point for building social capital. Although community-based, the radius of CIAL influence can be increased by forming networks of experimenting communities and creating second-order associations. A recent impact assessment of the CIAL movement revealed that:
The effect of the CIALs on their communities and on formal research services transcends dollars and cents. Nevertheless, CIAT estimates the return on the investment made in developing and applying the CIAL approach at 78 per cent. The CIAL movement is still young, and its future evolution is uncertain. Properly managed, CIALs can deliver substantial growth and equity benefits. However, their effects on the sustainability of production are less predictable. By allowing adaptive research to be devolved to the farming community, CIALs cut the costs of formal research while increasing its impact. ReferenceAshby, J, Braun, A, Gracia, T, Guerrero, M., Quirós, C A and Roa, J I (2000) Investing in Farmer Researchers: Experience in Latin America, CIAT Publication No 318, Centro Internacional de Agricultura Tropical, Cali, Colombia 5 Long-term natural resource management research in intensive production systems: ICARDA’s experience in EgyptBackgroundSince 1994, ICARDA scientists have worked with colleagues in Egyptian research institutions to design and implement a programme of resource management research in key agricultural environments in the country. Researchers carried out literature reviews, rapid appraisals, formal farm surveys and planning before establishing long-term trials at four irrigated sites (one each in the Delta and Middle Egypt, and two in the newly reclaimed desert lands, known as New Lands), and at one rainfed site (near Rafah, North Sinai). Each site has three major research problems. Water (both quality and quantity) is the paramount concern at all sites. Maintaining soil fertility is essential in the old lands of the Delta and Middle Egypt but building up soil fertility is essential for sustained production in the New Lands and rainfed areas. A third issue that the trials address is the choice of sustainable crop sequences for rotational systems. These on-station trials are designed for a minimum of 12 years and are entirely managed by researchers. ApproachAt each site, the long-term trial is integrated with participatory research in surrounding villages and on individual farms. Like the on-station trials, the participatory work, called long-term monitoring (LTM), is intended to have an extended life. Its purpose is to establish a continuing dialogue with farmers concerning their farming practices, management decisions and the related conditions of their natural resource base. The dialogue centres on long- and short-term farmer objectives, their perceptions of the qualitative aspects of the resource base and their technical knowledge of resource management. The participatory research also involves a longitudinal study of farmers’ management of natural resources in response to changing environmental, economic and social circumstances. As part of their exchange with farmers, researchers are also monitoring changes in the status of natural resources on representative farms through periodic biophysical measurements. Researchers are combining farmer participation with biophysical measurements to provide information about the interaction between natural resource conditions and farmers’ management practices. Once institutionalized, the LTM system will provide a mechanism by which researchers and farmers can exchange knowledge on improved management practices and their effects on natural resource health. A multidisciplinary research team is conducting the monitoring at each location. Each team includes members of local farmer associations, local extension staff, researchers from various institutes and participating farmers. These farmers were selected according to a carefully prepared list of environmental criteria relevant to each location, including hydrological and soil factors and cropping patterns. Socioeconomic factors such as farm size and type, natural resource endowment, social background, level of education and household composition were given equal weight. Farmers were selected at random from lists prepared for each site. They received a thorough explanation of the purpose and activities of the LTM system and were asked if they would like to participate. They were also informed about the amount of time and information required and the need for a long-term commitment. The 85 farmers who agreed to participate in developing the system represent the whole range of social, economic and natural resource conditions at each study location. Without altering the integrity of the research design, the programme made provisions for new participants to join. For each participating farmer, information on socioeconomic factors, farm management decisions and perceptions of resource conditions and productivity performance are being collected every six months, after the main winter and summer cropping seasons. Natural resource conditions are measured on different schedules according to scientific requirements. In addition to basic information about crop sequences and rotations, management practices, input use, productivity and economic returns, data are collected on labour use and sources, household composition, income sources and household investment patterns. This information will explain why farmers make the decisions they do and thus should help develop profitable and sustainable production practices. A review workshop is held once a year to bring together the research teams, including farmer members, for discussion of results and trends in the information collected. ReflectionsThrough this work, Egyptian farmers, researchers and extension workers are building and testing a new holistic approach to studying agricultural production, including socioeconomic and biophysical factors and their effects on the natural resource base over time. 6 Management of plant genetic resources in agroecosystems: in situ conservation on-farmAcknowledgementsParticipating farmers, local and national institutes and organizations and partners of Nepal, Vietnam, Burkina Faso, Ethiopia, Hungary Mexico, Morocco, Nepal, Peru and Turkey, participating international institutes, and SDC, NEDA, BMZ, IDRC, FAO, JICA, GEF. BackgroundIn 1995, national partners in Burkina Faso, Ethiopia, Hungary, Mexico, Morocco, Nepal, Peru, Turkey and Vietnam together with IPGRI initiated a global project, ‘Strengthening the scientific basis of in situ conservation of agricultural biodiversity’. The purpose is to strengthen the scientific basis, institutional linkages and policies that support the farmers’ role in conservation and use of crop genetic diversity. Projects are implemented by linking existing national plant genetic resource (PGR) programmes with other partners such as universities, national institutes, agricultural extension workers, NGOs, community-based organizations (CBOs) and farmers. An expected result is the creation of a channel for input from these sources into national agricultural research agendas. A cross-section of case studies includes ‘Creating a national framework’ (Nepal), ‘Understanding farmer preferences’ (Morocco), ‘Gendered participation in in situ conservation’ (Mexico) and ‘Participatory methods to add value to PGRs’ (Nepal). ApproachOn-farm conservation of traditional crops is carried out by farming communities for farming communities. The primary task for those concerned with conservation and with the maintenance of traditional crop diversity in situ is to understand when, where and how this will happen, who will maintain the material and how those maintaining the material can benefit. Four areas of investigation were identified that set the necessary scientific agenda needed to support farmers and local communities in in situ conservation on farm:
1 What is the extent and distribution of the genetic diversity maintained by farmers over space and over time? 2 What are the processes used to maintain the genetic diversity on-farm? 3 Who maintains genetic diversity within farming communities (men, women, young, old, rich, poor, certain ethnic groups)? 4 What factors (market, non-market, social, environmental) influence farmer decisions on maintaining traditional varieties?
Formulating and answering these questions required a participatory approach at all stages of the process. Participatory methods, such as key informant interview, focus group discussions, spatial mapping and matrix ranking served to include farmers’ knowledge on local social-cultural, economic and agroecological conditions, their crop and seed management practices and the characteristics and origins of their varieties into project data. Information from participatory research is complemented by household, market and seed system surveys, field trials on-station and on-farm and genetic diversity measurements in the field and in laboratories by economists, sociologists, ethnobotanists, agronomists, ecologists and populations geneticists, often in collaboration with farmers and extension workers. A preliminary ‘exploratory approach’ (not based on preliminary hypotheses) was used first, because it did not presuppose or assume the different categories or reasons underlying farmers’ knowledge and it enables farmers to employ their own values and standards of measurement. Hypothesis testing followed, to answer specific questions that would support the scientific basis of on-farm conservation. The different sources and levels of information include the variety, crop, parcel or plot, household, village or community, landscape or region. Information is collected, disaggregated by gender and in some cases by wealth categories and ethnic groups. Moreover, information from one aspect may be useful to answer more than one question. Understanding the relationship between what farmers recognize as or name a variety and the genetic distinctiveness of this unit is key to understanding the amount and distribution of crop genetic diversity managed by farmers. The information collected in only one year at the level of the household or farmer’s plot may not be the appropriate scale for analysis or for agrobiodiversity conservation. Thus, information is analysed at different spatial and temporal scales. Implementing the project involved developing multi-institutional, multidisciplinary collaboration at international, national and local levels. This included ensuring that trained national male and female personnel were available to carry out the work at central and local levels, and that the teams promoted equity at all project levels. In addition, because the project is largely community-based, time was devoted to building or creating rapport with the farmers in whose fields much of the work is being undertaken, and whose experiences and knowledge provide a central component of the project. Key has been separate male and female farmer cross-site visits for promoting exchange of information by gender. Linking research to development is central to the project. A range of activities in the different countries ensures that the project benefits national conservation programmes, partner institutions and the participating farmers. The information collected is used to mainstream the use of local crop genetic resources into the agricultural development arena. In contrast to research and analysis methodologies that have widespread application, actual interventions to include management of crop genetic diversity in agricultural development activities are found to be site-specific. The project is creating a portfolio of options, based on many case studies from participating countries, to which national programmes may refer for ideas for increasing the benefits to farmers from local crop diversity. ReflectionsThe method has some disadvantages. Time is needed to formulate proper hypotheses to avoid unnecessary data collection that can result because of the complexity of research and number of issues to be addressed. Integrating quantitative and qualitative data (empirical versus farmer knowledge) is a challenge. Time is also needed to build linkages between disciplines and formal and informal sectors and these linkages are vulnerable to continuing cultural, economic and environmental change. Advantages of the research are that it focuses on locally important crops and builds on local knowledge. The gender disaggregated approach to data collection, cross-site visits and actively pursuing gender equity in employing local project team members and managers has enabled the project to more clearly address issues of livelihood improvement and empowerment and address gender and equity concerns. Farmers take ownership for their own resources. The method recognizes the achievements of both male and female farmer-breeders as ‘keepers of diversity’. They in turn guarantee sustainability in that they perpetuate the process, continuing it when ‘intervention’ has finished. The process also channels farmers’ voices into national agricultural research and extension systems and fosters cooperation between local, national and international levels and GO and NGO sectors. Innovative approaches were developed for participatory NRM (PNRM), including developing frameworks to support the recognition, conservation and improvement of farmer-developed PGRs in situ. An understanding was gained of the appropriate scale for data collection, aggregation and analysis and for different stakeholders’ management decisions. The process revealed the importance of taking time to strengthen farmer informal and formal linkages, integrating on-farm conservation into national PGR programmes as part of their regular annual plans and including agricultural extension staff at national and local levels in participatory training and project implementation. Plant genetic resources are a natural resource fundamental to agricultural production. Most conservation efforts to date have focused on ex situ options (eg, in gene banks or botanical gardens). However, this method of conservation recognizes crop germplasm as the evolutionary product of the continuing interaction between farmers and their environments. As farmers continue planting, harvesting, selecting and storing seed, PGRs are renewed and developed. Non-use of PGRs leads to their loss from their surrounding environments. Acknowledging the dependence of crop PGRs on human use highlights the necessity of a participatory approach as inherent in the goal of conservation. ReferenceJarvis, D I, Myer, L, Klemick, H, Guarino, L, Smale, M, Brown, A H D, Sadiki, M, Sthapit, B and Hodgkin, T (2000) A Training Guide for in situ Conservation On-farm, Version 1, IPGRI, Rome, Italy 7 Eastern Himalayan initiative on gender, ethnicity and agrobiodiversity managementAcknowledgementsThe International Development Research Centre (IDRC) and members of the Eastern Himalayan Network. BackgroundDiversity in the natural ecological systems of mountains has contributed extensively to maintaining biological diversity in the farming systems of the eastern Himalayan region. Typically, many crop and animal species, varieties and breeds are found on farms. Subsistence farmers of the region, besides producing many crops (mainly landraces), rely extensively on wild plants to meet their needs for fibre, shelter, food, medicines, tools and household implements. For the various ethnic groups residing in the region, survival requires extensive use and management of natural resources. More particularly, it necessitates incorporating natural resources into farming systems. By incorporating biological resources at the genetic, species and agroecosystem levels, mountain communities possess extensive knowledge of their environment. The project is situated in the eastern Himalayas, and covers four sites: east Nepal, Sikkim, Bhutan and Nagaland in north east India. The overall purpose of the project is focused on building the capabilities of indigenous mountain populations to better represent themselves in the development dialogue. The process for achieving these objectives is to:
ApproachThe strategies for capacity building work through research, skill development for network members and advocacy. The aims are to:
