Interactions Between Agroecosystems and Rural Communities - Chapter 10 pot

A Learning Approach to Community Agroecosystem Management Clive Lightfoot, Maria Fernandez, Reg Noble, Ricardo Ramírez, Annemarie Groot, 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 Conclusion References INTRODUCTION Farmers, local extension workers, and nongovernment organization (NGO) field staff play increasingly more important roles in “community-based” agriculture and natural resource management projects or programs. Ideas about priority problems and how they might be solved are expected to come from the community. A bottom-up, par- 10 © 2001 by CRC Press LLC ticipatory approach to project design and implementation is the operational hallmark of these projects. Communities rife with conflicts over the exploitation of farmland and natural resources are suddenly expected to work together to conserve nature. Suddenly, farm- ing systems that degrade the soil and pollute water resources are expected to become ecologically 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 few resources are given to bring them about. Project participants are given no time to understand the perspectives of different communities about agroecosystems and their management. Indeed, little effort is given to finding out who the stakeholders are, let alone time for negotiating concerted action in the management of agroecosystems. No one should really be surprised when project evaluators report that most farm- ers are not participating in the project, and that few will continue after the project ends. Equally, no one should be surprised when the expected farming or conservation improvements have not been realized. Farmers often are not impressed with the impact of so-called “improved” technologies. They complain that funds are attached to technological fixes that are inappropriate. Little effort is given to the development of knowledge systems for ecologically sound agriculture. Traditional knowledge about ecologically sound practices is rarely documented in a manner that is useful to other farmers. Project participants are rarely plugged into the growing international knowledge system of organic, ecologic, or alternative agriculture. There is little room in projects for learning and change. External monitoring and evaluation, 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 external knowledge networks, more appropriate technologies go unused. To complicate matters further, many African nations are decentralizing and pri- vatizing much of their public sector agriculture support services. District level staff are 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 to save government money through sharing tasks and narrowing responsibilities, but also to provide better targeting of services and more efficient services. Building viable interinstitutional partnerships is hard, slow work. Moreover, responding to farmer demands requires considerable flexibility and dynamism of those organiza- tions. How to create farmer demand for services and how to form viable partnerships rarely are subjects of study. There are few success stories and best practices on which to build. In these circumstances, the challenge confronting donors, central and local government 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-site innovation that cannot be satisfied by emulation of “best practices.” This is not to say that 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 capac- ity to re-invent and innovate is essential to partnership building and community progress in agroecosystem management. © 2001 by CRC Press LLC In this chapter, the authors describe how a learning approach provides commu- nities, local government, and agriculture service providers with opportunities to learn their 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 a look at what progress has been made in community development of agroecosystem management strategies, farmer demand for agriculture support services, formation of partnerships, and capacity for local innovation. The conclusion ends with a brief look at the constraints to further development of a learning approach to community-level agroecosystem management. A LEARNING APPROACH A learning approach builds joint capacity among community members, field-level development workers, and service providers for local on-site innovation. Learning facilitates innovation in the way local people work together and how they assess the performance 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. It also 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 of research. Research in the area of farmer participatory development provides a great deal of experience in how to engage farmers in research and development projects (Chambers, 1997; Korten, 1980; Pretty et al., 1995). Insights gained from research on learning 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 agricultural knowledge 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 devel- 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 et al., 2000). This development attempted to insert a learning approach into the ongoing development activities of a broad range of organizations at community, district, and national levels. It is from these experiences that examples are drawn to illustrate three dimensions of a learning approach. The first dimension described here is organiza- © 2001 by CRC Press LLC tional. It permits a comparison of organizational structures between research and development projects. Process is the second dimension. This dimension elaborates a process for learning. Instruments for learning make up the third dimension. These instruments facilitate our learning about • communities’ future visions of agroecosystem management and opportu- nities for their realization • 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 performance they have. FIRST DIMENSION: ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE FOR LEARNING Although organizational linkages in research and development projects vary enor- 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. Here the organizational linkages in research and development projects are top down. Many research projects build direct links between researchers working at the national level, whether in a university or government research organization, and farmers. On-farm experiments are found in many agriculture projects. Development projects, in con- trast, involve extensionists from national and district levels and sometimes local NGOs. Development projects work directly with groups of farmers. In both cases few lateral links exist at the different levels. Where lateral links do exist, they tend to be between research and extension at the district level and increasingly between NGOs 