SARM embraces both the bio-physical and social science disciplines and therefore is multi-sectoral in nature. This raises the need for co-operation between different interest groups and technical specialists in the planning and implementation of SARM programmes. At the government level success will depend on the favourable resolution of institutional issues. These include appropriate mechanisms for inter-departmental cooperation, and the coordination of activities of different government line agencies. It will also depend on the availability of the necessary manpower with the appropriate disciplinary skills, and effective extension research linkages.
At the community level, programmes to promote sustainable agriculture may call for cooperation between different social and ethnic groups within the farming community. They also have a direct or indirect impact on the activities of other local interest groups such as logging companies, traders, fishermen, large scale commercial estates and plantations. Success in resolving conflicts of interest within rural communities depends to a large extent on the existence, strength and organizational structure of local people-based institutions (box 35).
Individuals working on their own cannot hope to solve the problems of land degradation on more than an individual field basis. Institutions therefore have a role in coordinating the activities of individuals and mobilising community effort where required. Without institutions capable of responding to the technical challenges posed by land degradation there is little hope of technical solutions being implemented (Milner 1990).
Box 35 Landcare has evolved as one of the most significant social movements rural Australia has ever seen (Campbell 1994). More than 2000 community groups involving one third of all Australian farmers have been formed in the past 5 years to tackle environmental problems that cannot be solved within a single farm boundary. New forms of collective action are emerging, resulting in improvements to the environment and farm profitability. These Landcare groups are formally linked to existing institutions including national level policy makers, forming a unique partnership between community and government. The development of the Landcare process has required a major shift away from the traditional modes of technology transfer that have dominated agricultural extension until recent times, with a recognition of the need for more participatory approaches to natural resource management. In the Landcare groups from both West Hume (Woodhill et al 1994) and Balgarup (Campbell et al 1994) impacts extend far beyond those achieved by more conventional approaches. It is clear that collective action has enabled fencing, drains and banks to be constructed to protect remnant vegetation and to control run-off and waterlogging. Substantial revegetation of degraded lands has also been initiated. However the studies also showed that family farmers felt there was a danger of government seeing `participation' as an opportunity to hand the responsibility for complex, conflict ridden and costly problems to local people without adequate resources to make a significant difference. The responsibility without resources dressed up and sold as empowerment is a trap they wish to avoid. |
Source Hinchcliffe et al 1995.
Box 36 In the Antique province of the Philippines the Antique Integrated Area Development Project (ANIAD) has chosen to go for community-based agricultural development and environmental management. A key component is its community organising programme which aims at sustainable development through helping local communities to establish their own `people's organizations' (POs). This is done by using NGOs to mobilise at the community level backed with the technical assistance of government agencies. It aims to tap what are perceived to be the inherent advantages NGOs have compared to government to organise communities. The aim is to develop a means for empowering the rural population to be able to rationally manage and develop their resources as cohesive groups. In its first phase ANIAD has deliberately concentrated its primary efforts on PO development. It accepts that this will be a slow process and it will be several years before its development activities will have any real impact on the local environment. But the whole aim is to establish POs that have the capability to manage their own affairs, including sourcing development funds, when support from the project is phased out. So far ANIAD has managed to organise and strengthen POs serving around 52 barangays (village administrative unit). These POs have undergone basic organizational and management training and some have already been involved with income generating and community projects which take a conscious effort to take into consideration the environmental dimension. (EDSP 1993) |
When reviewing institutions at the community level it is important to recognise that there are many types of organization. One review of the topic (Bebbington et al 1994) makes a distinction between customary institutions and non-traditional organizations. Customary institutions refers to those community level relationships between individuals and/or rural households that have long been the basis of social organization. These would include kinship networks, tenure rules, local concepts of the `community', the rules governing gender relationships, local criteria determining who has authority and how decisions get made etc. These are the rules and institutions that are most deeply bound into the organization of rural life, and which make most sense to, and have most hold over, rural people (Moorehead and Lane 1993).
Customary institutions can serve as valuable forums to bring men and women, youth and elders, artisans and labourers, traders and farmers together. They will have evolved in many communities to address the felt needs of the communities and they are typically flexible in composition, function and organization. For SARM purposes they could be useful for disseminating information, mobilizing credit and capital, allocating communal resources for grazing, establishing supplier networks for manure, fodder, fuelwood, consumer items and other necessities of the farm households in rural communities.
