Interactions Between Agroecosystems and Rural Communities - Chapter 10 pot

Edith Fernandez-Baca, Francis Shao, Grace Muro, Simon Okelabo, Anthony Mugenyi, Isaac Bekalo, Andrew Rianga, and Lynette Obare CONTENTS Introduction A Learning Approach First Dimension:

Edith Fernandez-Baca, Francis Shao,

Grace Muro, Simon Okelabo, Anthony Mugenyi, Isaac Bekalo, Andrew Rianga, and Lynette Obare

CONTENTS

Introduction

A Learning Approach

First Dimension: Organizational Structure for Learning

Second Dimension: Process for Learning

Third Dimension: Instruments for Learning

Learning Instruments for Future Visioning of Agroecosystem Management

Learning Instruments for Clarifying Requirements, Partnerships,

and Responsibilities

Learning Instruments for Clarifying Characteristics of Successful

New Partnerships

Learning Instruments for Reflecting on Agroecosystem Performance

Learning Instruments for Reflecting on Partnership Performance

ticipatory approach to project design and implementation is the operational hallmark

of these projects

Communities rife with conflicts over the exploitation of farmland and naturalresources are suddenly expected to work together to conserve nature Suddenly, farm-ing systems that degrade the soil and pollute water resources are expected to becomeecologically sound and government and nongovernment institutions that have had lit-tle experience working together are asked to form partnerships

Although no one doubts the desirability of these changes, little time and fewresources are given to bring them about Project participants are given no time tounderstand the perspectives of different communities about agroecosystems and theirmanagement Indeed, little effort is given to finding out who the stakeholders are, letalone time for negotiating concerted action in the management of agroecosystems

No one should really be surprised when project evaluators report that most ers are not participating in the project, and that few will continue after the projectends Equally, no one should be surprised when the expected farming or conservationimprovements have not been realized Farmers often are not impressed with theimpact of so-called “improved” technologies They complain that funds are attached

farm-to technological fixes that are inappropriate Little effort is given farm-to the development

of knowledge systems for ecologically sound agriculture Traditional knowledgeabout ecologically sound practices is rarely documented in a manner that is useful toother farmers Project participants are rarely plugged into the growing internationalknowledge system of organic, ecologic, or alternative agriculture

There is little room in projects for learning and change External monitoring andevaluation, the main opportunities for adjustments, usually provoke defensive atti-tudes in which mistakes are hidden rather than used as opportunities for learning.Because local people do not have the capability or responsibility for evaluation, valu-able lessons go unlearned Because local people remain isolated from externalknowledge networks, more appropriate technologies go unused

To complicate matters further, many African nations are decentralizing and vatizing much of their public sector agriculture support services District level staffare now asked to respond to farmer demands and to form partnerships with other ser-vice providers to meet those demands The logic behind these policies is not only tosave government money through sharing tasks and narrowing responsibilities, butalso to provide better targeting of services and more efficient services Buildingviable interinstitutional partnerships is hard, slow work Moreover, responding tofarmer demands requires considerable flexibility and dynamism of those organiza-tions How to create farmer demand for services and how to form viable partnershipsrarely are subjects of study There are few success stories and best practices on which

pri-to build In these circumstances, the challenge confronting donors, central and localgovernment officers, and project participants is to invent their own ways of working.This is partly because local conditions and complexities require a level of on-siteinnovation that cannot be satisfied by emulation of “best practices.” This is not to saythat the proverbial wheel must be reinvented everywhere, but best practices do need

to be adapted to local conditions, or better still, re-invented by local people A ity to re-invent and innovate is essential to partnership building and communityprogress in agroecosystem management

capac-In this chapter, the authors describe how a learning approach provides nities, local government, and agriculture service providers with opportunities to learntheir own way through to better partnerships and better management of agroecosys-tems They describe an organizational structure for learning, a process for learning,and several key instruments to facilitate learning The chapter is concluded with alook at what progress has been made in community development of agroecosystemmanagement strategies, farmer demand for agriculture support services, formation ofpartnerships, and capacity for local innovation The conclusion ends with a brief look

commu-at the constraints to further development of a learning approach to community-levelagroecosystem management

