The last 20-30 years have seen increasingly heavy investment of financial and human resources, by both the Governments of developing countries and donor agencies, into implementing soil conservation programmes targeted at small-scale farmers. The return on this investment has generally been poor and the land area adversely affected by soil erosion and other forms of land degradation has continued to increase. As a result soil conservation specialists, government departments and aid agencies have begun to question the effectiveness of these programmes and to review the development approaches followed (Douglas 1992b).
To date most soil conservation projects and programmes aimed at SARM have been prepared and implemented using a top down physical planning approach. Typically (after Sanders 1988 Hudson 1991, Shaxson et al 1989, Douglas 1992a,b &c, Norman & Douglas 1994):
The end result of such a top down approach has often been inflexible projects and programmes, with a heavy emphasis on engineering and reforestation solutions. Farmers have typically been offered one conservation package (e.g. terracing) rather than a choice of alternative conservation effective practices from which to choose those that match their particular needs and circumstances.
With such top-down planning the target beneficiaries are largely passive recipients of externally conceived development proposals. All too often, the end result is a lack of enthusiasm for project implementation by the intended beneficiaries, and poor establishment and maintenance of whatever physical structures, hedgerows and woodlots were promoted. Participation where it has occurred has typically been a case where the professionals gather data, analyze it, prepare plans, and then ask the local community if they agree, before requesting mobilization of local resources (notably labour) to implement these plans. Farmers have to date had limited opportunity to be actively involved in the development and decision-making processes inherent in the management of their own areas, and even less in policy formulation.
Despite a major investment in soil conservation programmes throughout the Asia Pacific region soil degradation still poses a threat to the livelihoods of many rural households engaged in small-scale farming. This in turn threatens the economic well-being of the countries in which they live. Past programmes to combat degradation have all too often been ineffectual and as crop and livestock production has expanded so has the area affected by declining soil productivity (Hudson 1991, 1993; Douglas 1994). An alternative approach is needed.
Likewise `top-down' methods of planning and implementing agricultural production projects have commonly met with as little success in developing small-scale agriculture, as many recent conservation projects have in combatting soil erosion. Such agricultural development efforts are typically the work of planners, operating from the headquarters or regional office of the Ministry of Agriculture, unfamiliar with the grassroots situation within individual project areas. In the planning process, the identification, formulation and preparation of such programmes and projects have often taken place with little or no consultation with, and involvement of, the farmers for whom the planned activities are intended, or even the subject matter specialists and extension workers at the district and local level.
The situation may be even worse where project preparation, appraisal and evaluation are undertaken by external consultants (often at the insistence of the donor agency), with the national counterpart staff treated very much as junior partners of the international experts (Hudson 1991). No foreign consultant can ever expect to have the same inherent feeling for the social, economic and political factors at play as a national who shares the same cultural background as the project beneficiaries. There is a tendency among many donor agencies to undervalue the greater local knowledge, as well as skills and expertise, of the staff within national development agencies.
Agricultural development projects have often tried to improve farm production by narrowly focusing on only one factor at a time, for instance a single commodity (e.g. cotton production), or specific technology (e.g. large scale irrigation or mechanisation). Other projects have assumed the desired results can be achieved by improving individual farming practices, often in isolation of other factors. The focus may be on promoting a specific input e.g. a high yielding crop variety, improved livestock breed, particular chemical fertilisers or pesticides. Many management practices and improved technologies recommended by such projects fail to be adopted, in large part because only a minor aspect of the farmer's situation was looked at, and no attempt was made to take account of all the factors that influence the decision on whether to accept an innovation. Despite the considerable financial and human resources devoted to rural and agricultural development many past efforts have yielded poor results because too little attention has been paid to the whole farm household system, including its knowledge, constraints and development potential (FAO 1990d, Douglas 1992a).
The conventional approach to conservation has likewise been to plan from the top down. Typically the conservation `expert' goes out, identifies the `problem' in the field (usually perceived as loss of soil, gullying or downstream sedimentation), arrives at a solution with the aid of pre-determined technical guidelines and only involves the farmers through an extension package at the implementation stage. All too often soil conservation has been promoted as a separate land management exercise rather than as an integral part of a productive farming system. Likewise soil conservation projects (or the conservation components of integrated rural development projects) have commonly been undertaken in isolation of other agricultural and rural development activities (Douglas 1992a, 1992c).