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 pro- 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 FIGURE 10.1 Linkages between participants in research, development, and learning settings. © 2001 by CRC Press LLC participatory action learning approach to development (Röling and Wagemakers, 1998). A learning approach forges lateral links among organizations and groups at each level and between levels. Over time, these linkages can result in the development of informal 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 coalitions need to bring together representatives from NGOs, government research and exten- sion agencies, local government authorities, and private sector agricultural service providers. A similarly composed interinstitutional coalition also is needed at the national 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 demands benefit greatly from linkage with local learning coalitions. Opportunities occur from time to time within projects and within the operations of local governance for dia- logue between organizations at all levels and, although less frequently, for dialogue between levels. However, without the commitment and resources of individuals within the organizations concerned to continue meeting and learning, little progress will 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 linkages not for the abstract notion of learning, but to pursue their own goals. Linking and negotiating are awkward, time-consuming efforts, but the organizations have come to realize that no better alternative, especially in this age of decentralization. These are the 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. SECOND DIMENSION: PROCESS FOR LEARNING A number of elements were considered critical to effective joint learning: • face-to-face accountability and group pressure to favor community influ- ence • 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. The learning process allows the partners to analyze the performance of the partnerships and 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 behavior and performance. The first phase starts at the local level with farmer self-help groups and community-based organizations learning about the agroecosystems in their areas and their management 30 years ago and today. Viewing from the past, local people envi- © 2001 by CRC Press LLC sion how they would like to change their agroecosystems in the future. The desired changes form the basis for identifying the resources, services, and support needed to realize their future visions. Local learning about better ways to manage agroecosys- tems is enhanced by interactions with district- and national-level extensionists and researchers. These visions and the requirements of community members are presented to district-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 district-level extensionists and researchers. Thus local- and district- level organizations learn which services match demands and what new services should be created to meet demands. Where demands go unmet, policy issues of inter- est to national-level policy makers are raised. When the resources, services, and support available match the community’s requirements, there is a basis for negotiating partnerships between community mem- bers and public or private sector groups, entities, or enterprises. In this phase, the community and local organizations learn to develop partnerships that will increase the community’s access to the resources, services, and support required to realize their future visions of how their agroecosystem should be managed. Providing oppor- tunities for private and public services to present the objectives and mandate of their own organization and the constraints they face has proved to be an important aspect for 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 fourth phase 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. © 2001 by CRC Press LLC These performance indicators are used to facilitate reflection, the fifth and last phase 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 partnership and that of the agroecosystem management strategies. After reflection, district- and local-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 con- tinuous process that has no end, as indicated in Figure 10.2. THIRD DIMENSION: INSTRUMENTS FOR LEARNING Learning instruments facilitate each phase of the learning process. These instruments help the learners answer key questions. Each phase of a learning process has its own specific 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 the past? • 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 and implement their plans. Phase 5: • There is reflection on performance. • What indicators will allow us to learn whether the improved agroecosys- tem management practices and the newly negotiated partnerships are per- forming well or not? © 2001 by CRC Press LLC The following section contains a brief description of learning instruments useful for visioning, 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, and use of the agroecosystems they manage have changed over the past 30 years, and to visualize 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 be used 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 infor- mation on the current state and the intended future state of natural resources as well as on the changes that need to be made and the kinds of partnerships that can help bring them about. Maps facilitate learning by allowing different groups with different interest, to visualize how the agroecosystem has changed both for the better and the worse over the past 30 years. They also allow community members to discuss with each other and with outsiders, frequently government extensionists and researchers, what they want their agroecosystems to be like in 20 years. These maps use local categories to characterize farmland, forests, grazing areas, swampland and rivers, and other water resources. 