A LEARNING APPROACH

A learning approach builds joint capacity among community members, field-leveldevelopment workers, and service providers for local on-site innovation Learningfacilitates innovation in the way local people work together and how they assess theperformance of their partnerships and their agroecosystem management strategies.Enhanced innovative capacity sets the stage for improving the management of agroe-cosystems and the effective demand by farmers on agricultural support services Italso sets the stage for handing over more responsibilities to local actors at every stage

of the project cycle from design through evaluation

The learning approach developed in this discussion draws on four lines ofresearch Research in the area of farmer participatory development provides a greatdeal of experience in how to engage farmers in research and development projects(Chambers, 1997; Korten, 1980; Pretty et al., 1995) Insights gained from research onlearning systems and soft systems provides a second foundation for this work(Bawden, 1991; Checkland and Scholes, 1990; Daniels and Walker, 1996).Operational details have been greatly informed by research in the areas of agriculturalknowledge and information systems analysis (Engel and Salomon, 1994; Ramírez,1997), multiple stakeholder management in forestry, and protected area management(Borrini-Feyerabend, 1996; Daniels and Walker, 1996; Ramírez, 1999) On the bio-logic side, operational details have been informed by research in the areas of agro-ecosystem analysis (Altieri, 1989; Conway, 1985; Lightfood and Noble, 1993;Lightfoot et al., 1993) The research methods of agricultural knowledge and infor-mation systems assessment have been woven with the research methods of agro-ecosystems analysis to capture both the learning about the way stakeholders are organized to respond to complex situations and the agroecologic aspects (Altieri,1989; Conway, 1985; Lightfoot and Noble, 1993; Lightfoot et al., 1993)

This research provided the theoretical and methodologic inputs into the opment of a learning approach that has engaged the International Support Group(ISG) and its local partners in Kenya, Uganda, and Tanzania for the past 3 years(Development Support Services, 1999; International Support Group, 1999; Shao etal., 2000) This development attempted to insert a learning approach into the ongoingdevelopment activities of a broad range of organizations at community, district, andnational levels It is from these experiences that examples are drawn to illustrate threedimensions of a learning approach The first dimension described here is organiza-

devel-tional It permits a comparison of organizational structures between research anddevelopment projects Process is the second dimension This dimension elaborates aprocess for learning Instruments for learning make up the third dimension Theseinstruments facilitate our learning about

• communities’ future visions of agroecosystem management and nities for their realization

opportu-• partnerships and alliances needed if communities are to realize their visions

• negotiations to build partnerships and alliances for action

• reflections on agroecosystem management and partnership performancethey have

F IRST D IMENSION : O RGANIZATIONAL S TRUCTURE FOR L EARNING

Although organizational linkages in research and development projects vary mously, they have common patterns Common patterns are, of course, oversimplifi-cations, but they do make easier the kind of comparisons shown in Figure 10.1 Herethe organizational linkages in research and development projects are top down Manyresearch projects build direct links between researchers working at the national level,whether in a university or government research organization, and farmers On-farmexperiments are found in many agriculture projects Development projects, in con-trast, involve extensionists from national and district levels and sometimes localNGOs Development projects work directly with groups of farmers In both cases fewlateral links exist at the different levels Where lateral links do exist, they tend to

enor-be enor-between research and extension at the district level and increasingly enor-betweenNGOs and extension at the point where the former are engaging the latter in their projects

In the growing number of community-based natural resource management jects, things are different Here one finds linkages built among all relevant stake-holders at the local, regional, and national levels These projects tend to follow a

pro-FIGURE 10.1 Linkages between participants in research, development, and learning settings.

participatory action learning approach to development (Röling and Wagemakers,1998).

A learning approach forges lateral links among organizations and groups at eachlevel and between levels Over time, these linkages can result in the development ofinformal interinstitutional learning coalitions Local- or village-level learning coali-tions need to bring together farmer self-help groups, community-based organizations,and local government authorities District-level interinstitutional learning coalitionsneed to bring together representatives from NGOs, government research and exten-sion agencies, local government authorities, and private sector agricultural serviceproviders A similarly composed interinstitutional coalition also is needed at thenational level