It is possible to recognise two key elements underlying the new approach to sustainable land use that has emerged from the lessons learnt from past failures and successes - namely people's participation and better land husbandry (Douglas 1993, 1994, 1995; Shaxson 1995).
The first element of the new approach - people's participation - derives from a realisation of the failings inherent in the past `top-down' methods used to plan and implement soil conservation and agricultural production projects (Chambers et al 1989). Sustainable rural development requires a `bottom-up' approach, one in which the project beneficiaries actively participate. For too long farmers have been the passive recipients of externally derived research and extension recommendations. The new approach aims to enhance farmers' inherent skills and capability to develop and disseminate their own technologies (Chambers 1993a).
The second element - better land husbandry - represents a shift in emphasis away from soil conservation per se to a more holistic approach. The concept of husbandry is widely understood when applied to crops and animals. As a concept signifying understanding, management and improvement, it is equally applicable to land. Thus (ABLH 1994):
Land husbandry is the care and management of the land for productive purposes - only through sound land husbandry can the land's productive potential be sustained and enhanced. |
The better land husbandry idea derives from the belief that farmers can manage and improve (husband) their land resources thereby enabling their use for productive purposes on a sustainable basis.
To quote from Land Husbandry, A Framework for Soil and Water Conservation (Shaxson et al 1989) the
. . . primary objective of land management should be improved, sustainable production through good land husbandry. Control of soil erosion follows as a consequence. This is a reversal of the previous idea that it is necessary to conserve the soil in order to get better crops. |
What has been termed the better land husbandry approach is based on two key principles:
The following are some of the key concepts that underlie the better land husbandry approach (Shaxson et al 1989, Hudson and Cheatle 1993, Lundgren and Taylor 1993, Hudson 1988a, 1992; Douglas 1993, 1994, Shaxson 1995) :
The promotion of better land husbandry involves (after Chinene et al 1996) the following:
Working with farmers for better land husbandry will require major changes on the part of those used to the more conventional approaches to soil conservation. Three important ones are as follows (after Hudson and Cheatle 1993, Norman and Douglas 1994):
The technical specialist in the better land husbandry approach is a facilitator, someone who helps the farming community solve its own problems, and whose expertise is used in a consultancy capacity to complement the knowledge that already exists within the community. Instead of making recommendations the technical specialist should primarily offer advice and information concerning alternative conservation effective management practices that have been developed and adopted in other farming communities, with similar problems, bio-physical and socio-economic circumstances (Douglas 1992a, 1992c).
The technical specialists working with farmers in a participatory planning exercise ultimately have to write a report of their work and pass on their findings to senior decision-makers and other interested parties. They also need to prepare a formal project document, i.e. one that conforms to the requirements of a funding agency, should there be a need for additional financial and technical manpower resources to implement the agreed development plan. But what appears in the report and any project document should be based on a joint investigation, analysis and design process that has recognised and used the complementary skills and expertise of the farming community and the technical specialists.
The concept of conservation effectiveness is integral to SARM and the better land husbandry approach. It involves assessing farmers' existing practices, as well as research derived improved technologies according to whether they are (Douglas 1992a):
To meet the requirements for SARM/better land husbandry a farm management practice must not only be productive (financially viable in the short-term) but also environmentally sustainable (i.e. conservation effective over the medium to long-term).
Many farm management practices are beneficial from a conservation point of view, hence can be described as conservation effective. Such practices would be related to one or more of the following (after Hudson 1988b):
One of the most important lessons that has emerged from experience with soil conservation programmes is that professionals need to recognise that they are not the sole repositories of knowledge (Stocking 1991).