Some societies have traditional saving schemes based on neighbourhood associations which exist to provide their members with a minimum level of security for meeting financial needs. Such saving schemes could also be used to effectively mobilize savings and to establish revolving funds needed for micro-enterprise and household access to credit supplies.
Non-traditional organizations refers to the range of groups created in some measure by external forces and interventions, generally within recent history (Bebbington et al 1993). At the community level are associations, cooperatives, credit groups, women's groups, and landless labourers' groups. At the regional level may be federations of communities or cooperatives, and savings and loans societies. In general these are organizations created with a specific purpose in mind. Sometimes when that purpose comes to an end, so does the organization. In other cases, however an organization may be long-lived enough, or may become sufficiently independent and effective, that it becomes a local institution, and an important part of everyday life to people. In these cases the organization is likely to outlive the initial stimulus for its creation.
A review of project experience shows that it is best to use existing groups for SARM activities. At the community level these may be traditional bodies (customary institutions), or may have been set up previously for another purpose (non-traditional organizations). In any event an existing group is easier to work with than one which has to be specially formed (Critchley 1991). Some existing community institutions, such as farmers clubs, credit groups, marketing cooperatives, irrigation or range management associations may have a direct link with agricultural production. Others such as women and development groups, the local church or mosque and the political party may be less directly related but may be channels through which people can be brought together, problems identified and extension messages disseminated.
For planning purposes community organizations of one form or another are best. A few villages or communities may not have some form of committee (to handle development planning, administrative or social/cultural matters) which meets regularly and could take responsibility for planning SARM-related activities. For the implementation and construction of conservation measures the picture may not be so clear. In some societies people are used to working in groups - in others they are not. Some have a tradition of informal work groups, consisting of friends and neighbours working in each other's fields on a reciprocal basis.
A measure of decentralisation of government institutions is also considered essential for sustainable agricultural development. This would bring decision-making and technical and managerial capacities closer to the rural populations (FAO 1991c). The purpose is to:
Box 37 In Indonesia implementation of the Forest, Soil and Water Conservation Programme involves seven ministries: Ministry of Forestry, Ministry of Agriculture, Ministry of Home Affairs, Ministry of Public Works, Ministry of Finance, State Ministry for the National Development Planning Board and State Ministry for Population and Environment. Primary responsibility for soil conservation lies with the Soil Conservation Division of the Directorate General of Reforestation and Land Rehabilitation within the Ministry of Forestry. Whereas primary responsibility for crop production and farming systems development lies with the Food Crops Division of the Ministry of Agriculture. In turn primary responsibility for development activities at the district level lies with the Ministry of Home Affairs. |
Some countries have formal working groups registered with, or mobilised by, the government (e.g. in Vietnam people are expected to `donate' their labour for some 10 days a year on community projects). But some people are not used to working communally, and efforts to make them form groups fail.
Groups are not always popular (Critchley 1991). Differences in the ethnic origin, caste, and socio-economic circumstances of the households within a village may also mean that the presence of community organizations is no guarantee that they will be representative of those living in the same area. Likewise the majority of community organizations are likely to be run by men who may have little interest in the problems and opportunities of the women.