The learning approach framework also requires that different levels link together.Local coalitions benefit greatly from linkages with district-level organizations.District- and national-level organizations wishing to respond to community demandsbenefit greatly from linkage with local learning coalitions Opportunities occur fromtime to time within projects and within the operations of local governance for dia-logue between organizations at all levels and, although less frequently, for dialoguebetween levels However, without the commitment and resources of individualswithin the organizations concerned to continue meeting and learning, little progresswill result Infrequent, random consultations or workshops are not enough to sustain

a learning approach Moreover, without a clear process for learning and instruments

to facilitate learning, little progress can be made Organizations seek new linkagesnot for the abstract notion of learning, but to pursue their own goals Linking andnegotiating are awkward, time-consuming efforts, but the organizations have come torealize that no better alternative, especially in this age of decentralization These arethe second and third dimensions, which are discussed next Although the organiza-tion for learning can be started within projects, it must move from project to project

in order to increase its skills and sustain itself

S ECOND D IMENSION : P ROCESS FOR L EARNING

A number of elements were considered critical to effective joint learning:

• face-to-face accountability and group pressure to favor community ence

influ-• farmer-led analysis, visioning, and planning

• reflection and adaptation of the instruments of learning

The process for learning has five distinct phases as shown in Figure 10.2 Thelearning process allows the partners to analyze the performance of the partnershipsand find out where there is room for improvement In this sense, “learning” embraces

a process of reflection in terms of the partnerships and the agroecosystem’s behaviorand performance

The first phase starts at the local level with farmer self-help groups andcommunity-based organizations learning about the agroecosystems in their areas andtheir management 30 years ago and today Viewing from the past, local people envi-

sion how they would like to change their agroecosystems in the future The desiredchanges form the basis for identifying the resources, services, and support needed torealize their future visions Local learning about better ways to manage agroecosys-tems is enhanced by interactions with district- and national-level extensionists andresearchers.

These visions and the requirements of community members are presented todistrict-level organizations in the second phase of the learning process In this phase,communities’ demands for agricultural support services are matched with the ser-vices offered This also provides an opportunity for community members’ visions to

be informed by level extensionists and researchers Thus local- and level organizations learn which services match demands and what new servicesshould be created to meet demands Where demands go unmet, policy issues of inter-est to national-level policy makers are raised

district-When the resources, services, and support available match the community’srequirements, there is a basis for negotiating partnerships between community mem-bers and public or private sector groups, entities, or enterprises In this phase, thecommunity and local organizations learn to develop partnerships that will increasethe community’s access to the resources, services, and support required to realizetheir future visions of how their agroecosystem should be managed Providing oppor-tunities for private and public services to present the objectives and mandate of theirown organization and the constraints they face has proved to be an important aspectfor the negotiation of a good partnership

After rounds of negotiations between partners, concerted actions occur Action,the implementation of improved agroecosystem management strategies, is the fourthphase in the learning process The hallmark of these actions is that

• they are directed toward a vision of the future fashioned by local people

• local people are the key actors in the implementation of the actions

• indicators of performance are established as the partnerships are

negotiated

FIGURE 10.2 Phases in a process of learning.

These performance indicators are used to facilitate reflection, the fifth and lastphase in the learning process After action or the implementation of projects, partners

at the local and district levels need to reflect on the performance of their partnershipand that of the agroecosystem management strategies After reflection, district- andlocal-level organizations revisit the community’s future visions of how agroecosys-tems should be managed and what service partnerships are needed Changes are made

as a result of what has been learned, and another cycle is started Learning is a tinuous process that has no end, as indicated in Figure 10.2

con-T HIRD D IMENSION : I NSTRUMENTS FOR L EARNING

Learning instruments facilitate each phase of the learning process These instrumentshelp the learners answer key questions Each phase of a learning process has its ownspecific set of key questions

Phase 1:

• Future agroecosystem management strategies are envisioned and the

resources needed to implement them

• What is the current status of our agroecosystem in comparison with thepast?

• What would we like to see our agroecosystem look like in the future?

• With whom do we need to partner to realize our vision?

Phase 2:

• Comunity members’ requirements are matched with accessible resources,services, and/or support

• What opportunities do the communities have to gain access?

• What new opportunities need to be created?

Phase 3:

• Providers and communities negotiate partnerships

• What conditions facilitate the negotiation of effective partnerships?

Phase 4:

• Partners design strategies of action around areas of mutual interest andimplement their plans

Phase 5:

• There is reflection on performance

• What indicators will allow us to learn whether the improved tem management practices and the newly negotiated partnerships are per-forming well or not?

agroecosys-The following section contains a brief description of learning instruments useful forvisioning, planning, negotiating, and reflecting on the phases of the learning process.Each instrument is described and illustrated by examples from work done in Ghana,Tanzania, Uganda, and Peru.