Land use planning conventionally relies on the skills of natural resource specialists for the collection, analysis, mapping and classification of the natural environment. Because farmers do not classify land according to nationally or internationally defined criteria, little attention has been paid to their indigenous knowledge of the bio-physical characteristics of the area in which they farm. Farmers generally have a good knowledge of the local natural environment and often recognise and exploit a wide range of micro agro-ecological environments than the natural resource specialist could ever hope to map and classify (Douglas 1992a). They have their own criteria for classifying differences in the bio-physical factors affecting their farming systems, which will often be based on practical management attributes. Different land forms may be classified, and given specific names, according to their suitability for different land uses (box 42).
Soil conservation specialists have tended to assume that farmers were ignorant of any form of soil conservation until their intervention. In reality very few traditional agricultural societies do not practice soil conservation, which may include specific practices for erosion control and nutrient replenishment. Without such measures their farming would have been highly unstable and they could not have survived. Farmers may not be able to give technical reasons for using a particular technique, merely seeing it as something that works well and which their ancestors found useful (Wood and Humphreys 1982).
Farmers have developed and used a wide range of land management practices to maintain and enhance soil fertility and productivity. The specific techniques vary according to the local bio-physical and cultural circumstances. There are many examples from around the world of how different farming communities developed their own forms of such `modern' conservation techniques as agroforestry, minimum tillage, terracing, contour planting, enriched fallow, green manuring, ground cover maintenance etc. (see ASOCON 1991, Kerr and Sanghi 1992 for examples of indigenous conservation practices in different parts of Asia and the Pacific).
Box 42 In Valderrama, Antique Province, the Philippines farmers have their own traditional system for classifying the landforms of the uplands. The classification is very much based on the uses to which individual units can be put. Bakolod: Top of a hill (cultivated or not). Bakilid: Areas with very steep slopes and not cultivated; usually covered by grasses or forest. Banglid: Areas with steep slopes, which can normally not be ploughed; they are therefore usually not planted with rice or maize but with crops like cassava, banana, pigeon peas or are covered with grasses and/or trees. Areas covered with a mixture of trees and grasses are often referred to as buruyan, or pasture land. Bantod: Areas with steep slopes, which can still be ploughed; this land is therefore often used for the cultivation of rice and maize. Datag: Any flat area, and Datag hagdan hagdan: Terraced area. The parcels on these lands are bunded and used for rice cultivation. The bunds are called kahon, and the whole parcel, including the kahon is called kinahon. Datag tubig: Is either flat or terraced land that is irrigated. Labangan: Is a flat area within or close to the river bed, bunded with kinahon made of stones. This is done to trap finer sediments and to reclaim land. Danaw: Waterlogged area. (Source Arano et al 1992) |
Many soil conservation experts are still surprisingly ignorant of farmers' own techniques, which are either not noticed or deliberately ignored. This is a mistake. Many traditional soil and water conservation techniques are quite effective. Others were effective in the past, when conditions were different - land more abundant and rainfall better (Critchley 1991). It is clear that in the search for improved conservation farming practices much can be learned from farmers' indigenous conservation techniques.
Within the Pacific traditional agroforestry systems include a great number of species and take different forms (Clarke 1977). However, these agroforestry systems have been little noticed by outsiders, who have not recognised nor understood that the forests and woodlands around villages and between gardens of annual plants are largely the product of selection, protection and planting by local people, who harvest a wide variety of food, beverage, and other materials from the trees. As one paper (Clarke 1997) puts it,
It is ironic that although these systems extend back thousands of years in western Melanesia and are present everywhere in the Pacific, there have been several projects attempting in recent years to introduce to the Pacific Islands simple agroforestry systems based on one or two alien trees. |
The term indigenous is used to refer to the farmer's `own' practices, and covers both traditional practices and ones developed recently by innovative farmers in response to changing circumstances. They are distinct from research-derived technologies adopted as the result of following extension advice. This distinction is important as farmers are far from being conservative land users sticking obstinately to traditional practices. In reality they constantly experiment, adapt and innovate, within the resources available to them, with the aim of making adaptive improvements to their farming systems (Richards 1985 and Chambers et al 1989).