The following experience of a watershed management project in India illustrates how the social structure of a community might influence the representativeness of community level institutions:
In the Wadigera watershed a meeting was called of the families who lived and farmed there. When all the people had gathered a clear picture emerged of the class distinctions operating. On the floor, in front, sat those farmers with lands in the lower reaches of the watershed - the most fertile and benefitting from irrigation. Behind them sat or stood those farmers with lands in the middle reaches - slightly less productive and more vulnerable to dry spells, without the benefit of irrigation. The people on the periphery were mainly tribals and those with holdings in the upper reaches of the catchment. The landless hung around. There were no women present initially but as the meeting went on they strolled in, more as interested bystanders than as participants. (Fernandez 1994) |
In many rural areas, it can be hard to identify functioning local institutions. Where these do not exist, they have to be created or revitalised. This is difficult and time-consuming (box 37). In such cases, a new SARM programme will not produce many tangible results in the first few years. Such delays may be hard for many donor agencies, national governments and the media to accept. Literature (Bebbington et al 1993) suggests considerable potential for involving rural people's organizations in research and extension for SARM, both as partners and as implementors. There are also many constraints on how far they can fulfil this role. In some cases groups do not exist, and the local political and socio-economic environment is not conducive for their emergence as sustainable organizations. In other cases, they exist but have a number of weaknesses, which include the following (Bebbington et al 1993):
A common element in many success stories is the key role played by a respected member of the local community, he or she having taken the lead in organising or promoting particular activities. This element can be difficult to replicate and may explain why two projects with the same constraints and opportunities turn out differently. We should note the experience of Western India's Kribhco Rainfed Farming Project, which found that village appraisal and planning initiatives that did not build on existing authority structures were likely to be obstructed by village leaders (Mosse 1993). Hence whereas many SARM programmes depend on community action experience has shown that (Rhoades 1982):
The transition to decentralisation requires a creative management approach; this is often difficult for traditional government agencies and training institutes. Decentralisation implies the willingness to devolve responsibility and to share power. This is easier said than done as it is the nature of most men to want to hoard power and other resources. In the Philippines under the provisions of the 1991 Local Government Code, primary responsibility for the management and maintenance of the natural resources and environment within individual provinces has in theory been devolved to the respective Provincial Governors. The Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) has so far devolved only some 800 junior staff (compared to the Department of Agriculture's several thousand) and has sought to retain control over the forest reserves and external donor funded projects.
Development of the multi-sectoral approach needed for SARM is hindered because government departments are still largely compartmentalised and geared for top down operations. Thus the soil conservation department helps build the bunds, the livestock department deals with the fodder that grows on them, the agriculture department deals with the crops that grow between, while the forestry department believes it should all be under trees. Farmers can end up the recipients of conflicting advice from different subject matter specialists (even from within the same agency) usually given on different occasions (Douglas 1994).
An approach based on collaboration between different disciplinary specialists is not easy to implement given present institutional structures. This is made more difficult by most government staff having been trained to see agricultural development as the passing down to farmers of separate extension packages for individual commodities.
Given that SARM is based on the belief that conservation should be promoted as an integral component of a productive farming system, rather than a separate land management practice, disseminating such a message will need inputs from many different technical departments. It will also need a cadre of technicians capable of seeing production systems as a whole, from the land users viewpoint, while simultaneously understanding interactions between production, off-farm priorities and the maintenance of the natural resource base.
In many countries the institutional responsibility for combatting soil degradation still rests with a separate soil conservation section or department. Typically with its own team of technical specialists and equipment (graders, bulldozers etc). There are some who believe that there should be one clearly defined government ministry, department or unit with overall responsibility for conservation and with authority to coordinate (Sanders 1992a). Others believe on the contrary that the need is for the soil conservation specialists to be integrated as subject matter specialists within the government line departments responsible for agricultural development and extension activities (Hudson 1992, Douglas 1992b). What is clear is that most countries in the Asia Pacific region should develop appropriate institutional arrangements that will enable the efforts of the soil conservation specialists to be integrated into routine agricultural development activities at the field level.
The institutional situation is further complicated where different departments and ministries have overlapping duties and responsibilities with regard to the promotion of SARM. In Sri Lanka for example, some 26 separate institutions are responsible for natural resource management (Dent and Goonewardene 1993), whereas in Indonesia seven different ministries are involved in the national forest, soils and water conservation programme (see box 37). Effective inter-departmental and inter-ministerial collaboration is needed if field-level SARM activities are to be implemented as an integral part of agricultural development programmes. This is in practice often hard to achieve given differing areas of interest, perceived costs and benefits, work priorities, budget allocations and chains of command between the different agencies involved (Douglas 1992b).
In most of the Pacific countries agriculture and forestry are within the same Ministry, although usually in different departments. Such an institutional arrangement can facilitate cooperation between forestry and agriculture technical specialists in the development of SARM approaches like agroforestry. However in Asia, although commonly at one time part of the same Ministry, there are now separate Ministries of Agriculture and Forestry which often have a poor record of collaboration. Vietnam has gone against the Asian trend when at the end of 1996 it merged the separate Ministries of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries into one (Tran Van Son personal communication).
Increasing concern with environmental issues and a commensurate growth in interest in soil and water conservation has led to interventions in this field by many donors and agencies. Differences in strategies, approaches and even technical methods may lead to duplication of effort and confusion or resentment on the part of land users (IFAD 1992). This therefore raises the need for coordination at both the national and grassroots levels.