Skills of network members are developed through training and learning workshops that build conceptual clarity and analytical skills in research and help develop writing skills. Training is given on gender analysis and for facilitation and community development skills. Participatory rural appraisal (PRA) skills are included for a programme especially developed for rural planning called Village Initiated Planning. The process requires community involvement in identifying problems and in research and analysis. It includes problem prioritization, project planning (proposed action, objective, developing M&E criteria, financial management) and designing implementation procedures (methods and approaches, group formation, types of training required, guiding principles, implementation and M&E). The advisory group, comprised of scientists, planners and development professionals in the region, propose strategies that focus on bringing an awareness of gender issues and farmers’ rights to the nation’s policy-makers and high-level officials via links to biodiversity planning bodies at national level and other means. The development of a participatory video documenting the process of a participatory crop improvement (PCI) initiative that builds on farmer-led approaches in eastern Nepal also helps to diffuse the method. ReflectionsWhile capacity building is part of an on-going process, a preliminary assessment, particularly in the PCI initiative conducted at one site, demonstrates that certain activities are more easily adopted than are others. For instance, a participatory seed management initiative conducted in eastern Nepal demonstrates the potential for dissemination of methodologies to other sites in the eastern Himalayas. The action research project was based on the following hypotheses:
In the 18 months since the project’s implementation, members of the local CBO effectively adopted the knowledge of seed management for maize, and the community developed a seed bank with their own production of maize seed. Another significant outcome is the dissemination of the seed technology through the activities of the CBO that is presently working with over 50 farmers from adjoining communities. Lessons generated from the farmer-led seed management initiative in east Nepal have helped in developing a similar management initiative in Sikkim. Over the last few years, the spread of disease in ginger has severely hampered production of this important cash crop. The new participatory approach is based on experimenting with farmer-identified ‘best’ practices for disease management. A central component is through the development of local organizational capacity to more effectively participate in the research process. Finally, members of the CBO in eastern Nepal have emphasized their interest in developing plant breeding skills, especially for maize varieties (landraces) whose seed quality has deteriorated because of factors such as the introduction of high-producing modern varieties that are available through research stations. It is still too early in the project to assess the extent to which local knowledge of mountain communities can inform national policy planning, especially in terms of agricultural development for marginal mountain communities. ReferencePratap, T, and Sthapit, B (eds) (1998) Managing Agrobiodiversity: Farmers Changing Perspectives and Institutional Responses in the HKH Region, ICIMOD 8 Participatory selection and strategic use of multipurpose forages in hillsides of Central AmericaAcknowledgementsL A Hernández Romero, L H Franco (CIAT, Colombia), A. Schmidt (CIAT, Nicaragua), M I Posas (Servicios Técnicos para el Desarrollo Sostenido, SERTEDESO, Honduras), W Sanchez (Ministerio de Agricultura y Ganadería, MAG, Costa Rica), M Mena (Instituto Nicaraguense de Tecnología Agropecuaria, INTA, Nicaragua), J Bustamante (Fundación Ecotrópica, Costa Rica), H Cruz (CIAT, Honduras), T Reyes (CIAT, Nicaragua), C E Reiche (Cooperación Alemana para el Desarrollo/Instituto Interamericano de Cooperación Agrícola, IICA-GTZ, Costa Rica), Conrado Burgos (Dirección de Ciencia y Tecnología Agropecuaria, DICTA, Honduras), R Schultze-Kraft, V Hoffmann and R van der Hoek (University of Hohenheim, Germany) and P Argel (CIAT, Costa Rica). In this research effort, CIAT is collaborating with rural communities, NGOs, national organizations and advanced research institutions. The project is funded by the Bundesministerium für Wirtschaftliche Zusammenarbeit und Entwicklung (BMZ), with the technical and administrative support of the Deutsche Gesellschaft für Technische Zusammenarbeit (GTZ). BackgroundThe objective of working with rural communities is mainly to enhance interaction with local stakeholders and to achieve an impact in the initial intervention sites. The partnership with nationally based institutions is the basis for a wider distribution of results and for multiplication of farmer-selected forage seeds – seed availability being a major bottleneck for the adoption of improved forages. Conceptually, this activity relies on farmer–researcher–institutional linkages. The aims are to use forages to:
In 1998 the study began in Honduras in the CIAT reference site of Yorito, department of Yoro. Work has since been extended to other countries in Central America. Further diffusion depends greatly upon partners. A team of researchers drawn from forage genetic resources, geographic information systems (GIS), participatory research and soils carries out the project. Together with farmers, local grassroots organizations, NGOs and other relevant institutions in and outside the region, the project develops forage-based technologies and identifies forage germplasm adapted to the needs of different types of farmers. ApproachFarmers are offered a range of grass and legume options for livestock feeding, soil fertility improvement and soil conservation. For those forages immediately attractive to farmers, seed is provided in a limited amount to enhance testing, utilization and, eventually, adoption. At the same time, smallholders are encouraged to produce seed themselves. If seed production is not feasible on-site, alternative sites for production are sought. The described approach cannot be implemented by using a single research method. The research builds on an interaction between several partners and includes the application of diagnostic tools (including both biophysical and socioeconomic aspects) to understand the production systems. To allow farmer selection of the different forage options, a combination of open evaluations and preference ranking is used. To initiate this process of participatory selection of improved forage options, several training and planning activities with the different partners were carried out in 2000 and are continued in 2001. Several types of trials for the agronomic evaluation and simultaneous participatory selection of improved forages were established in Honduras, Nicaragua and Costa Rica. Multipurpose germplasm including grasses, herbaceous legumes, shrub legumes and cover and green manure legumes have been offered to farmers. Thirty-nine trials were established in three reference sites in Honduras, Nicaragua and Costa Rica. The sites were selected using participatory approaches and in some cases complemented by interested farmers themselves. Each of the ten trial sites is represented by a group of 10–15 farmers. More than 100 farmers are so far involved in the project. To support this work methodologically, a procedure for the participatory selection of forages is being developed. A participatory diagnosis was done in three communities in the Department of Yoro, Honduras. Similar diagnoses are in process in Nicaragua and Costa Rica. These define the participating communities and help incorporate them in the planning process. ReflectionsAlthough initial results are highly promising, data have to be interpreted with care. Results obtained in specific locations will be extrapolated using a GIS-based decision-support tool, which will be made available to a range of research and development institutions. Preliminary results indicate that farmers selected in the first place ‘improved’ grasses for their pastures. Several farmers were also interested in legume species. High interest is shown in incorporating forages for soil conservation, while demand for cut-and-carry legumes is still low. However, the use of shrub legumes for dry season feeding is gaining the interest of some farmers, confirming similar experiences of CIAT research in the region. A more reserved attitude of farmers towards the legume options can be expected because in most cases the use of legumes means a change of the existing production systems. The combination of different forage options of varying complexity is believed to be instrumental in building trust among farmers to test more complex and thus higher risk alternatives. The community-based NRM research is seen as complementary to on-station research activities and vice versa. This study is building on this concept: the positive aspects of community-based research counterbalance the negative aspects of on-station research. For example, in on-farm research the lower control of the experimental conditions is balanced by the better insight obtained in the real-life situation. The biggest limitation of the approach at the moment is to match the demand and supply of seed. In order to maintain farmers’ confidence it is important to stress that new forage options bear certain risks and that their introduction and succesful application is a long-term process. The development of appropriate approaches is indispensable. The approach goes beyond offering farmers a range of forage options for selection; it initiates rather a dynamic, continued process. Farmer-selection of particular grass and legume ecotypes will allow researchers to better define plant characteristics requested by farmers. Adoption of new technologies is in the first place determined by the client’s requirements. These demands should help to define and direct further forage germplasm development. The interactive work with farmers may open possibilities to develop forage technology options which go beyond the immediate scope of farmers and researchers. These technologies could contribute significantly to the development of profitable and sustainable production systems. Of particular attention in this study is the search for forage options to directly or indirectly improve the well-being of less privileged groups in the rural society, such as women and small farmers (even those without livestock). ReferencePeters, M, Argel, P, Burgos, C, Hyman, G, Cruz, H, Klass, J, Braun, A, Franco, A and Posas, M I (2000) ‘Selection and Targeting of Forages in Central America linking Participatory Approaches and Geographic Information Systems – Concept and Preliminary Results’, in: Stür, W W, Horne, P, Hacker, J B and Kerridge, P C (eds) Working With Farmers: The Key to Adoption of Forage Technologies, Proceedings of an International Workshop held in Cagayan de Oro, Mindanao, Philippines, 12–15 October 1999, ACIAR Proceedings No 95 9 Focus on integrating methods and approaches to increase gender/stakeholder involvement, collaborative management of natural resource management, and decision-making supportAcknowledgementBiston Mbewe, Dept of Agriculture, Lusaka, Zambia. BackgroundTsetse control operations commenced in the Chiawa area of Zambia in 1991. Prior to that date, no cattle were kept in the area because of tsetse, although cattle were kept in surrounding tsetse-free areas. Tsetse control dramatically increased the agricultural options in the area but also presented the challenge of how to realize the benefits without over-exploiting the environment. Typically, ‘land use planning’ is seen as the means of meeting this challenge but the record of conventional approaches to land use planning under communal tenure systems in southern Africa has not been impressive to date. Over the period 1994–1997, Chiawa was selected to pilot alternative approaches. The overall objective was to increase stakeholder involvement through decision-making support in order to achieve collaborative management of natural resources. ApproachIn Phase 1, community leaders and government and NGO representatives were consulted. Scheduled community meetings were held. A review was made of existing documentation. Rapid air-photo interpretation and rapid field surveys of farming systems, vegetation and soils were also carried out. The results of the field surveys were incorporated into a simple GIS. Consultations revealed that an alternative approach was needed with improved stakeholder involvement as the primary objective. They clearly identified the importance of responding rapidly to demand-driven initiatives as opposed to imposing externally conceived ‘solutions’. Thus, a ‘demand-led and support’ model was developed in contrast with the more familiar ‘suitability and enforcement’ model of land use planning. The approach was based on the following principles:
Female and male ‘local community workers’ (group promoters) were recruited by advertising locally and selected by interview. Training was provided that included periods of attachment to experienced community workers within Zambia. By clearly explaining the principles of the scheme to all involved from the outset, false expectations were avoided and ‘ownership’ of the initiatives reinforced. In Phase 2, the community workers convened a series of small meetings at which problems and solutions were discussed. A scheme for supporting small projects that were both maintained by the community and environmentally benign was jointly developed. The process of local approval was agreed during these initial meetings. A wide range of projects was proposed, including fishponds, cattle paddocks, vegetable gardens, handicraft production, marketing of local tourist attractions, well construction and poultry production schemes. The proposals were documented and passed to the relevant authorities for evaluation. Environmental impact was assessed during site visits and from information collected during Phase 1. Approved projects were supported through a variety of means, including technical assistance, loans of equipment and short study tours. Interaction with the community during this process provided valuable guidance for parallel components of the planning process. Phase 3 addressed issues of communal grazing resources, boundaries and procedures for arbitration of disputes. Trust, understanding and confidence were built during the scheme’s development that enabled more productive debate and subsequent actions than would otherwise have been the case. Phase 4 examined options and outlined costs for community infrastructure provision such as roads, schools and clinics. ReflectionsThree main lessons were learned:
1 The process takes time. Frequently, land use planning consists of a time-bound period of data collection and consultation. This can result in distortions in the perceptions of planners. The presence of community workers over a longer time scale serves to correct rushed generalizations. Their involvement and continuous presence serves to maintain momentum and act as a two-way conduit between the community and others. 2 The experience and capability of the local coordinators has a key influence on the direction of the planning effort. Careful selection, support and training are essential. The disadvantages of selection from the local community include lack of objectivity, favouritism and possibly diminished respect because of familiarity. The advantages of local selection overall outweigh the disadvantages and include a positive slant on these in terms of understanding and familiarity combined with the commitment to improve their own community. 3 Initially groups, as opposed to individuals or families, were targeted because of the greater numerical impact. Typically, group initiatives started well and initially made rapid progress but, in several cases, social tensions reduced their effectiveness over time. In contrast, individual and family initiatives took longer to start up but once established were all sustained.