Farmers' indigenous techniques may no longer be adequate in the light of changing circumstances (eg land pressure, changing market opportunities, introduction of new crop and livestock enterprises etc.). However they can provide the starting point from which to make adaptive improvements. As one author wrote,
The easiest way to encourage farmer participation (and to insure that a method is sound!) is to modify practices which are already well known to the farmer (Fones-Sundell 1989). |
Several others recommend that soil and water conservation techniques should where possible build on indigenous practices with which land users are already familiar, rather than introduce new technologies (Critchley 1991, IFAD 1992).
A report on sustainable agriculture in the Pacific (Clarke 1994) noted that traditional knowledge and custom are highly prized in the Pacific, both actually and rhetorically. This includes a number of examples of sustainable sophisticated agronomic techniques well adapted to specific Pacific environments, such as the Cyrtosperma pits on atolls, irrigated taro terraces on slopes, or composted yam and sweet potato cultivation. some of these techniques are dropping out of use because they are labour intensive or because of the introduction of new crops. They do however offer possibilities for experimentation today.
Two other aspects of traditional agriculture in the Pacific that are relevant to SARM are the large number of intra-species cultivars and a widespread, highly developed system of agroforestry (Clarke 1994). For example, single islands might have over 100 named varieties of breadfruit or scores of varieties of taro; these had different ecological requirements and different harvest periods so that spatial and temporal use of the crop was expanded. Many of these cultivars are disappearing, which means the loss of a potentially valuable agricultural resource.
Likewise in Asia when external agencies work closely with farmers to document the variety and performance of their crops, the results can be extraordinary. Many have found varieties that perform well in low external input conditions (box 43). The Phrey Phdau rice research station in Cambodia has collected 1320 local rice varieties with the help of Oxfam. One local variety, 2-Somrung 2, yields 5 t/ha under low-external conditions. another, Prambei Khoe compares equally with IR42 on yield terms and has superior straw production and grain quality (Pretty 1995).
SARM requires the adoption of a farming systems development perspective (Douglas 1992a). Farming systems development (FSD) is the name given to an approach promoted by the Farm Management and Production Economics Service of FAO as an alternative to the past `top-down' agricultural development planning approaches (FAO 1989). It is a development of the approach popularly known as farming systems research (FSR) and uses a systems approach to identify existing and potential agricultural development problems and their possible solutions at the farm-household and community level.
FSD is seen as complementing more conventional component research and development programmes. As such it does not exclude component research or component advice providing it is part of a comprehensive farming systems approach. It differs from existing development approaches in that it takes as its basis for planning and implementing development interventions, an understanding of the interrelations of farm-households and communities within their physical, socio-cultural and institutional/political environment.
Box 43 The MASIPAG programme was established in 1986 to encourage farmers' participation in the development of improved varieties which yield well under low-external input conditions. The programme has:
Source Salazar 1992. |
FSD emphasises the need to view a farming system as a whole and not as separate land use enterprises. It likewise recognises the complexity and inter-relationships between different enterprises and the influences on these from within and outside the farm household. It focuses on the needs, constraints and circumstances of the household members and not just the agro-ecological characteristics of the land holding, the physical risks of erosion nor the environmental requirements of the component land use enterprises (Douglas 1993b).
FSD is an approach that reviews the constraints to, and assess the potentials for, development. It encourages the appraisal of alternative technologies and consideration of the means to provide more efficient support services and effective policies. It emphasises the active participation of the rural communities in a continuous, dynamic and iterative learning process involving analysis, planning, testing, monitoring and evaluation of community based development options (FAO 1990d).
The main objective of the FSD approach is "the improvement of farm-household systems and rural communities on a sustainable basis" (FAO 1989). The immediate objectives are:
FSD is therefore built on the development principles of improving productivity, increasing profitably, ensuring sustainability and attaining equitability in terms of distribution of the fruits of production (Norman 1991).
Whereas the FSD approach stresses sustainability and has much to offer in this regard, much of the work conducted so far falls short of what is needed for promoting sustainable land use. Given that FSD work has usually been conducted by small teams of agronomists and economists the tendency has been to concentrate attention on the agronomic and financial aspects of crop production. It is clear that conservation concerns are only likely to be given due prominence when conservation specialists take the lead in setting up farming systems teams, or are included in them in recognition of the importance of their disciplinary perspective (Douglas 1992d).