Box 38 The Aga Khan Rural Support Programme (AKRSP) is an NGO working with village communities in Gujurat to promote and catalyse community participation in natural resource management. AKRSP focuses on the formation of village institutions to implement the villagers' resource conservation plans. This approach has shown that programmes managed by local institutions result in higher investment by farmers in soil, water and nutrient conservation. Local villagers trained as paraprofessionals were able to create demand for their services of planning, management and monitoring. Agricultural productivity has increased by 30% to 100% over a two to three year period. Soil loss has been reduced and out-migration slowed. Many paraprofessionals are seen as a key resource. They have become confident enough to help promote similar activities in neighbouring areas. The Society for People's Education and Economic Change (SPEECH) has been working in Kamarajar District of Tamil Nadu since 1986. This region is one of the most disadvantaged of the state, and is known for its acute droughts, erratic monsoons, poor services and entrenched socio-economic and cultural division. SPEECH has helped to build and strengthen local groups and institutions in 45 villages. For example in Paraikulum village, villagers have rehabilitated 30 ha of the upper watershed, bringing severely degraded land under the plough for the first time in 20 years. They have constructed contour bunds and structures for channelling and harvesting water. They have dug a new well, and have developed new arrangements for sharing labour between men and women to maintain these new technologies. Now more water percolates into the soil and recharges the wells. Surfacewater is better channelled into the tank, which gives villagers a second crop on the irrigated lands. Using only locally available resources, this village of 100 households now produces an extra 100 tonnes of rice every year. The novelty of the approach is beginning to be recognised by government departments. a senior engineer of the Agriculture Department visited Paraikulum. He accepted for the first time that it was important to involve farmers before planning any project for them. Now government has made participatory methods a part of their nearby large watershed project, and are paying village motivators from Paraikulum to help them. Source Hinchcliffe et al 1995. |
There is a growing consensus on the need at the national level for a committee or commission to advise on the detailed formulation of SARM strategy, the development of policy, the coordination of activities and the monitoring of progress (FAO 1990a, Sanders 1992, IFAD 1992). The committee can be made up of senior government officials and representatives from different areas and from special interest groups such as farmer associations and grower cooperatives. It should also include representatives from the government departments responsible for macro-economic policy and budget allocation. This helps to ensure both the amount and continuity of financing needed in the battle to halt land degradation. Such a committee should be formed initially to develop strategy and policy but should remain in existence to monitor progress, help revise and reformulate policy where necessary, and ensure coordination between the different government departments, non-government organizations and farmer organizations involved (FAO 1990a) (see box 39).
Box 39 A Sustainable Farming Systems Working Group has recently been formed in Vanuatu to coordinate and monitor farming systems activities. Government research officers, extension agents, development projects and NGOs working in the country, are all represented in this group. The Chief Extension Officer was elected secretary of the group to ensure close contacts with the farming community. Source: Steve Rogers quoted in FAO/IRETA 1995. |
Box 40 The Nepal sub-project of the FAO/Government of Italy Inter-regional Project for Participatory Upland Conservation and Development sought to establish a Project Coordination Committee (PCC) in Gorkha District to foster better coordination among the line agencies. It was to be composed of the chairman of the District Development Committee as chairman, National Project Director as secretary, Chief District Officer as advisor, and with the District Forest Officer, Chief Agriculture Development Officer, District Irrigation Officer, District Livestock Officer, Local Development Officer and project CTA as members of the committee. Periodic attempts were made to convene the PCC but as of October 1994 it had not met (Prakash Regmi personal communication). There was apparently some renewed interest in the PCC and discussions were going on to try and make it functional. From the point of view of trying to institutionalise an inter-sectoral and interdepartmental approach to participatory upland conservation and development, that would continue post project, the mandate of such a committee should be expanded to coordinate activities and promote collaboration at the district level rather than just within the area, and for the life, of a project. |
Coordination is also needed at the district and provincial levels. In some situations this may be easier than coordination at the national level. For instance in China the national programmes and responsibilities of the Ministries of Agriculture, Forestry and Water Resources (the latter is responsible for soil conservation) are separate. However in Fujian Province the Agricultural Committee, through the Provincial Agricultural Comprehensive Development Office, has the mandate to coordinate joint agriculture and conservation activities. Similar agricultural committees exist at the prefecture, county and township levels. However the degree to which the staff from the soil conservation, agriculture and forestry bureaus actually coordinate their activities varies considerably from place to place. The mechanism for collaboration exists but is not always used in practice.