A ‘demand-led and support’ model was seen as an effective entry point in developing a participatory land use planning process, initiated by stakeholder involvement. The approach provided decision-making support and encouraged the collaborative management of natural resources. The community enthusiastically received the scheme. Eighteen months after its initiation, 35 projects were operating independently. The transfer of coordination to a local NGO demonstrated the success of the approach. Proposals to establish a small revolving fund to support further initiatives were made. The individual projects were likened to pieces of a mosaic. The projects have individual integrity and ownership, but when placed together they constitute a de facto land use plan. 10 Farmer participatory experiments in pest managementAcknowledgementSwiss Agency for Development and Cooperation (SDC). BackgroundFarmers use their perceptions of crop losses caused by pests to decide when to spray insecticides. This can lead to overestimating the seriousness of highly visible pests or damage symptoms. In making these decisions, farmers often rely on heuristics, or rules of thumb. Developed through experience and guesswork as to possible outcomes, heuristics may have inherent faults and biases. Farmers’ decisions about leaf folder infestations in rice provide a case in point. Many farmers spray to control this pest, even though it does not cause yield losses, especially when it attacks in the early crop stages. Farmers’ reactions to visible damage or insect presence may be caused by faults in their heuristics. An approach for solving this problem is to analyse how farmers make these decisions, develop a corrective heuristic, frame it as a hypothesis and motivate farmers to participate in an experiment to test it. ApproachResearchers at IRRI and ViSCA initiated participatory experiments in collaboration with technicians from the local Department of Agriculture and village leaders in Leyte, the Philippines. Half-day group meetings were held in each village for 10–25 invited farmers and a facilitator. The meetings began with general discussions about rice growing and related problems. Later discussions focused on leaf folders, the damage and losses that they caused, methods of control and their costs and effectiveness. Researchers facilitating the meetings eventually led the discussions as to whether control was needed at all and to the benefits of not spraying. Next, volunteers were invited to test the heuristic ‘We do not need to spray insecticides in the first 30 days after transplanting’. The volunteer farmers marked out an area of about 100 square metres in their fields that would not receive any insecticides during the first days of the crop cycle. They followed their usual practices in the rest of their fields. At the end of the season, participants reported their results in a workshop and received a certificate of participation. Farmers from both the participating village and neighbouring ones were invited to the workshop. Pre- and post-experiment surveys were conducted to monitor changes in farmers’ beliefs and intentions. These variables included farmers’ beliefs, intentions, spray frequencies, timing and targets, yields, inputs and other management practices. Rice yields in about 80 per cent of the experimental plots were equal to or greater than in the main plots. The number of insecticide applications fell from three to two per season. The percentage of farmers applying insecticides in the first 30 days of crop growth fell from 70 per cent to 20 per cent. ReflectionsThe benefits of such experiments are that they are usually inexpensive and easy to conduct and they facilitate farmer learning by actively ‘testing’ a new idea, making participants more likely to adopt successful innovations. The approach provides a mechanism for scientists to learn about farmers’ decision constraints, determine research needs, use research information and ‘distil’ them into testable hypotheses for farmers. It provides a means of exploring changes in farmers’ beliefs, behaviour and practices. It is particularly useful for introducing a ‘new’ idea to a community. Participatory experiments of this kind may have some disadvantages. They can prove expensive if the process is to be conducted over a large population. The use of media to motivate farmers’ participation has been successful in Vietnam and may be an alternative to face-to-face training. Farmers participating in the experiments may risk losses and require compensation. The approach aims to introduce a testable hypothesis to farmers and thus may be viewed by some as ‘top-down’. The presence of scientists may influence farmers differently. Thus scientists applying this approach will need to acquire and use facilitating skills. Peers may view this type of participatory experiment as agronomically ‘weak’ because some of the controls may not be easily implemented. Because the main objective of the approach is to evaluate farmers’ responses to new ideas rather than agronomy, data collection of variables on belief, behaviour and practice changes needs to be emphasized. The adoption of innovations such as seeds and machines is often discussed in the literature. Less is known about the adoption or adaptation of information into farmer decisions. Because much of resource management is in the form of information and how to adapt and integrate it into decisions and practices, investing in decision research, an emerging field of applied social psychology, will enhance delivery and communication information. ReferenceHeong, K L and Escalada, M M (1997) ‘Perception Change in Rice Pest Management: A Case Study of farmers’ Evaluation of Conflict Information’, Journal of Applied Communications, 81:3–17 (Awarded 1997 Article of the Year) 11 Farmers’ ability to manage a devastating plant disease – potato late blightAcknowledgementsCARE-Peru; CARE-Cajamarca; FAO’s Global IPM Facility; farmers of San Miguel, Cajamarca, Peru; CIP’s late blight project team. BackgroundResource-poor farmers have substantial difficulty in managing the diseases that affect their crops. Potato late blight (LB) is particularly devastating for small-scale producers. Because of recent worldwide migrations of more virulent and fungicide-resistant strains of the pathogen, potato farmers face a problem that behaves differently than before. Poor farmers have little knowledge of the disease, in part because the organism that causes it is essentially invisible. Late blight is usually managed through the use of fungicides, some of which are suspected carcinogens. In developing countries, effective disease management strategies are best devised locally, because of the tremendous variation in human, environmental, host and pathogen factors among potato agroecosystems. As the result of decades of resistance breeding, potato varieties and breeding lines with promising levels of resistance are available. Although efforts are made to breed for durable resistance, varietal diversification is desirable to reduce the erosion and breakdown of resistance. Getting improved varieties to the farmers is, however, a significant challenge because of the limitations inherent in a vegetatively propagated crop. Deployment of promising breeding lines in marginal and heterogeneous environments without formal seed systems is particularly difficult. Participatory approaches are essential because they help integrate varietal selection with other elements of disease and crop management strategies, and they contribute to the improvement of informal seed systems. The Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) developed the farmer field school approach (FFS) for training in IPM. Since 1997, CIP has been working with several research and extension institutions to develop and implement FFSs with farmer groups in the Andes and elsewhere. The original FFS approach was found to require substantial adaptation for potato. In potato production, farmers make many of their key decisions before the start of the growing season. The variety that they choose and their source of seed are key issues in managing LB and other potato pests. We incorporated a substantial element of farmer participatory research (FPR) into the FFS format, and therefore designated our approach ‘FPR-FFS’ to distinguish if from the FFSs that focus principally on training. ApproachTo initiate the development of an FPR-FFS focused initially on potato late blight, CIP convened a series of local and national meetings and an international workshop to develop a strategy and to define available materials. An FPR-FFS curriculum, embodied as a field guide for facilitators, was drafted. A baseline study on LB was conducted in Ecuador, Peru, Bolivia and Uganda. This study confirmed that LB is the most important production problem for potato farmers and provided insight into farmers’ knowledge and practices. In an FPR-FFS, a group of about 10–35 farmers from a given locality meets regularly over the course of one to three cropping seasons (or longer), usually twice a month for a half-day session. Helped by a trained facilitator (usually from a local NGO), the farmer group conducts field experiments and hands-on learning activities. They use direct experimentation and observation to improve their knowledge, and use this expertise to improve their crop and pest management. The field experiments have included testing of promising varieties and/or breeding lines, testing different fungicide strategies for varieties with different levels of resistance, working with varieties derived from true potato seed and comparing IPM and conventional practice. By sharing data among communities through field days and workshops, the groups amass substantial data and can proceed with decisions such as varietal selection with relative confidence. The programme has expanded in Peru and elsewhere. In 1997, CIP and CARE-Peru initiated FFSs on a pilot scale in four communities of San Miguel, Cajamarca, in northern Peru. Eight FPR-FFSs were conducted during 1998–1999 in San Miguel, and 13 were conducted in 1999–2000. In parallel, pilot-scale FPR-FFSs were established elsewhere in Peru, as well as in Ecuador, Bolivia, China, Bangladesh, Uganda and Ethiopia through the collaboration of researchers, extension organizations (mainly NGOs) and farmer groups. Parallel efforts by other organizations in coordination with CIP led to further efforts in potato. Facilitators from Bolivia, Ecuador and Peru were formally trained in FFS methods through the FAO, and national IPM projects emphasizing the FFS methodology were established in Peru and Ecuador. ReflectionsFarmers have much to learn about the microbial world. Because they cannot see the organism that causes plant disease, they do not understand disease processes well. They are poor at diagnosis and inefficient at managing the diseases that affect their potato crops. However, given the opportunity, they are quick to learn and improve their management decisions. They are keen to try new varieties and are appropriately conservative about making decisions regarding varietal change. Participatory evaluation gives farmers a meaningful basis on which to make decisions about varietal choice. The FPR-FFS approach is demanding on both farmers and researchers. Farmers must be strongly motivated to improve their potato production if they are to participate successfully. Because potato is a high-value crop and the losses caused by LB are often devastating, LB is a suitable entry point. However, farmers face numerous problems with their potato crops and other agricultural enterprises, and prefer integrated approaches that allow them to cope with multiple problems at a given time. The FPR-FFS method forces researchers, who often have narrow technical interests, to expand their horizons. Researchers and farmers have complementary roles in the evaluation of potential new varieties. Linkages between research and extension organizations increase the potential impact of knowledge-intensive technology. In the Andes, the FPR-FFS has attracted many young men while older men and women with young children often found participation more challenging. This could result, in part, from the limited role that women play in potato production in the northern Peruvian Andes. However, women have a stake in successful crop and disease management for potato, and in selection of appropriate potato genotypes. In participatory evaluation of varieties and breeding lines conducted through the FPR-FFS, the opinions of men and women participants were sometimes significantly different. This reinforced the importance of involving both men and women in the activity. Efforts are being made to improve the training curriculum to enhance its utility for female participants. The FPR-FFS approach is still evolving, and from the outset has had much in common with the CIAL methodology. With support from the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD) and the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) Fund for International Development, pilot-scale FPR-FFSs are now being established in seven countries, through collaboration among researchers, NGOs and farmer groups. More emphasis is being placed on gender analysis (assisted by the PRGA programme), and the impact of the FFS is being assessed (PRGA and the World Bank). Preliminary observations indicate that the FFS is highly effective in stimulating farmer learning and varietal diffusion. ReferenceNelson, R, Orrego, R, Ortiz, O, Mundt, M, Fredrix, M and Vien, N V (2001) ‘Working with Resource-poor Farmers to Manage Plant Diseases’, Plant Disease, 85:684–695 12 Developing and implementing an innovative community approach to the control of bacterial wilt (Pseudomonas solanacearum) of potatoes (Solanum tuberosum)AcknowledgementDr Prakash Pradhanang and the staff of Lumle Agricultural Research Centre, PO Box 1, Pokhara, Kaski, Nepal. BackgroundThis case study is set in the mid-hills of Nepal and draws on the experience of researchers, extensionists and farmers in developing and implementing an innovative community approach to the control of bacterial wilt (P solanacearum) of potatoes (S tuberosum). The architects of the approach were the development scientists of Lumle Agricultural Research Centre. The high hills of Nepal have traditionally been a source of supply for seed potatoes to the mid-hill and lowland (terai) potato producers of Nepal because of the low incidence of viral diseases in the high hills. Bacterial wilt is a serious disease that can survive in the soil for several years and can be spread through infected seed potatoes. It threatened the trade in seed potatoes (and the production of potatoes as an important hill staple) from the late 1980s, as it became established in the villages where seed was produced. The villagers themselves did not know the life cycle of the disease, nor what control measures to take. Lumle Agricultural Research Centre held the research mandate for the area and devised a strategy for addressing the problem in collaboration with the affected communities. The whole process has been an integrated effort between natural and social scientists working together with communities. However, the Samuhik Bhraman (see below) carried out at the start of the project was probably the key to understanding the interaction between the social, cultural, physical and biological factors. ApproachThe Samuhik Bhraman is a type of rapid rural appraisal (RRA) that evolved in Nepal during the 1980s and involves a multidisciplinary team of researchers, extensionists and villagers in exploring a defined subject. In this case, it was focused on the seed-potato production system. The appraisal uses a range of RRA/PRA tools, with team members changing each day between subgroups to promote cross learning. Each evening a reflection period is held when subgroups discuss what they have learned and decide tasks and responsibilities for the next day. The team lives in the community for the duration of the study and confirms its findings through community meetings. Through this method it was possible to define the geographic and temporal distribution of potato production, the production and storage methods used, the constraints and the economic imperatives. Relevant social and ethnic structures and cultural practices (such as exchange of potatoes as presents and the sharing of tools and livestock for draft) were also identified. Four seed-producing villages were selected, with contrasting social characteristics and size. A Samuhik Bhraman confirmed bacterial wilt as a major problem. Major reasons for the fast spread of the disease were lack of awareness of the disease, frequent movement of potatoes between and within villages, short crop rotations, poor plant hygiene and the use of volunteer potatoes for tuber yield. A multidisciplinary team comprising phyto-bacteriologists, agronomists, extension workers and socioeconomists devised a plan for management of the disease in 1990. Farmers were involved in monitoring the disease, and meetings held with villagers to create awareness of it. Each pilot village created a ‘Cropping System Improvement Committee’, which was responsible for the programme within its village. The project took special pains to provide training to women and men of different social groups (eg, by giving training in the evenings when women could be present). Key components of the approach to integrated management of the disease were:
To compensate for the loss of potato production, alternative (non-host) crops had to be provided. Demonstrations of nursery raising and vegetable production, seed supply and technical advice were therefore important components of the support programme to project villages. In addition to vegetables, cold-tolerant rice was to become an alternative to potatoes. The posting of a facilitator/extensionist to each of the project villages as liaison between researchers and the Committees assisted the process. ReflectionsControl of bacterial wilt is technically feasible. However, it was difficult to achieve the required level of community participation essential to ensure long-term success. Success in containing or eliminating the disease varied among villages before 1996. Jhilibarang village, where community cohesion was strong, continued disease-free seed potato production for the three years of the project. In Ulleri, community cooperation was difficult to manage, and the disease appeared from year 2 of programme implementation. The programme was terminated in Ghandruk after year 2 (a village with a lucrative tourist trade and less dependent on agriculture) and the disease reappeared in Sabet when farmers resumed their normal cropping patterns and grew potatoes in traditional fields. The communities vary greatly in their levels of cohesion (those with greater ‘jaat’ (caste) diversity were less cohesive) and the socioeconomic environment and the existence of alternatives to agriculture (eg, incomes from tourist trekking routes) reduce the need for community compliance. The high dependency on potatoes makes some farmers take action for short-term gain that results in long-term disaster. Constant changes in social equilibrium and the influences of exogenous and endogenous forces require careful monitoring and response. Village workshops, training and cross visits need to be provided to broaden the level of thinking and to improve participation based on understanding. These have to be sensitive to the needs of women and the poor who cannot easily leave their duties to attend training. It has to be recognized that 100 per cent cooperation is very difficult and grievances of non-cooperating members need to be targeted and understood. Key elements to success are a coordination mechanism, a monitoring system and a supportive policy framework. Scaling up from the pilot project to wider application requires comprehensive information followed by a massive awareness/training/support programme. The method leads to community cohesion and an effective use of awareness raising and training. Good support is given by a well-established and well-respected research and extension service. A further benefit is the identification and support of alternative NRM options with excellent multidisciplinary support from technical and social scientists. ReferencePradhanang, P M and Elphinstone, J G (eds) (1997) Integrated Management of Bacterial Wilt of Potato: Lessons from the Hills of Nepal, Proceedings of a national workshop held at Lumle Agricultural Research Centre, Pokhara, Nepal, 4–5 November 1996 13 Participatory management of Kapuwai’s wetland (Pallisa District, Uganda): A clear need and some steps towards fulfilling itBackgroundFrom the top of the hill we could see the landscape far into the hazy horizon. Dark clouds threatened a thunderstorm, so we quickly finished drawing our map of the territory and moved down the immense granite stone where we had been standing. We had been discussing problems of the local wetland – not easily visible from our vantage point because it had shrunk so much to make room for rice fields. Stanley mentioned that since my last visit, seven years before, people had introduced several innovations. They reduced tree cutting and planted trees in the boundaries between their fields. Many families had successfully tried out ways of intensifying agricultural production. They had built contour ridges around their fields, introduced black ants that feed on aphids, spread ashes on crops, weeded at better times, selected their best seeds for planting, and introduced new activities such as rabbit raising or bee-keeping. Some had even gone so far as to plant the highly beneficial but difficult-to-raise neem trees. Yet, the government was still encouraging rice growing by individuals, and the wetland had kept shrinking, seemingly on its way to total disappearance. Amos began explaining why this was a problem. ‘When the big rains come, the wetland acts like a sponge. Before, even in heavy rains, it protected our village from flooding. Now the wetland has shrunk so much that even a little rain floods the fields and our homes in Kapuwai.’ During the dry season, water shortage is becoming more critical. Daniel said, ‘We need more watering points for people and animals. We need more fish from the wetland and the medicinal plants that grow close to it and are now getting hard to find.’ Extensive rice growing was causing problems of all kinds, from loss of biodiversity to the loss of schooling for the children who spent days surveying the fields for birds. The community was convinced that the wetland was important for everyone and needed to be used carefully and not destroyed. However, members were still unclear about what to do. Anne said, ‘our Association dreams of managing the wetland together, as a community’. People felt that they could do so by taking advantage of their traditional management skills and of the skills the local Association had acquired while managing common resources in agricultural production. That evening, we ate together in the light of some candles and paraffin lamps that sent a pungent smell into the small room of the health centre. Later, more people joined our small group and we held a larger meeting. The topic of discussion was the management of the wetland. We went far into the night discussing the beginning of a positive vision that the whole community might be willing to share. ApproachWe met again the next morning. The participants in the evening discussion agreed to call a larger meeting where the whole community would discuss the vision for the future of the wetland. In particular, they agreed on calling various ‘stakeholders’ to present their individual views and to negotiate a basic agreement on rules to be respected and activities to be carried out. As the discussion continued, we identified three key elements in the participatory management process for the Kapuwai wetland:
In the first phase, discussion on the wetland issues (‘social communication’) would be promoted in the community. In this preparation time, people would begin to clarify what they needed to know for sound management and the reasons why the wetland was useful for them. In the second phase, stakeholders would be invited to set aside their immediate interests and develop together a long-term vision for their wetland. A facilitator would help at this stage. Once a common vision was reached, a ritual would make it intangible and sacrosanct. Clan elders and traditional authorities would perform the ritual and every ‘stakeholder’ would be asked to re-affirm the desire to work together to reach the common vision. After the ritualization of the common vision, it would be time to negotiate a management plan, some basic rules for the use of wetland resources and other needed accompanying initiatives. All stakeholders would be invited to meetings and they would strive to work by consensus – not by majority vote – and to be totally transparent about information and all kinds of decision-making. In the third phase, the committee would be acting on the basis of its duties, and the agreed plans would be implemented. This would be far from supine implementation, however! The Kapuwai people stressed that implementation should be taken up as a way of ‘learning by doing’; thus they would have to plan in advance for regular reviews and discussions of management results. They felt that the whole community should be allowed to participate in such meetings. ReflectionsWe were conscious that several difficulties needed to be overcome for successful results. A few members of the local Association and others needed to make a substantial investment of their time to set up the process that would lead to participatory management. The interests of landowners needed to be respected but also seen beside the community interests as well. Many thought that the Council of Elders should be involved from the very beginning of their wetland initiative. Alternative ways of raising income (in place of rice cultivation) needed to be provided. Effective facilitation and support was also to be secured during the organizing and negotiation process. We expected the participatory management of the Kapuwai wetland to increase the sustainable use of the wetland resources and to protect the biodiversity remaining in the area. A more equitable use of wetland resources was also to produce negotiated specific benefits for all the stakeholders. Early discussion and agreements on the regulations of wetland use would prevent social conflicts and problems. Other envisaged benefits were the enhancing of local capacity for wetland management, the fending off of exploitation from outside interests and the enhancing of the vitality and ‘identity’ of the Kapuwai community. When the time came for us to leave, our friends’ eyes were lit with enthusiasm. They had just charted for themselves a way towards a better future for their wetland. With luck, patience, and personal effort, they would succeed in following it up together, for the benefit of everyone. I still vividly remember when they waved us goodbye with broad smiles on their faces, surrounded by a large and cheering group of family members, friends and children . . . The above account refers to July 1999, more than three years ago. Since then, I received some information via email, as Stanley manages once in a while to travel to Kampala. Our friends – who are organized in a local association called PACODET –set up several workshops in ten relevant local parishes. The workshops were widely attended (women representatives, clan leaders, local leaders, church leaders, youth representatives, extension workers, district councillors . . . more than a hundred people in each workshop!) and dealt with what should be done with the wetland, also in the light of the national Land Act provision. The majority of participants were not happy with the practice of clearing and draining large wetland areas for rice growing, and agreed this was killing the wetland and denying to the communities benefits such as water, grazing, fish, firewood and grass for thatching. They also reported that many water sources had dried up because of the wetland draining. The Land Act provision states that wetlands are a public resource, which should be sustainably used to the benefit of all stakeholders. The local authorities were requested to support the implementation of this provision, but some of them own land in the wetland areas and are opposed to it. In the meantime, an Environment Officer was recruited by the district, and environment committees were called to form at all levels, from the district to the parish. The association of our friends decided to work within the newly created system and concentrated efforts to lobbying key district and sub-county officials, environment committees and the Environment Officer to support the de-privatization of the wetland and its management and sustainable use by the local communities. PACODET also identified a number of activities that could be demonstrated in and around wetland areas, in support of both livelihoods and conservation (eg, bee-keeping, woodlots, grazing, some restricted cultivation of selected crops) and wrote proposals to raise funds to set them up. In a nutshell, the local association has done the groundwork of social communication on the issues and is now focusing its energy on lobbying the local authorities for supportive action and mobilizing resources for community-based demonstration activities. The main obstacle to continuing their work in participatory action research for the management of the local wetland is a clear one: private ownership of land. ReferenceBorrini-Feyerabend, G, Farvar, M T, Nguinguiri, J C and Ndangang, V A (2000) Co-management of Natural Resources: Organising, Negotiating and Learning-by-Doing, IUCN/GTZ, Kasparek Verlag, Heidelberg (Germany). Also available in French and Spanish, and available soon in Italian and Arabic, http://nrm.massey.ac.nz/changelinks/cmnr.html 14 Participatory research at the landscape level: The Kumbhan water trough caseAcknowledgementsGautam Bausar and Dr A Jape, BAIF Development Research Foundation, Gujarat; Dr D Romney, International Livestock Research Institute, Nairobi. BackgroundThe present case study is based on collaborative work between NRI and BAIF Development Research Foundation on the research project ‘Easing seasonal fodder scarcity for small ruminants in semi-arid India, through a process of participatory research’. The project was funded by the UK Department for International Development’s Livestock Production Programme. In the project village of Kumbhan in Bhavnagar District, Gujarat, livestock-keepers said that seasonal water scarcity was their main constraint: mean annual rainfall in Bhavnagar is about 500 mm and is concentrated in the period of July–September. During the summer season the number of water points is limited, and there are none near the main grazing area, so herders and their animals are forced to walk long distances. The researchers considered water and feed scarcity constraints to be inter-related, and hence research on water scarcity was within the remit of the project. The Rabari livestock-keepers proposed the construction of a water trough and storage tank adjacent to a privately owned well, in the vicinity of the main dry season grazing area. The owner of the well was agreeable to supplying water to the trough. The trough was constructed in April 1999, in time for use during the late dry season in May and June. The researchers monitored various parameters (eg, milk production) before and after the trough came into use. Gujarat is a vegetarian state in which meat production and consumption are socially unacceptable in rural areas. Thus, milk and manure are the main livestock products. The Rabaris specialize in livestock production (mainly cattle and goats), and livestock herding is the full-time occupation of some male Rabaris This group was keenly interested in the work from the outset, because it addressed the priority livestock production problem that they identified, and because they had proposed construction of the trough. ApproachThe water scarcity issue was raised during a semi-structured group interview with Rabari men, as part of the initial survey work on livelihood system characterization and needs assessment. They identified and ranked their main livestock production constraints as:
Frequent informal contact occurs between BAIF local staff and the villagers because BAIF has an office in Kumbhan and is involved in other development activities there. This provided additional information. Livestock production constraints – and the relationships between causes, core problem and effects –were further elucidated through a participatory problem tree analysis undertaken by Rabari men in November 1998. It is a diagrammatic tool for analysing problems and gaining a more in-depth understanding of their nature. This is important for assessing the implications of interventions: because constraints are often inter-related, easing one or more can lead to the alleviation or exacerbation of others. The tool involves identifying a core problem, the factors causing it and its effects. The problem tree constructed by the Rabaris incorporated both biophysical and socioeconomic factors and showed how they inter-relate. The Rabaris identified reduced milk production and disease as two specific effects of water scarcity in the dry season. They also identified the impact on themselves (ie, walking considerable distances in the intense heat, with lack of drinking water at times, leading to exhaustion at the end of the day). They expected a general improvement in the performance of their animals due to the saving of energy from the reduction in herding distances. Before deciding whether to proceed with construction of the water trough, the local BAIF staff collected data that would enable an informed appraisal to be made. The data included:
A BAIF consultant made a detailed estimate of the trough cost. The NRI socioeconomist used this to do a simple cost–benefit analysis, in which the benefit was expressed in terms of time saved by herders. This suggested that the trough would pay for itself in little more than one dry season. The researchers wanted evidence of the livestock-keepers’ commitment from the outset, and wanted them to be responsible for the trough in the future. Thus, the latter provided the construction labour voluntarily; and also agreed to form a management group that would take full responsibility for the future maintenance of the trough. Evaluation meetings were held in late July – with Rabari women and men separately – at which they were asked for their views and observations on the impact of the trough. ReflectionsThe evaluation meetings confirmed that the expected benefits to both animals and herders had been realized. The women revealed that before the water trough came into use their husbands tended to be tired, irritable and argumentative when they returned home in the evenings. Since then they had been less irritable, and if there was a disagreement between husband and wife it could be resolved amicably. The use of participatory problem tree analysis proved highly useful. It reveals how farmers or livestock-keepers perceive problems and relationships, which may be different from how outsiders see them. For example, livestock scientists tend to focus on how constraints affect the animals, whereas these livestock-keepers were also concerned about the impact of water scarcity on themselves. There were some problems with the collection and analysis of monitoring data. First, the design of the monitoring system was researcher-dominated: the Rabaris themselves did not consider it necessary to collect such detailed quantitative data. Second, the BAIF field staff were not used to conducting research and did not analyse the data themselves. As a result, they were unaware of puzzling differences in milk production trends that could have been usefully discussed with the Rabaris. This highlights the need for field staff to be proficient in simple techniques for analysing and inspecting monitoring data. ReferenceConroy, C, Bausar, G, Jape, A and Rangnekar, D V (2000) ‘The Related Effects of Water Scarcity and Feed Scarcity: A Case Study from Bhavnagar District, Gujarat’, in 7th International Conference on Goats: Proceedings, Tome II, p985 15 Participatory research at landscape level: Floodprone ecosystems in Bangladesh and VietnamAcknowledgementsBangladesh Fisheries Research Institute (BFRI), Mymensingh, Bangladesh; Proshika Manobik Unnayan Kendra, Dhaka, Bangladesh; Bangladesh Rice Research Institute (BRRI), Gazipur, Bangladesh; Research Institute for Aquaculture No 1 (RIA1), Bac Ninh, Vietnam; Research Institute for Aquaculture No 2 (RIA2), Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam; Vietnam Agriculture Science Institute (VASI), Hanoi, Vietnam; International Rice Research Institute (IRRI), Los Banos, Philippines; International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD), Rome, Italy. BackgroundUncontrollable seasonal flooding affects over 10 million hectares, or 15 per cent, of the total rice land in south and south east Asia. During the dry season, land ownership is fixed according to tenure arrangements. In the rainy season, farmers grow deepwater rice and capture fish in the flood-prone areas. At this time, fish are considered a common resource, and community members are traditionally allowed access to private property for fishing. Since 1997, ICLARM and the International Rice Research Institute (IRRI) have been undertaking an interdisciplinary and PAR project. The project is being implemented in collaboration with various governmental organizations and NGOs. The aim is to increase and sustain the productivity of rice and fish in the seasonally flooded ecosystem in Bangladesh and Vietnam as a demonstration for the entire region. The project strategy combines indigenous resource management techniques with semi-intensive fish culture and management technologies for the increased income of normal households. ApproachThe unit of analysis used is the resource management domain (RMD) at the landscape level. The RMD covers the environmental, social and economic characteristics of a recognizable unit of land and takes into account its inherent natural variability. The steps followed in the participatory problem analysis are to:
The users/stockholders include landowners and other community members, at all levels, reliant on the landscape for fishing during the rainy season. To identify its clients, the project held meetings with farmers from different wealth groups, landless labourers and members of local organizations. The steps followed in assessing users’ needs were (a) scientists and representatives from local-level organizations conducted a diagnostic survey, (b) baseline surveys were made of socioeconomic, institutional and biophysical conditions, and (c) group discussions were held with users. A main objective of the baseline survey is to later enable analyses of the project impact over time. The concept of managed fish culture in deepwater rice fields is new. Thus, researchers designed technical options consulting users on their needs and taking into consideration their indigenous knowledge. Small-scale experiments were first initiated in Vietnam to show the potential of the technical options. These initial trials were then used to generate discussions between researchers and users about various aspects of trials to fine-tune the technical options. Users tested site-specific technical options with minimum support from researchers during 1997–2000. The project provided financing support, as seed money, during the first two years to cover material costs. Users deposited part of the proceeds from the experiments (eg, fish sales) to cover future project expenditures. Researchers monitored water and soil quality, profitability, input use, fish consumption, group performance and sharing arrangements. Based on this information, the project analysed the impact of the technological innovations and the project processes. The results indicate that community-based fish culture in flood-prone ecosystems in Bangladesh and Vietnam is technically feasible, economically profitable, environmentally non-destructive, and socially acceptable. For the overall system, an additional income of US$150 per hectare in southern Vietnam to US$690 per hectare per year in Bangladesh is achieved, which is an increase of 20 to 160 per cent over the previous profitability. ReflectionsDeficiencies of the process are that it is researcher-initiatied and -dominated and not very participatory in areas where users have only a limited knowledge of the subject. On the other hand, in subsequent years the technology has been copied by neighbouring communities but often with differing arrangements. The approach does not work well in areas where group action is not viewed positively. The experiments are on an appropriate scale for representing the real world situation, and thus may be used for up scaling. The design and testing of the technological options included user participation. As regards sustainability, the community is less dependent on the project for funds and has an arrangement for group saving. Problem analysis using the landscape-level resource management domain (RMD) as a unit has provided a better understanding of the integration of the biophysical and socioeconomic factors. A project implementation committee was established at each project site, including representatives from each user group. The committee oversees project implementation, prepares budgets, manages project accounts, negotiates sharing agreements (including participating members, responsibilities, access to the wild fish in the flood period, necessary guarding duties, etc), settles conflicts, supervises fish sales and distributes the proceeds from experiments. With support from researchers and NGO staff, different user groups have designed their own organizational arrangements for community-based fish culture in flood-prone rice ecosystems. ReferencePrein, M and Dey, M (2001) ‘Rice and Fish Culture in Seasonally Flooded Ecosystems’, in IIRI, IDRC, FAO, NACA & ICLARM Utilizing Different Aquatic Resources for Livelihoods in Asia: A Resource Book, International Institute of Rural Reconstruction, Philippines, pp207–214 16 Water management, agricultural development and poverty eradication in the former Homelands of South AfricaAcknowledgementsNorthern Province Department of Agriculture, Land, and Environment; National Department of Water Affairs and Forestry; University of the North, Pietersburg, all in South Africa. BackgroundDifferent modes of NRM have far-reaching consequences for the well-being of poor farmers. The variation is clear indeed for irrigation, as illustrated for South Africa. In the arid and semi-arid regions of South Africa, irrigation is key to increasing the agricultural productivity and incomes of farmers. White farmers on large-scale private holdings use most of the country’s irrigation water. The former Homelands, where most black South African farmers live, have only limited access to irrigation. A few hundred irrigation schemes were developed under the apartheid policy. However, parastatal agencies and private companies derived income from these schemes and dominated agricultural operations and water management. Poor black farmers received few benefits and were excluded from decision-making. Since 1994, the new government has reversed apartheid policy and withdrawn agricultural support for schemes such as Arabie-Olifants. Black farmers, who are mostly women, are now expected to ‘stand on their own feet’. This sudden change has led most households to abandon irrigated agriculture altogether, with negative impacts on their income and well-being. Few households were able to find alternatives to previous sources of credit, ploughing services and access to markets. Those few who returned to agriculture were often frustrated by breakdowns in the irrigation infrastructure. The government has also started privatizing the ownership of the irrigation infrastructure and all rights and financial and managerial responsibilities for water management. Current users, or anyone interested, can buy. However, smallholders in these schemes, who already lack access to other inputs and markets, have no capital for buying. Instead, a small entrepreneurial ‘elite’, whose members are relatively well off, literate, mobile, male and well connected to policy networks, tend to be the owners of the new irrigation infrastructure. In such cases, the terms of production for the former producers become even more disadvantageous. ApproachWorldwide, IWMI has conducted comparative research on participatory irrigation management in state-supported schemes. International and South African research findings have been input in a continuous dialogue with government officials and other actors influencing policy in South Africa. International comparison showed that the above-described pattern is typical in government-supported smallholder schemes in developing countries that are brusquely abandoned. The first generic conclusion is that irrigation management transfer in formerly state-supported schemes can only work if smallholder irrigated agriculture is profitable enough to bear the extra burdens of scheme operation and maintenance. So forging forward and backward linkages, credits and training are essential components, besides transfer of management, of an overall policy for the uplift of smallholder irrigation. Second, the process of transfer should be gradual; while inclusive, accountable member organizations are to be created. Policy workshops and international comparison have led the government to launch an encompassing national policy for water for rural poverty alleviation and the re-vitalization of smallholder irrigation schemes. The IWMI’s research serves as an intermediate stage between the key stakeholders in state-supported irrigation, linking poor farmers and irrigation policy-makers and implementing agencies. ReflectionsComparative research on gender in irrigation in South Africa identified issues that will be relevant for the future creation of inclusive water users’ associations. First, most farm decision-makers in smallholder schemes are women; irrigated agriculture is a female farming system. This is related to the cultural division of tasks within households and the state’s gendered off-farm employment and homeland policies. Second, although some women have plots in their own names, others have long-life tenure security to the land of their male kin. Elsewhere in irrigation management, water rights and membership of water users’ associations are commonly vested in landowners, rather than land users. However, the National Water Act (1998) of South Africa leaves the option open to disconnect water rights from primary land titles. Hence, farm producers and users of a portion of land can become members of the new water users’ associations. This would especially benefit women farmers. From both a gender and poverty perspective, the challenge is to organize producers, irrespective of type of land rights, in a bottom-up way, and to ensure transparent elections of committees that remain accountable to their constituencies. ReferenceSchreiner, B and van Koppen, B (2001) ‘From Bucket to Basin. Poverty, Gender, and Integrated Water Management in South Africa’, in Abernethy, C (ed) Intersectoral Management of River Basins, Proceedings of an International Workshop on Integrated Water Management in Water-stressed River Basins in Developing Countries: Strategies for Poverty Alleviation and Agricultural Growth. October 2000. Loskop Dam, South Africa. International Water Management Institute and German Foundation for International Development: Food and Agricultural Development Center, in collaboration with the Government of South Africa. 