What has been termed the Farmer-First approach was developed to counter the mistakes of `top-down' development. Instead of starting with the knowledge, problems, analysis and priorities of the development specialists, it aims to start with the knowledge, problems, analysis and priorities of farm households. In the Intermediate Technology publication Farmer-First (Chambers et al 1989) the main objective of the farmer-first approach is described as
.. . . . not to transfer known technology, but to empower farmers to learn adapt and do better; analysis is not by outsiders - scientists, extensionists, or NGO workers - on their own but by farmers assisted by outsiders; ..... what is transferred by outsiders to farmers is not precepts but principles, not messages but methods, not a package of practices to be adopted but a basket of choices from which to select. |
Box 44 Participatory planning processes demand time from local land users. Many land users are involved in a daily struggle for survival and simply cannot afford to participate. This is one of many reasons why the poor are often left out of development planning. But people involved in participatory planning exercises frequently find lengthy cooperative procedures with outsiders a waste of time. "Why can we not just solve the issue in an hour or two with a local extensionist who is already familiar with the situation?" Many people do not want to participate in collective processes. But should they simply be left out in countries where more conventional services are being replaced by participatory learning and action processes? Those who initiate participatory processes often have a superficial understanding of how power is distributed locally. Consequently, they may expose vulnerable groups in ways that are harmful. It is a well-known fact that elites commonly monopolise public gatherings. Participatory planning may therefore strengthen the position of such elites rather than provide opportunities for less privileged groups to improve their lot. Experience has shown that even development projects directly targeted at the poor often fail to include the most marginal groups. The initiative for `participation' usually comes from outside donors and may be a condition for support rather than an open, non-binding offer. This is because the ultimate rationale is to serve the needs of current debate in the West just as much as perceived needs in local communities, although this is not openly acknowledged. By giving farmers freedom of choice, policy-makers and project staff in the field transfer the responsibility for success or failure to the land users themselves. Participatory exercises are often performed unprofessionally and may not correctly reflect local conditions and aspirations. They may in fact be a form of coercion in the guise of democracy. Too many cases have already been reported in which `consultants' describe quick, sloppy work using the rhetoric of participatory planning. Source after Pretty et al 1995. |
Most of the reported examples of Farmer First research activities (e.g. Chambers et al 1989) relate to solving crop production problems, such as testing different cultivars, cropping patterns and crop protection measures. The need is to find ways in which the conservation dimension can be incorporated into this approach given that soil conservation as such is not a priority farmer goal, hence of less immediate appeal. Farmers may be willing to participate in screening programmes for the selection of preferred pigeon pea varieties by planting different varieties in small plots (as has been done by ICRISAT in India), but would be less interested in participating in a screening programme involving constructing different conservation works within their fields.
Promoting soil conservation as an integral part of a farming system rather than a separate land management exercise (crucial to SARM) opens up the possibilities for farmer involvement in the development of improved crop husbandry, animal husbandry and land husbandry practices. Thus farmers become involved indirectly in the development of SARM practices through their interest in sustaining and increasing production (Douglas 1993b).
There is a long history of community participation in agricultural development. Many development agencies, both national and international, have attempted to involve people in some aspect of planning and implementation. Two schools of thought and practice have evolved (Pretty 1995).
One views community participation as a means to increase efficiency, the central notion being that if people are involved, then they are more likely to agree with and support the new development or service.
The other sees community participation as a right, in which the main aim is to initiate mobilisation for collective action, empowerment and institution building.
In recent years analyses of development projects have increased, showing that `participation' is one of the critical components of success in irrigation, livestock, water and agriculture projects (see page 168 of Pretty 1995). As a result the terms people's participation and popular participation are now part of the normal language of many development agencies, including government departments, NGOs and donors. It has become so much the in word in development circles that almost everyone says that participation is part of their work. This is just one of the dangers associated with the current emphasis on participatory planning (see box 44).