LEARNING INSTRUMENTS FOR FUTURE VISIONING

OF AGROECOSYSTEM MANAGEMENT

Maps are instruments that help communities to learn how the quality, quantity, anduse of the agroecosystems they manage have changed over the past 30 years, and tovisualize how they would like to manage and use them in future Matrices can be used

to organize the information so that required resources, services, and support can beused to identify the partnerships that will be needed to make the envisioned changes

At the end of phase 1, a series of maps and matrices is available that provides mation on the current state and the intended future state of natural resources as well

infor-as on the changes that need to be made and the kinds of partnerships that can helpbring them about

Maps facilitate learning by allowing different groups with different interest, tovisualize how the agroecosystem has changed both for the better and the worse overthe past 30 years They also allow community members to discuss with each otherand with outsiders, frequently government extensionists and researchers, what theywant their agroecosystems to be like in 20 years These maps use local categories tocharacterize farmland, forests, grazing areas, swampland and rivers, and other waterresources They also include major landmarks such as community boundaries, roads,houses, and other infrastructure They indicate the major species of crops, livestock,fish, and trees The map of the future is a vision of all the new roads, houses, markets,water supplies, and other infrastructure that communities would like to see Newagroecosystem management strategies for the forests, croplands, grass, and swamp-lands are represented on the completed map

Matrices can help farmers organize the information on the current state of ural resources and contrast it with the changes needed to put improved managementstrategies in place Working from the present and future vision maps for each changeproposed, farmers identify the resources, services, and support they will need toimplement each change Then a clear link is established between a requirement andthe kind of partnership needed to realize the improved agroecosystems managementstrategy

nat-The examples of agroecosystem maps in Figures 10.3 and 10.4, prepared byfarmers from Soroti District in Uganda, clearly show an intention to intensify agro-ecosystem management in the future (Development Support Services, 1999; Inter-national Support Group, 1999) The current scattered farms with small plots of rootcrops, few animals, and almost no trees will be replaced in the future with moreintensive farms that have a more diverse array of crops including coffee and uplandrice, zero-grazing cattle operations, fish ponds, and citrus orchards It should benoted that the expected rise in population is represented by a need for more houses,

FIGURE 10.3 Agroecosystem map of the present situation, Soroti District, Uganda (Source:

From Development Support Services, Proceedings of on Orientation Exercise in Linked Local

Learning, July 2–3, 1999, DDS, Soroti, Uganda, p 67.)

FIGURE 10.4 Agroecosystem map of the future vision, Soroti District, Uganda (Source:

From Development Support Services, Proceedings of on Orientation Exercise in Linked Local

Learning, July 2–3, 1999, Development Support Services, Soroti, Uganda, p 67.)

a school, a marketplace and bigger roads The changes in the croplands noted on themap are captured in a matrix of future changes and the partners needed to implementthem.

The matrix in Table 10.1 shows that grazing lands are to be rehabilitated by ducing improved pasture species and reducing the intensity of grazing with anincrease in zero-grazing operations The wetlands are to be designated as conserva-tion areas with irrigation facilities to enhance productivity

intro-The matrix indicates that a wide array of partners will be needed to provide thenecessary support and services In addition to government services, there is a demandfor seed suppliers, credit services, and marketing agents as well The matrix alsomakes clear that to implement some changes, groups of community members willneed to form partnerships with each other For example, conservation of wetlands,management of grazing lands, and building of soil erosion measures all requireintracommunity partnerships

As in the case of Soroti District, communities in the Quilcas District, Peru, usedparticipatory mapping to identify their desired future Men’s and women’s groupsconstructed their separate visions, which then were joined to arrive at a commonfuture vision for the community as a whole Figure 10.5 shows the future vision ofthe community of Colpar in 1998 The vision is that of improved livelihoods achieved

by way of sustainable agricultural production, good infrastructure, and tourism Thevision proposes that strong community organization and a clear development plan arecritical to arriving at the vision However, stronger organization and a clear plandepend on building capacity at family and community levels so that the over time, theelected authorities will be capable of facilitating collaboration among organizations

in the community The community also will need to be effective in negotiating

part-Source: From Proceedings of an Orientation Exercise in Linked Local Learning, July 2–3, 1999,

Development Support Services, Soroti, Uganda.

Implement soil erosion control

measures, farm land

con-solidation

Introduce coffee, citrus,

up-land rice and fish ponds

Introduce improved pasture

species, better livestock

health, more zero grazing,

Implement conservation areas,

water dam construction for

irrigation.