17 Innovation in irrigation – working in a ‘participation complex’BackgroundIrrigation management has some particular challenges in participatory research because it involves collective action where different interests may be present. Large-scale irrigation systems create particular challenges in participatory approaches to innovation, because of the large number of water users and the different ideas on participation and innovation present with different stakeholders involved in transforming irrigation practices. Using examples from an irrigation management reform programme in the Terai of Nepal, this case study summarizes operational elements of the socio-technical approach to irrigation research, which can show how technology acts as a controlling and mediating factor between biophysical and societal conditions. It is also useful as a method to identify stakeholders, their work practices and their interactions. The socio-technical approach to irrigation research is directed at understanding how irrigation systems are designed, operated and used by people to provide water. It focuses on three areas of stakeholder actions: the social construction of technology, social conditions of use and social impacts. Other research concepts include the study of domains of interaction in irrigation management – strategic interfaces where people come together to determine water supply. These are emergent and often specific to individual irrigation systems. This broad approach has proved particularly helpful for an adaptive design consistent with the knowledge and preferences of farmers. ApproachAction research in irrigation development or reform nearly always involves the researcher in a participation complex, where the researcher has to work in (1) different domains of participation and (2) different development contexts of participation. In the first, key interfaces with different stakeholders must be understood, in terms of their sphere of influence and local representation, their interests in participation and their practice in relation to water supply and water users. In a large irrigation system, participation is not only with farmers directly. More commonly, negotiation will also be done through water user organizations (whose representation often changes), as well as with system operators and the contractors who often implement new construction. These different domains present different opportunities and challenges to participatory approaches. Successes in some areas, such as working with farmers to agree new designs and irrigation schedules, may be tempered by problems in other areas, such as failing to get good quality construction under contracts. The researcher (and designer or implementer) has to work across these domains and interfaces – to get farmers’ ideas put into practical reality. The different development contexts of participation have different concepts of innovation and different sets of participatory methodologies linked with them, as outlined below. These different development contexts can all occur in one programme – although often one may dominate depending on the objectives of projects and individuals. Conscious recognition of points of consensus and differences on participation-thinking can also help programme design and build better action between stakeholders. Development Context 1: economic development and modernizationParticipation is an approach (by agencies) to induce increases in performance or impact through providing conditions or incentives that enable farmers to take on new responsibilities and opportunities. Innovation is new activities that improve linkages between resource use and production – new techniques, artefacts or institutional relations that increase productivity, efficiency and economic returns, or reduce wastage and degradation. The participatory methodologies, criteria and activities (often more ‘criteria focused’) are:
This is often a context of induced innovation and needs participatory approaches that allow local negotiation and evolution of change, rather than blueprint models. Development Context 2: joint planning and problem-solvingParticipation is a process through which stakeholders influence, share control and work together to achieve desired change. Innovation is shown through the changed behaviour of the people involved and the sharing of knowledge and skills. The participatory methodologies, criteria, activities (often more ‘methodology focused’) are:
This context works best at a small scale, and may only work where consensus is possible. Development Context 3: social inclusion, improved equity and reduced vulnerabilityParticipation is organized effort to increase control over resources and regulative institutions in given situations on the part of groups and movements of those hitherto excluded (a definition from an Swiss International Labour Office programme). Innovation is the delivery of different benefits to different people. The participatory methodologies, criteria and actions (often more ‘action-focused’) include the methods of point (2) above, but also ‘empowerment principles’ as summarized below:
This context recognizes the tensions and complex politics of negotiating change in many different arenas but needs highly motivated and conscientized actors to empower change. ReflectionsDevelopment intervention is said to have three practical needs – explanation of the development problematic, information on which to develop action and conceptual tools for designing action. We need to think about typologies of action and not just methodologies for designing action to bring farmers’ requirements into reality. The socio-technical approach – and the concept of a ‘participation complex’ in action research – helps the design of participatory research and enables researchers to think about both the ‘problem environment’ and the ‘project environment’ in which they are working. These shape the participatory methods that people can use and the emergent challenges of working with different stakeholders. Conscious recognition of different methods to achieve objectives – and the problems that may come from failures in any area and reasons for them – can help to actualize desired and agreed innovations. ReferenceKhanal, P (2001) ‘Irrigation. Management Transfer in Two Irrigation Schemes in Chitwan Valley: Implementer’s Experience’, in Gautam, U and Rana, S (eds) Challenges to Farmer-Managed Irrigation Systems, Modern Printing Press: Kathmandu, Farmer Managed Irrigation Systems Promotion Trust, pp177–191 18 Methods used to address resource issues in integrated watershed management in Nepalese watershedsBackgroundThis case study attempts to integrate sustainable principles into watershed management in two Nepalese watersheds (Jhikhu Khola and Yarsha Khola). These Middle Mountain watersheds are some of the most intensively used landscapes on earth and exhibit all the resource problems that are now of major concern in developing countries. Water shortages, water pollution, soil fertility deterioration, deforestation, lack of animal feed, stagnating biomass production, inequity, poor food security, poverty, increasing workload for women, few alternative economic options and poor infrastructure support are all part of the overall problem being addressed. The challenge is to arrive at methods that are adaptable to complex conditions and that facilitate integration and interdisciplinary activities, and build linkages between researchers, farmers and local and national institutions. Access to long-term funding from IDRC (and more recently SDC) over an eight-year period has allowed us to develop a comprehensive resource database for the watershed and helped make the transition from a basic, science-driven project to one that is primarily participatory. We use the watershed (not the community) as our unifying unit for research because we can model landscapes, water, sediment, nutrient dynamics and climatic change effects at that scale. ApproachThe community-based NRM approach (CBNRM) begins with a rapid PRA to identify common concerns and issues in the communities within the watershed. Then a GIS database is built consisting of geology, soils, topography and land use layers. In the field we establish monitoring stations for climate, hydrometry, soil fertility and soil erosion. The issues raised by the communities are addressed using a GIS approach that includes overlay stratification, modelling, statistics and socioeconomic surveys. Key factors indicative of climatic conditions (elevation and aspect), the dominant bedrock and superficial material types and dominant land uses are identified. These are then divided into unique categories (two for elevation, two for aspect, three or four for contrasting rock type and usually four for land use type). The combination of these factors plays the dominant role in shaping and using the landscape and this 2×2×3×4-combination matrix is then used to divide the landscape into 48 possible landscape combinations. The GIS overlay technique is applied to show the dimension and location of each combination. Ten farmers and ten members of forest user groups are then randomly selected in each of these 48 classes of landscape and a participatory survey is conducted. Samples of the dominant soils in each chosen farm or forest are collected and analysed and information is obtained on farm and soil inputs, production, socioeconomics, gender and equity and forest use and management practices. Collaborative participatory farm interventions are then initiated to address the farmers’ concerns. Based on this approach we have identified that only one-third of all farmers apply enough nutrients (N and P) to a maize crop in double rotation and in these farming systems the long-term soil fertility is not sustained. At the same time, we can show that the nutrient deficits in an irrigated crop rotation system of rice, wheat and maize is only prevalent in about 40 per cent of all farms. This can now be expanded to other cropping rotations by examining the nutrient balance situation and economic consideration when cash crops such as potatoes and tomatoes are introduced into the rotation. We can also apply scenarios to these systems and simulate possible outcomes. Our most interesting and most challenging research lies in how to correct problems and how to rehabilitate sites, not just in identifying and quantifying the problem, or in determining the rate of degradation. Highly degraded sites often occur on common land where the prospects for rehabilitation are poor because of the great effort needed to establish biomass and the low possibility of short-term economic returns. However, we demonstrated that up to 40 per cent of the total annual sediment load in the river originates from such sites and the impacts on irrigation systems downstream are large. These areas provide an opportunity for researching how to develop community forests and grazing lands that eventually can become biodiversity gardens. ReflectionsThe methodologies used are more complex and require newer skills than are traditionally available at educational institutions. Thus, much effort has to be spent on training and education. This delays diagnostic and intervention research but has more long-term benefits. Working in an interdisciplinary manner is also much more difficult and demanding. Putting together the right team configuration and matching it with the right personalities is probably the biggest challenge. The approach is highly time consuming, thus project funding should be assured for longer time periods than the traditional 3–5 years. The focus tends to be around communities at the expense of integration within larger more natural units such as watersheds and coastal or ecological zones. Another disadvantage is that scaling up cannot easily be accomplished when not incorporated into the research activities at the outset. The advantage of this method is that it covers all environmental conditions in the watershed and enables us to determine how much each individual factor contributes to the overall variance of key resource indicators. Based on this sampling design, the analysis of variance or non-parametric significance tests can be used in quantifying potential causes and rates of degradation. The social factors are not stratified in a statistical manner but, because we look at all types of biophysical conditions, we capture members from most of the socioeconomic spectrum in the watershed. The initial effort is large but the payback is enormous because this type of survey can be done once every 5–7 years in the same watershed. Provided all the information is geo-referenced, it gives us the opportunity to document the dynamics of land use, soil fertility and socioeconomic conditions. The CBNRM approach addresses the immediate concerns and issues of the community, providing a better forum for communication among researchers, community participants and the general public. The focus is on the poorer fraction of the society and this allows more emphasis to be placed on issues of gender and ethnicity. Gender is of particular interest because the workload of women in Nepal has increased with agricultural intensification and off-farm employment by men. Conducting research that focuses on reducing the workload of women (eg, improving fodder and fuelwood supplies, facilitating access to safe drinking water, improving soil nutrient management) can therefore have immediate effects in improving the livelihood of rural families. Well-chosen interventions and dissemination of successful results can be facilitated and applied more rapidly using a CBNRM approach. Issues are addressed in a more interdisciplinary manner and this should lead to a better understanding of the environmental system and result in more holistic and permanent solutions. The involvement of stakeholders that play an active part in the research provides a reality check on the relevance of the research. The approach can facilitate conflict resolution because stakeholders are incorporated into the research from the start. It leads to more effective public education and forces researchers to communicate better with the public in explaining why the research is important and what the results mean. The act of supporting credible research helps build intellectual and scientific legitimacy for political reform. The CBNRM approach has stimulated internal discussions leading to more open policies. It is flexible and can readily be adjusted to a wide range of conditions. ReferenceBrown, S, Schreier, H and Shah, P B (2000) ‘Soil Phosphorus Fertility Degradation: A GIS Based Assessment’, Journal of Environmental Quality, 29(4):1152–1160 19 A comparison of farmer participatory research methodsAcknowledgementsICRISAT, Bulawayo, Zimbabwe and ICRISAT, Lilongwe, Malawi; Concern Universal, Dedza, Malawi; University of Malawi, Bunda College of Agriculture, Lilongwe, Malawi; Ministry of Agriculture and Irrigation, Extension and Research Departments, Government of Malawi, Lilongwe, Malawi; Department of International Development, London, UK; The Rockefeller Foundation, New York, NY; CIMMYT, Lilongwe, Malawi. BackgroundIn Malawi and Zimbabwe, ICRISAT is developing new research methods for improving soil fertility. The Institute is also building partnerships among national scientists, extension advisors in NGOs and the public sector and farmers. The aim is to improve the ability of national research programmes to develop ‘best bet’ NRM technologies for poor farmers by obtaining their input at earlier stages. New technologies are needed that improve human nutrition while enhancing soil management and enabling communities to rehabilitate degraded environments. The main innovations introduced so far are intensification with long-duration and indeterminate legumes and integrated use of organics and inorganics. In Malawi, farmers are testing and adapting options such as maize grown in rotation with a doubled up legume intercrop of pigeonpea and another grain legume. Combining small amounts of fertilizer with manure and pigeonpea residues is also being tested. ApproachA novel aspect of the programme is its evaluation of several participatory approaches applied in parallel in different villages. The results are compared with baseline data from villages having no known relationship with researchers or farm advisors from NGOs or extension services. This approach enables researchers and farm advisors to address their concern that farmer adoption of fertilizer and integrated nutrient management has been practically nil, despite a decade of on-farm research and the recent focus on participatory research and extension as well as training-for-transformation empowerment approaches. Costs, as well as benefits, will be assessed for different methods of partnering. Some researchers and senior extension staff are also concerned that extension rarely reaches female-headed households and women farmers, nor do their concerns enter into agronomic research. The methods being compared include farmer empowerment approaches led by NGOs, extension-led demonstration trials and farmer participatory research, each conducted in a different village in the case study areas. The study is determining which of the approaches are best at building institutional linkages and improving the peer relationship among stakeholders, for different locations. All of the partners involved evaluate the effectiveness and costs of each approach. Researchers are also determining how well each approach addresses the needs of female-headed households. Project partners conducted comprehensive surveys to provide a baseline for, and developed methods of, comparison. They agree that the comparison should indicate which methods are working best, as reflected in