Effective institutional coordination can avoid conflicting messages going to, and conflicting demands made on, farmers from different programmes and agencies. By involving government line agencies and NGOs and developing an inter-agency mechanism for coordinating activities such a committee would have a rationale for continuing post project, unlike an isolated special project management/coordination unit (see box 40).
There is a role for such inter-agency agricultural resource management committees to operate at each level of government (e.g. regional, provincial, county/municipality) as a means of communication and coordinating planning between the various government departments and NGOs involved in field level extension and development activities. The need for coordination of development activities arises because the presence of many agricultural, forestry and soil and water conservation related projects and programmes can create difficulties. Notably differences between projects and programmes with regard to such factors as different incentives for extension agents and farmers, clashes in philosophy and approach in a district or region, and conflicting competence
The major objectives of such committees should be to:
Representation on the committee should comprise all concerned agencies operating at the respective level. The chairman could be the most senior administrative official at the appropriate level. Committee activities could cover:
The implementation of a SARM programme requires that the various external technical supporting agencies involved should have the skilled manpower, finance, and equipment needed to deliver the services required from them. Also, the staff of such support agencies must believe in what they are doing, be dedicated and committed to the work, and sensitive to the social and cultural norms of the communities in which they operate. If these conditions are not met then an institutional development and strengthening component would need to be included in the programme. Given the realities of limited government revenue budget in most of the Asia Pacific region, the scope for increasing staff numbers is limited. The main focus of any external project assistance for institutional strengthening should therefore be on enhancing the skills (training) of existing staff and providing them with the means (vehicles, equipment, extension/training materials, office facilities, finance etc) to do the job.
The small size of the population in most of the Pacific Island countries mean that they have limited research and extension officers who can work with farmers to promote SARM. This has its problems; for instance the AuSAID supported Western Samoa Farming Systems Project found it difficult to keep together farming systems teams due to the limited number of skilled staff available and the conflicting demands for their services (Peter Wood personal communication).
Likewise, given the small pool of agricultural and forestry research and extension officers within the Pacific, their attendance at regional workshops and training activities can have an adverse impact on their routine work programme, as there may be no one to can take over their duties during their absence.
However there is an advantage to small numbers. During the life of a national or regional institutional strengthening programme it would be possible to sensitise and train everyone directly concerned with the promotion of SARM at the field level - something that, because of the size of their Ministries of Agriculture and Forestry, would be impossible for all but a very few Asian countries.
Government programmes should acknowledge the presence and the potential of NGOs, which often have comparative advantages when it comes to contact with resource users at the local level. There is much to be gained by collaboration with such organizations (IFAD 1992).
Both in programme design and in execution, NGOs can make a valuable contribution. The original credit for the development and packaging of the sloping agricultural land technology (SALT), widely promoted within the Asia Pacific region, lies with staff of the Mindanao Baptist Rural Life Centre in Davao del Sur, the Philippines, and not with government conservation experts or researchers. Much of the pioneering work with the development of participatory rural appraisal tools has been undertaken by NGOs active in India (see Mascarenhas et al 1991). International NGOs such as ILEIA (the Information Centre for Low-External-Input and Sustainable Agriculture), and many national NGOs in developing countries are at the forefront of promoting alternative low cost techniques for sustaining soil productivity (see Reijntjes et al 1992).
Local insights and links of NGOs with local institutions offer important advantages. Their administrative procedures may be simpler and their overheads lower, all of which may mean a more direct impact on a larger number of land users. Governments and NGOs therefore need to coordinate their activities more closely (IFAD 1992). That this can be done is illustrated by the ANIAD project in the Philippines (see box 35).
However, collaboration with NGOs does not offer a panacea. Their capacity to implement conservation programmes should not be overestimated and they may need support, financially and technically, from government agencies. There is growing plethora of NGOs in the region. Many of these may be urban-based, consist of 1 or 2 individuals and have been created as a means of gaining access to donor funds. Some are little more than commercial consulting companies but call themselves NGOs as this is more politically attractive to donors. Care needs to taken when advocating the use of NGOs as an alternative to government services to ensure that the NGOs used do offer something different and better.