Partners for Implementing Changes

Community, local government, Department of ulture extension agents

Agric-Local government, Department of Agriculture tension, Department of Forestry, seed suppliers, credit institutions, marketing agents

ex-Community, local government, Department of ulture Extension, veterinary services, NARO, credit institutions

Agric-Community, nongovernment organizations local council, Lands and Survey, Department of Agri- culture Extension, credit institutions, marketing agents

FIGURE 10.5 Future vision for the community of Colpar in 1998 (Source: From

Fernandez-Baca, E and Fernandez, M E., Evalvando de las Estrategias de Desarrollo de Comunidades

Rurales, Final Project Report to Red de Investigación en el Manejo de Sistemas de Producción

(RIMISP), Amersfoort, Netherlands, 2000; p 67.)

nerships with government and nongovernment support and service organizations side the community

out-Future visioning can be used not only as a tool to identify requirements forresources, services, and support, but also as a tool to monitor shifts in priorities overtime Table 10.2 compares the vision of Colpar with that of Quilcas The visions ofthese two neighboring communities are similar For both Quilcas and Colpar, strongcommunity organizations, sound and sustainable resource management, and infra-structure that facilitates physical and social well-being, communication, and net-working among communities and with the market are the main components of thevisions However, priorities have shifted over the years As goals are met throughinnovations and changes in strategy, new and more refined priorities have becomepart of the vision Table 10.2 compares the future visions of two communities in theDistrict at 2-year intervals between 1996 and 2000

As with other participatory methods, these kinds of learning instruments can ily be misused Maps of future visions can easily be hijacked by one interest group oranother For example, only so many people can physically be involved in drawing amap, so the task should be carried out by small groups of farmers with common inter-ests It is important to be sure that as many perspectives as possible are taken intoaccount For example, women often use natural resources differently from men, andthey often are not included in community consultations

eas-Source: From Fernandez-Baca, E and Fernandez, M E., Evalvando de las Estrategias de Desarrollo de Comunidades Rurales, Final Project Report to Red de Investigación en el Manejo de Sistemas de

Producción (RIMISP), mimeo, Amersfoort, Netherlands, 2000; Red Internacional de Metodos de Investigación de Sistemas de Producción

International Support Group, East African Seminar: Developing a Framework for Linked Local

Learning, Project Final Report to Danish International Development Agency, Mimeo, ISG, Amersfoort,

Netherlands, 1999; and Fernandez-Baca, E and Fernandez, M., 2000.

TABLE 10.2

Desired Future Visions of Two Communities in the District of Quilcas Peru

Quilcas 1996

• Close coordination between the municipal and

community authorities so that tasks are well

defined and organization is improved

• Conserved soils and irrigated areas within the

community to increment and diversify

agricul-tural production

Quilcas 1998

• Member families in better socioeconomic

con-dition

• Good roads and an irrigation system.

• Member families have the capacity to

industri-alize agricultural products

• Greater interest on part of financial institutions

to support the district development plan

• Interinstitutional collaboration board

strength-ened by agreements on common goals and

dis-tribution of responsibilities among members

Quilcas 2000

• Improved soil conservation by way of

infiltra-tion ditches, reforestainfiltra-tion, and pasture

manage-ment

• Community animal production unit operating

at full capacity and fish farm implemented

• Irrigation system–established irrigation so

that every family can have a small vegetable

garden

• Intercommunity boundary conflicts resolved

• Rules established for use of communal grazing

areas

• Agreement on distribution of responsibilities

with the district authorities

Colpar 1996

• Improved management of natural resources, reforestation, soil conservation, and production through the use of organic fertilizers

• Design and implementation of an integrated agroforestry and pastoralist system Conserved fauna

• Reservoirs for small irrigation of vegetable gardens and forage crops, for drinking water, and for fish farming

Colpar 2000

• Erosion protection through reforestation, races, and infiltration ditches

ter-• Strong and solid community organization

• Irrigation infrastructure forage and vegetable production

• Improved livestock production

• Organic agriculture production increased

• Better elementary education

• Negotiations for the establishment of an cultural school

agri-• Increased land areas under community agement

man-• Pre-Hispanic remains restored and functioning fish farm to attract tourism

• Roads that connect Colpar with neighboring communities of Llacta and Casacancha

• A parabolic antenna to improve communication

• Sanitation infrastructure in the town center