perceived cost-effectiveness and the satisfaction of researchers, extension advisors and farmers. Farmer adoption and adaptation of technologies, farmer empowerment and improved soil management will be assessed for each method. The ‘mother–baby’ trial design is one method for improving communication between farmers and researchers that has so far proved successful. The approach was originally created to facilitate farmer collaboration in testing soil fertility technologies. Further, it was conceived as a practical means for researchers to rigorously incorporate farmer evaluations of technologies at every step in the development process. The approach links together two trial types: a replicated one that fits researchers’ needs and a simpler trial that meets farmer needs, rather than attempting to compromise and meet all objectives in a single trial. Researchers first design ‘best-bet’ technologies, attempting to take into account farmers’ priorities and resources. Then mother–baby trials are planted in each participating village. The ‘mother’ is a replicated experiment designed by a researcher. Farmers plant and manage the baby trials, which are single replicates of the mother trial. For this purpose, each farmer selects a best-bet technology from the mother trial and adjusts the level of inputs and equipment according to his or her preferences. Farmer evaluation is documented through surveys, community discussion and ranking exercises, which facilitate researcher incorporation of farmer input. The trials have led to improved spontaneous experimentation among farmers and give researchers and extension advisors the chance to observe and learn from farmers. ReflectionsThe larger context of the different case study areas where the approaches are being tested is difficult to assess. For example, the market opportunities and historical extension–farmer relationships may vary markedly among the areas and determine the relative success of different methods. The trial and demonstration approach probably has the least emphasis on farmer knowledge, while facilitation of farmer learning and experimentation, the farmer-led approach, has the most. The changes in the researchers and extension staff to encompass a broader, more participatory approach is proving difficult to document. Further steps, such as how to facilitate farmer training and communication with other farmers on guidelines, are not explicitly part of any approach although this may develop. Farmer-to-farmer communication is probably the most important means of technology dissemination and is not treated explicitly in any of the approaches, except perhaps the farmer empowerment approach (which some professionals view as too costly for large-scale work). This point is difficult to evaluate but should become clearer with time. A survey is underway to evaluate researcher and extension attitudes and beliefs regarding effective ways to communicate with farmers and work together to develop soil management options and to improve farmer experimentation. Surveys documenting farmer assessment of the process and farmer adoption are also on-going. All of the partners involved in the methods’ comparison systematically evaluate methodology approaches and efforts to facilitate farmer–researcher-extension linkages and technology best-bet options. Also, the concerns of women farmers and female-headed households are specifically addressed. This took time to build, in part because almost all of the researchers and extension staff involved were men and no gender sensitivity training or discussion was attempted at initial stakeholder meetings. Attention to including women farmers in the technology development process was almost nil at first but has increased over time, particularly at the Malawi sites. This adds value to on-going efforts in the area. The mother–baby trial and farmer empowerment approaches attempt to facilitate farmers’ learning basic research principles, to expose farmers to a range of new options and to empower them to value their own knowledge. This appears to have improved communication among farmers, researchers and extension staff. A conundrum is that extension staff and researchers mostly see the trial demonstration approach as the only cost-effective way to scale up dissemination. Yet this approach does not facilitate farmer experimentation or joint learning. Staff at NGOs also state that their work on farmer and community empowerment is only cost-effective in isolated areas. They believe that they need to go to trials and demonstrations to reach more people, although both groups express frustration with the lack of effectiveness of demonstrations led by extension or farm advisors. The goal of this case study is to measure long-term impact and changes in how research and extension staff conduct their work. Stakeholders designed this village-based comparison of methods and are involved in evaluating the pros and cons of each participatory method over time. Meetings are held annually for assessment. Strong links are built because researchers, extension staff and NGOs were already carrying out most of this work and through the case study we are attempting to facilitate self-reflection on the value of different approaches to the stakeholders. In Malawi, 400 farmers are assessing best-bet technologies at seven sites around the country through baby trials and their own experimentation. In the process, they are satisfying researchers’ need for sound quantitative experiment results. ReferenceKanyama-Phiri, G Y, Snapp, S S, Kamanga, B and Wellard, K (2000) ‘Towards Integrated Soil Fertility Management in Malawi: Incorporating Participatory Approaches in Agricultural Research’, Managing Africa’s Soils No 11, IIED, UK, www.iied.org/drylands 20 Soil and water conservation – historical and geographical perspectives on participationAcknowledgementStaff and management of PROSCARP project, Lilongwe, Malawi. BackgroundThe Promotion of Soil Conservation and Rural Production (PROSCARP) is a national-level project aimed at improving the nutrition and health of smallholder farmers in Malawi. Since 1995 it has worked through Catchment Area Development Committees (CADCs), which have mostly been elected in village meetings and which cover a defined area. In 1999 these numbered over 300, scattered throughout the country. The project aims to work in a participatory mode with the CADCs and with other agencies. This is recognizably difficult because of the large size of the project and because of the historical legacy of a national extension system that has been top-down and, while it has adopted a participatory ethos, it is currently underresourced and demoralized. The project offers a range of soil- and water-related technology options to farmers, including realignment of ridges on the contour, vetiver grass, green manure crops, legume rotation crops, agroforestry and minimum tillage. In order to encourage uptake, the project has also used incentives such as providing free seeds and seeds on loan, paying for labour on vetiver grass nurseries and providing village wells and pit latrines. ApproachDuring 1999, a small study team met with the CADC members, local extension staff and other members of the community over periods of 1–3 days per area. Discussions were held with individuals and with focus groups and included some ranking and time-line exercises. Focus groups (village headmen, male and female CADC members and other villagers) were encouraged to share their findings with each other and to discuss further the implications for the soil and water conservation programme in their area. The use of various soil and water conservation technologies has evolved over time. Village headmen who remembered events from the 1940s were able to describe and quantify some of the main changes in physical soil conservation and this exercise helped to place the current activities of the CADCs within a historical context. A notable feature of the changing soil and water conservation practices was a focus on physical structures at field level initiated by external agencies (changes taking place as a result of initiatives by individual farmers were hardly mentioned). This is not surprising, given that during the colonial period the village headmen were instructed to oversee and enforce the construction of soil and water structures. However, it raised questions about how conservation technologies were introduced and perceived. Were the changes largely a response to external threats and incentives? Were physical structures regarded more as significant innovations than changing cultural practices? A discussion around why some people had realigned ridges, while others had not, provided insights into how the local CADC operated and the role of incentives in the uptake of new conservation technologies. Three main reasons accounted for the slow spread of technologies. First, a technology was adopted in order to receive an incentive. Second, difficulties occurred in access to technologies and the licence to distribute those that were available. The technologies such as vetiver grass were seen to be the property of the project and its CADCs, and therefore it was felt that approval from above might be needed in order to pass these on to communities outside of the defined catchment area. Third, some of the technologies had not yet shown clear benefits (eg, agroforestry species) and others were not suited to local conditions (eg, crop rotation in areas of very limited land). The CADCs were found to function rather differently in each area, depending on how they had been established and how the local people (including local extension agents) had taken them forward and interpreted instructions from the project. Some had been negatively affected by village politics, a fact of life in rural Malawi. The CADCs were most functional when they had effectively incorporated local village leadership, and least so when used as a vehicle for one faction to challenge the current village leadership. This further raised the issue that committees based on support from local political positions (based on people groups) often did not correspond with ideal geographical areas for integrated (above field level) soil and water management. Most local extension workers acknowledge that they spent a disproportionate amount of their time on project-related work, rather than on their general duties. They justified this in terms of project resources and farmer interest in the CADC areas. They also noted that they had impossibly large areas to cover and even without a more intensive project would not be able to cover all their mandate area. This raised the issue of the potential side effects of introducing more intensive extension approaches in the context of an expanding rural population and a shrinking number of extension staff, lacking in mobility. The donors, concerned that insufficient project resources were going directly to the community, raised the issue of how to stimulate soil and water conservation in a sustainable manner. More direct payments to communities may have the effect of being a disincentive to neighbouring communities not directly involved but potentially benefiting through extension and farmer-to-farmer dissemination. It was recognized that extension staff needed to be rewarded for their good work as facilitators and encouragers. The question is raised as to the compatibility of the two project objectives of poverty alleviation (in the short term) on the one hand and soil and water conservation that is both participatory and sustainable (in the longer term) on the other. ReflectionsSeveral issues of concern have arisen during implementation of the project including:
The project management is concerned that implementation should be more participatory. Thus studies at village level using PRA tools were conducted to explore this point and the above concerns. Expectations were raised, both for villagers and local field staff, during meetings. It is unclear whether the project will have the capacity to address the issues raised, particularly the plans of the local community and field staff to further expand the project’s geographical scope in response to demand from neighbouring communities who have perceived the benefits. Despite these concerns, benefits accrued from the project. Many farmers were exposed to a range of technologies, and a significant number of them received benefits in terms of cash payments and increased production from using the technologies provided. Front line staff increased their technical skills and skills in working through local committees and training farmers to train other farmers. Farmers were trained in soil and water conservation techniques. The village-level studies placed project activities in a historical context, both for the local community and for the project staff. 21 Improving farmers’ risk management strategies for resource-poor and drought-prone farming systems in southern AfricaAcknowledgementsLarry Harrington, Stephen Waddington CIMMYT, AGRITEX and the farmers of Zimuto, Masvingo, Zimbabwe. University of Zimbabwe and CARE International. BackgroundSmall farms of less than 5 hectares account for about 70 per cent of southern Africa’s maize production. Although new technologies are available for improving production in smallholder maize systems, widespread adoption faces major constraints – particularly the constant threat of drought and declining soil fertility. In Zimbabwe and Malawi, the soils in smallholder areas tend to be sandy, with limited organic matter, low nutrient content and low water-holding capacity. Farmers have only limited access to organic manure and cannot usually afford inorganic fertilizers. The threat of drought, combined with fluctuating market prices, means that farmers are gambling on an uncertain yield and economic return. Therefore, to be attractive to farmers, new technologies for improving soil fertility must be able to reduce production risk. They must also be compatible with farmers’ diverse and complex livelihood strategies. To support the development of appropriate soil fertility technologies, CIMMYT’s Risk Management Project (RMP) evaluates their biophysical and socioeconomic performance through a combination of computer crop modelling and farmer participatory research in Malawi and Zimbabwe. ApproachThe RMP employs both hard (quantitative) and soft (qualitative) approaches to explore the links between agroecosystems and the socioeconomic environment. A participatory research subproject conducts systems diagnostics, identifies stakeholders, determines farmers’ soil and climate taxonomies, describes farm families’ livelihood strategies and fosters farmer experimentation with soil fertility management practices. A modelling subproject collects data to validate the computer model and fosters its use to examine the long-term biophysical performance of soil fertility management practices under specific soil and climate conditions. By integrating the two sets of activities, RMP can use farmers’ soil and climate taxonomies to develop soil and climate profiles for running the model. Further, the model can be used to evaluate farmer-developed technologies, and farmers can evaluate the model’s outputs and participatory technology field trials within the context of their livelihoods and risk management strategies. This enables farmers with diverse resource endowments and diverse livelihood strategies to verify options within their own environments. The RMP collaborates with focus groups from the Universities of Zimbabwe and Malawi, national agricultural research programmes and the Africa Centre for Fertiliser Development. Researchers and farmers evaluate soil fertility technologies being developed by the focus groups. Through this integrated approach, researchers can draw on one another’s experience and that of farmers. The RMP also has links with ICRISAT and CARE. The CIMMYT and ICRISAT centres jointly fund researchers and field activities and share information. Farmer groups established by CARE link the RMP to communities and provide a social framework for broader dissemination of successful technologies. One of the activities is to design a framework for running simulation models based on farmers’ soil management practices. The goal is to develop an interface that permits discussion of outputs and key management variables, involves farmers in assessing scenarios developed by the model and enables them