NGO projects are usually characterised by being small, directed towards a small target group, in a small area and linked only loosely or not at all to national programmes. This makes them less likely to spread or act as a catalyst. Also only governments and government sponsored donors (bilateral and multilateral agencies) have the resources to operate at a regional or national level.
It is also clear that a key element in the success of many NGO projects is the presence of one or two highly motivated individuals, prepared to make a long-term commitment to the project area, often for little remuneration. This is a lesson that regrettably cannot be transferred to government projects which reduces the replicability of many NGO successes (Douglas 1994).
Many institutions operating at the international, regional and/or sub-regional level, within the Asia Pacific region, are involved in SARM related projects and programmes.
ESCAP chairs an interagency committee on environment and sustainability for the various UN agencies active in the region, which has prepared a regional action programme on environment and sustainable development for ESCAP execution. However it would appear that there is little effective coordination of activities and often conflicting approaches being promoted by different agencies. Watershed management being one area where some agencies, and UNDP backed projects, are still into the discredited top-down physical planning approach whereas others are actively seeking more participatory bottom up approaches working with communities rather than physical units.
Box 41 The Asia Soil Conservation Network for the Humid Tropics (ASOCON) was formed with UNDP/FAO support in 1989 but became an independent network in 1993. The network aims to assist its member countries, through a programme of information exchange, regional workshops, expert consultations and learning activities to enhance the skills and expertise of those responsible for the development and dissemination of soil and water conservation practices for small-scale farmers. The ultimate objective is to help small-scale farmers in South-east Asia use the land that is available to them more sustainably and more productively. ASOCON activities include collecting and disseminating information about soil conservation, documenting successful soil conservation practices, publishing a newsletter, preparing case studies of soil conservation projects, organising workshops and seminars, launching regional programmes, promoting the exchange of research and extension information, and providing advice and training for national programmes. ASOCON members include China (southeastern provinces), Indonesia, Malaysia (provisionally), Papua New Guinea, the Philippines, Thailand and Vietnam. Each member country has a National Network Coordinating Committee, whose function is to assist the National Coordinator in coordinating ASOCON activities within the country. Membership of the Coordinating Committee includes representatives from all the different national agencies involved in soil conservation. The National Coordinators form the Network Consultative Board which, as both the steering committee and the policy-forming body, determines ASOCON's work programme. Contact address: ASOCON, Manggala Wanabakti Block VII, Lantai 6, Jalan Gatot Subroto, P.O. Box 7632 JKB, Jakarta 10076, Indonesia Source FAO 1995b |
A variety of international research institutions with interests in SARM have their headquarters in the region, notably:
In addition the International Council for Research in Agroforestry (ICRAF) which has its headquarters in Nairobi Kenya has a sub-office in Bogor Indonesia with particular responsibility for programmes in Southeast Asia. What is missing from the above list is any international research centre looking specifically at the improvement and development of the traditional subsistence food crops of the Pacific, notably taro, yam and sweet potato. The IBSRAM PACIFICLAND network is one of the few programmes supported by an international research institution currently looking at SARM related issues within the Pacific.
In addition the Australian Council for International Agricultural Research (ACIAR) and the Canadian International Development Research Centre (IDRC) support a variety of bilateral and regional research and information exchange initiatives related to SARM in the Asia Pacific region. Likewise the World Conservation Union (IUCN) collaborates with several countries in the region on environmental conservation with particular emphasis on the preparation of national conservation strategies.
Several regional collaborative TCDC programmes have made valuable contributions to the coordination of knowledge on SARM, developed a variety of SARM technologies and participatory planning methodologies and provided policy guidelines of action. Some of the key programmes are the following:
Ever since the founding of the South Pacific Commission 50 years ago by the colonial powers then in the Pacific, the small territories and expanding number of independent nations have found intra-regional activities, organizations and cooperation to be invaluable. By now there are about 300 regional organizations in the Pacific carrying out a wide range of functions that would normally be confined to a single larger nation, but that a smaller Pacific nation cannot carry out effectively alone (Clarke 1994). The South Pacific countries have also observed the benefits to be gained when they group together as a unit on a global playing field where size as well as economic and political power matter. The following are believed to be the key regional institutions and programmes related to SARM currently operating in the Pacific:
There is concern as to what will happen to the various projects on the termination of PRAP. The SPC Agriculture Programme may be able to take over some elements of the individual projects, but the Pacific Island countries do not yet have the technical and financial resources to sustain all the current project activities.