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. New agroecosystem 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 nat- ural resources and contrast it with the changes needed to put improved management strategies in place. Working from the present and future vision maps for each change proposed, farmers identify the resources, services, and support they will need to implement each change. Then a clear link is established between a requirement and the kind of partnership needed to realize the improved agroecosystems management strategy. The examples of agroecosystem maps in Figures 10.3 and 10.4, prepared by farmers 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 root crops, few animals, and almost no trees will be replaced in the future with more intensive farms that have a more diverse array of crops including coffee and upland rice, zero-grazing cattle operations, fish ponds, and citrus orchards. It should be noted that the expected rise in population is represented by a need for more houses, © 2001 by CRC Press LLC 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.) © 2001 by CRC Press LLC a school, a marketplace and bigger roads. The changes in the croplands noted on the map are captured in a matrix of future changes and the partners needed to implement them. The matrix in Table 10.1 shows that grazing lands are to be rehabilitated by intro- ducing improved pasture species and reducing the intensity of grazing with an increase in zero-grazing operations. The wetlands are to be designated as conserva- tion areas with irrigation facilities to enhance productivity. The matrix indicates that a wide array of partners will be needed to provide the necessary support and services. In addition to government services, there is a demand for seed suppliers, credit services, and marketing agents as well. The matrix also makes clear that to implement some changes, groups of community members will need to form partnerships with each other. For example, conservation of wetlands, management of grazing lands, and building of soil erosion measures all require intracommunity partnerships. As in the case of Soroti District, communities in the Quilcas District, Peru, used participatory mapping to identify their desired future. Men’s and women’s groups constructed their separate visions, which then were joined to arrive at a common future vision for the community as a whole. Figure 10.5 shows the future vision of the community of Colpar in 1998. The vision is that of improved livelihoods achieved by way of sustainable agricultural production, good infrastructure, and tourism. The vision proposes that strong community organization and a clear development plan are critical to arriving at the vision. However, stronger organization and a clear plan depend on building capacity at family and community levels so that the over time, the elected 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. TABLE 10.1 Future Changes in Agroecosystem Management and Key partners, Soroti District, Uganda Natural Resource Cropland Grazing land Wetlands Changes Management 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 Agric- ulture extension agents Local government, Department of Agriculture ex- tension, Department of Forestry, seed suppliers, credit institutions, marketing agents Community, local government, Department of Agric- ulture Extension, veterinary services, NARO, credit institutions Community, nongovernment organizations local council, Lands and Survey, Department of Agri- culture Extension, credit institutions, marketing agents © 2001 by CRC Press LLC [...]... Netherlands, 1999; and Fernandez-Baca, E and Fernandez, M., 2000 © 2001 by CRC Press LLC Caution also should be applied to farmers’ visions of better ways to manage agroecosystems Farmers’ ideas are not always ecologically sound Ecologic soundness is sacrificed not only because knowledge is lacking, but also because of a calculated trade-off between utilization and conservation Balancing these trade-offs... that an equal partnership between rural communities and private and public sector organizations and entities can increase opportunities for ensuring environmental sustainability and dignified livelihoods for those who manage marginal and degradable land areas The learning approach focuses on enhancing community capacity to require resources, services, and support from government and other service © 2001... communication, and networking among communities and with the market are the main components of the visions However, priorities have shifted over the years As goals are met through innovations and changes in strategy, new and more refined priorities have become part of the vision Table 10. 2 compares the future visions of two communities in the District at 2-year intervals between 1996 and 2000 As with other participatory... with neighboring communities of Llacta and Casacancha • A parabolic antenna to improve communication • Sanitation infrastructure in the town center 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...FIGURE 10. 5 Future vision for the community of Colpar in 1998 (Source: From FernandezBaca, 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... the attributes identified The completed table guides communities and service providers to choose the criteria and conditions that are most relevant to a specific partnership Knowing what TABLE 10. 6 Attributes of Successful Partnerships and Outcomes of Developing Them Attributes Trust between farmers and service providers Cooperation between farmers and service providers Services delivered at the right... services, and support, but also as a tool to monitor shifts in priorities over time Table 10. 2 compares the vision of Colpar with that of Quilcas The visions of these two neighboring communities are similar For both Quilcas and Colpar, strong community organizations, sound and sustainable resource management, and infrastructure that facilitates physical and social well-being, communication, and networking... Soroti, Uganda Engel, P H and Salomon, M., Rapid Appraisal of Agricultural Knowledge Systems, a participatory action research approach to facilitating social learning for sustainable development, in Systems-Oriented Research in Agriculture and Rural Development, Papers of AFSRE International Symposium, Montpellier, France, 1994 Fernandez-Baca, E and Fernandez, M E., Evaluando la Sostenibilidad de las... the parents’ education group Prioritizes advice and inputs for conventional production systems Are accepted by community as far as they provide support and are transparent in their objectives At present, provide support for agricultural experiments 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... Netherlands, 2000; p 463 © 2001 by CRC Press LLC agreed that trust and communication between partners, transparency in decision making, and awareness building were the most critical attributes of partnerships They also agreed that without trust between partners, the services might not even be requested or accepted Communication between partners also was considered crucial because one-way top-down directives . 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. Quilcas and Colpar, strong community organizations, sound and sustainable resource management, and infra- structure that facilitates physical and social well-being, communication, and net- working. management. Tables 10. 3, 10. 4 and 10. 5 from Kilosa District in Tanzania illustrate how farm- ers, NGOs, and government extension officers at local and district levels responded to farmers’ demands for