to ask questions of the model. Focused planning meetings are conducted to enhance the team’s organization. Participants develop common work plans and research frameworks for all project stakeholders. The RMP began with a macro-systems diagnostics approach, which enabled it to identify key stakeholders, secondary data and partners for implementing project activities and to identify appropriate techniques for fieldwork. The RMP has thus created a strong network of research partners throughout the region. Fieldwork activities concentrated on forming or strengthening farmer groups at two sites in Zimbabwe and one in Malawi. Farmers, extension staff and researchers formed new groups for the 1999–2000 crop season. Activities included participatory wealth ranking, the development of farmer taxonomies of soils and climate, inventories of management options and practices for different resource endowments and varying soil and climatic conditions. A key collective learning and decision support tool is the use of participatory modelling maps of agroecosystem resource flow or resource allocation maps (RAMs). These demonstrate key household and community resources and inter-relationships within a systems context. Farmers and researchers together develop the maps and use them to record, monitor and analyse data and decision-making, which then enables them to understand the systems’ context of soil fertility. The methodology development for the modelling and FPR interface is considered an iterative and dynamic process, with a diversity of tools and techniques being used, refined, adapted or discarded as the process and project stakeholders require. This is an immensely creative and ambitious research agenda. This kind of interaction is highly unusual but holds great promise for a more effective evaluation of soil fertility management technologies, under highly variable and risky climate conditions. ReflectionsBiophysical crop modelling enables evaluation over time, including different variables such as climate, soils and management. However, the models are only as good as the data and the agenda that are used in their development and are highly data-intensive to establish. Models are often narrowly focused compared to farmers’ multi-faceted and complex livelihoods and cannot handle socioeconomic variables. Some factors affecting crop and soil performance are also beyond the model’s capabilities. The model-to-farmer interface integrates disciplines and can bring modellers and farmers together with quick feedback. This can be used to promote collaborative learning and as a decision support tool because it makes it easier to identify and target key research priorities. It has some knowledge gaps with outputs highly subject to interpretation as to by whom and how the research agenda is driven. Linking modelling with GIS and farmer land types for scaling up is being explored but entails expensive start-up costs and questions of data ownership. On-farm participatory testing of technologies allows farmers more freedom to experiment and helps bring stakeholders together. It serves to develop a better understanding of farmers’ priorities and natural resource and socioeconomic factors affecting technology performance, also capitalizing on farmers’ indigenous knowledge. On-station testing is easier to manage and provides rigorous controls and designs that reduce variables affecting crop performance. However, socioeconomic variables associated with management are excluded and a long time frame is needed. This integrated research method and process enables a learning forum to be developed whereby the very different mindsets and approaches of all the actors involved in the research can begin to envision a common environment. They can then develop a platform to work together on common problems and solutions within a participatory process ReferenceHarrington, L and Grace, P (1997) ‘Research on Soil Fertility in Southern Africa: Ten Awkward Questions’, Natural Resources Group Series Paper, 98–01, CIMMYT, Mexico 22 Participatory mapping, analysis and monitoring of the natural resource base in small watersheds: Insights from NicaraguaAcknowledgementsThe Swiss Development Cooperation (SDC) and IDRC. BackgroundA watershed is a natural ecosystem in which the relationships between different resources influence land use patterns at different scales – from the plot to the farm to the watershed level. Watersheds are drained by a single watercourse that encompasses water, soil and vegetation and links uplands with downstream areas. These ecosystems are also an arena for conflicting interests, which points to the importance of analysing the social construction of landscapes. Two features of watershed management make this a particularly complex task. First, the interests of people inhabiting the watershed are interdependent but asymmetrical. Upstream use of land and water directly affects people downstream, and many resource management problems (eg, deforestation, soil erosion, pests and diseases) cross natural and human-made boundaries. Second, the interdependence of upstream and downstream interests creates uncertainty. Downstream users do not know how upstream users will behave or whether they will consider the downstream effects of their actions. Under these circumstances, collective action is vital for achieving sustainable resource management. In turn, this means involving local organizations in ways that allow less privileged people (eg, women, ethnic minorities and the landless) to gain more control over resources and to influence policy-making at the regional or national levels. Research was undertaken in the Calico River watershed, Matagalpa Department, Nicaragua – a reference site of CIAT’s Hillsides Project. ApproachTo create a collective vision for managing the Calico River watershed, a participatory workshop was held during September 1997 near the town of San Dionisio in Matagalpa Department. It brought together 30 men and women farmers, NGO staff, local government officials and researchers from CIAT. The group identified problems and conflicts affecting land management and described livelihoods at the community and watershed levels. Among the problems were land degradation (resulting in lower crop yields), deforestation (leading to soil erosion and loss of wildlife) and both water scarcity and pollution (identified as the most important constraint). The workshop provided an overall and general view of conditions in the watershed and some insights into key issues. However, more detailed information was needed to understand what was happening to whom (eg, upstream and downstream dwellers, land-rich and land-poor households, women and men) and to identify research opportunities. The CIAT Hillsides Project began seeking methodological tools to help answer questions about the dynamics of ‘resources and people’. Eventually, the project produced a combination of tools for resource mapping, transect analysis and indicator-based assessment. By March 1998, small teams of local informants who knew the area well had completed 15 participatory micro watershed studies. They made special efforts to capture the perspectives of men, women and other user groups on land use and the state of forests, water resources, crops, wildlife, domesticated animals, pastures and soils. The local research team identified limitations and opportunities for improving livelihoods and NRM in the area. Each study began with the development of a local resource map, whose boundaries were defined according to local criteria. The maps were used to define transects across major agroecological zones, production systems and other important resource features. During a transect walk across each micro watershed, informants analysed resources (access, use, misuse), with assistance from the CIAT Hillsides Project team. The next step was to develop user-friendly resource use monitoring indicators through a consultative process. The research team prepared a draft set of indicators based on the combined findings of 15 resource analyses. The informants reviewed and refined the indicators and then used them to assess the state of their own micro watersheds, assigning qualitative values for each indicator. The results were organized by different resource and landscape features and then presented in a second workshop. ReflectionsResults were presented to local decision-makers, including the mayor, state agencies, NGOs operating in the watershed and a recently created association of community organizations. The information provided decision-makers with a better basis for taking action by pointing to areas where natural resources are highly degraded or under risk or where rapid improvement could be achieved. Resource assessment is key for improving resource management practices and regulatory arrangements. To achieve better resource management through collective action, rules and sanctions, local people and their cooperators need to start with a good understanding of resource dynamics. Monitoring also helps raise awareness among local decision-makers about the interdependence of resources. If monitoring is done collectively, it can also impart skills and create ownership and confidence. The participatory mapping and monitoring tools that were used are relatively simple ones that local people can use to analyse the local situation, discuss constraints, problems and opportunities, take action and monitor results. In some situations the tools could be a constraining factor because they are time and energy consuming. A challenge for the future is to design and implement landscape-level experiments that address transboundary problems, such as soil erosion, pests and water pollution. Experiments are now underway in the Calico River watershed to apply the insights gained from the participatory mapping and resource analysis. A key actor in this research is the Calico River watershed’s network of CIALs. These community-based research services are the subject of another case study in this annexe. ReferenceVernooy, R, Espinoza, N and Lamy, F (1999) Mapeo, análisis y monitoreo participativos de los recursos naturales en una microcuenca, Centro Internacional de Agricultural Tropical, Cali, Colombia. 23 Observations on the use of information tools in participatory contexts: Access to information and empowermentAcknowledgementsThis case study owes much to many people. It is a sympathetic compilation of the experiences of others, rather than a synthesis of direct first-hand results. Sources include: the Department for International Development (DFID) social watershed development projects in India, the work of national and state government agencies and NGOs in India, a GIS participatory workshop held at NRI, studies undertaken for the European Commission (EC) and the British government on the use of environmental information, and the diverse experiences of colleagues. BackgroundBecause participatory research tends to be ‘local and spotty’ and community horizons tend to be foreshortened, this case study looks at aspects of information tools (ITs) and their applicability in participatory approaches for ‘up scaling’. The study considers, among other factors, the scale of analysis for decision-making, using soil and water rehabilitation issues as an example, and explores the roles of IT decision support for the different stakeholders. Gender issues are considered here to be a subset of equity issues but the possible need to take them into account is accepted. ApproachThe qualities of the method (tools) for integration of biophysical and socioeconomic concerns depends on the stakeholder. Researcher, mediator (eg, NGO) and community views are likely to differ. Traditional maps are usually cumbersome and inappropriate because they are too non-specific but they may be better than nothing. Village maps tend to emphasize the biophysical because of the ease of representing these aspects in a model or map. They can be useful for bringing out gender and (lack of) equity issues. In Andhra Pradesh, satellite remote sensing is used successfully to help ‘guide’ the community PRA process and to ensure that watershed rehabilitation interventions are focused in the areas where greatest biophysical impact can be achieved within the socioeconomic priorities of the community. How greatly equity and gender considerations are involved is unclear. The use of GIS would appear to have major potential. However, if significant impact is to be achieved with communities at village level, considerable scope is entailed and there is a need for innovative research and new approaches to spatial representation of social and economic indicators. The process of incorporating PRA-generated data into GIS is still rudimentary. Important issues are involved in integrating qualitative with quantitative data and then scaling up from local enquiry. This is an area where GIS may be able to give valuable assistance. Joint planning and interdisciplinary working by GIS and PRA (or equivalent) practitioners is essential for practical success in combining the two methods. Information technology (such as PRA, remote sensing, etc) is only as good as the people and institutions that use it and local politics permit. If the planning process is not responsive and accessible to local people, then IT may have limited value. Other software tools for ‘modelling’ decision-support are still severely constrained but could have enormous impact as ‘expert guidance systems’ in the future. ReflectionsParticipatory IT could enable communities to face issues and to be better capable of taking themselves forward towards resolution before crisis point is reached. This is potentially an issue for useful research. While, inevitably, ITs empower the researcher and other centralized agencies more than communities, this argument is insufficient to withhold these ‘potentially democratizing’ tools from community use. A simple village photograph from the air may comprise the only form of land registration and demonstration of tenure available to the community. Although access to such information is usually empowerment, it also carries downside risks through (1) exposure of the communities and their knowledge base to more powerful centralized powers and (2) destabilizing existing information and power structures without developing appropriate alternatives. Sector-planning applications of participatory IT approaches are available at the country level that donors should take up in project design. The monitoring capacity of IT needs to be more rigorously approached, for example as an M&E system for long-term social development projects and watershed management information, which needs to be integrated into the M&E process. Further development of IT applications is needed in community forestry, strengthening tenure over community participatory research and in the M&E of impact of community-based/participatory resource management. Risks lie in that centrally applying IT for M&E will degenerate into a policing of management plans or precipitating conflict. Thus we need to ensure an equitable balance in stakeholder inputs to and uses of IT and appropriate mechanisms for assuring easy access. A priori understanding and management of landscape-scale resource issues would appear to be difficult without community access to improved information (tools). New spatial scale issues and time/change issues will probably need to be brought into the domain of livelihoods and stakeholder awareness, ownership and decision-making processes. The more useful ITs are potentially powerful (information content) agents of change but they are merely tools and need to be used with caution. Their use may expose hidden issues but not enable their resolution. As with PRA, irresponsible application may do more damage than good. Projects in India have successfully demonstrated the value of ITs in participatory watershed management, particularly the role of remote sensing, for bringing wider landscape issues (eg, soil and water rehabilitation, management of wastelands and common property resources) into consideration by local communities. Their successes warrant careful examination, because they appear to consistently outshine other programmes.
Document(s) 12 de 15
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| guest (Lire)heure de l'Est (É.-U. et Canada) Login | Accueil|Carrières|Droits d'auteurs et usage|Informations générales|Nous rejoindre|Basse vitesse |