Although there are many ways that development organizations interpret and use the term participation, these resolve into seven clear types (Pretty 1995). These range from passive participation, where people are involved merely by being told what is to happen to self mobilization where people take initiatives independent of external institutions (table 8). It is clear from the typology that the term `participation' should not be accepted without appropriate qualification. The problem with participation as used in types 1 to 4 in table 9.1 is that the "superficial and fragmented achievements have no lasting impact on people's lives (Rahnema 1992). The term participation can be employed, knowing it will not lead to action. If the objective of development is to achieve sustainable development, then nothing less than functional participation will suffice.
All the evidence points towards long-term economic and environmental success coming about when people's ideas and knowledge are valued, and power is given to them to make decisions independently of external agencies (Pretty 1995).
The 1980s saw much innovative work related to people oriented bottom-up planning in a range of subject matter areas and there is a need to draw upon this for SARM. Methods have been developed using rapid rural appraisal (RRA) techniques to identify and analyze farmers circumstances, diagnose their problems and design conservation orientated solutions (see Raintree 1987, Conway et al 1987, Abel et al 1989 and Douglas 1989&92). These offer starting points but the analysis and identification of solutions is still primarily done by the experts. It is bottom up in the sense that it is based on detailed discussions with the target farmers. But it is still appraisal by outsiders followed by them presenting their ideas on the basis of "this is what we think you should be doing to solve the problems we have identified, any objections?" (Douglas 1992c)
RRA has been used to elicit a range and quality of information and insights inaccessible with more traditional methods, not only for farming systems development but also for a range of other social and rural development issues (see Chambers 1992).
Box 45 Good RRA and PRA have the following features in common: 1. A reversal of learning - outsiders learning from and with rural people, on site and face to face. Rural people's criteria, categories, and priorities, and their indigenous technical knowledge are elicited. 2. Learning is rapid and progressive - conscious choice and flexible use of methods to explore important questions as they arise, with improvisation, iteration and probing. 3. Trade-offs - sought between quantity, accuracy, timeliness and relevance of information. 4. Triangulation - used to crosscheck and confirm data and to improve approximations, using several, often three, methods of sources and information. 5. Optimal ignorance is sought - meaning not trying to find out more than is needed, and not making inappropriately precise measurements. The collection is avoided of data that will not be used. 6. Biases are recognised and offset - for example biases of movement and contact which are spatial (where outsiders go), institutional (what organizations they visit), personal (who is met) and temporal (when they go, by seasons and time of day). Special efforts are made to meet those, often women and the poorer, and who tend otherwise to be missed. 7. Team composition balanced - in terms of gender, discipline, and other dimensions, and team interactions are consciously managed. Beyond these common features, PRA has added others which have not been prominent in RRA. These include: 1. They do it - facilitating investigation, analysis, presentation and learning by rural people themselves, so that they own the outcomes. This often entails starting a process and then sitting back and not interviewing or interrupting. 2. Self critical awareness - meaning that practitioners are continuously examining their behaviour, and trying to do better. 3. Relaxing and not rushing - exploiting the paradox that taking plenty of time in PRA is often faster and better than trying to be quick. 4. Embracing error - meaning welcoming error as an opportunity to learn to do better. 5. Using one's own best judgement at all times - meaning accepting personal responsibility rather than vesting it in a manual or rigid set of rules. 6. Sharing of information and ideas - between rural people, between them and practitioners, and between different practitioners, and sharing camps, training and experiences between different organizations. (Chambers 1993b) |
Experience has shown that RRA is a cost-effective way of obtaining relevant information on small-scale farmer circumstances (Norman and Douglas 1993).
RRA has more recently evolved into the approach termed participatory rural appraisal (PRA) which is continuing to evolve. RRA has been described as mainly extractive, whereas PRA in contrast is participatory (Chambers 1992). With RRA outside professionals go to rural areas obtain information and then bring it away to process and analyze. With PRA outside professionals still go to rural areas, but their role is more to facilitate the collection, presentation and analysis of information by rural people themselves. Good RRA and PRA have features in common although PRA has added others which have not been prominent in RRA (see box 45).
A recent paper by Robert Chambers (Chambers 1993a) describes the greatest error of normal professionalism in rural development (and by inference soil conservation programmes) as having been the failure to recognise and enhance farmers' analytical abilities. It has been supposed that only technically trained experts, can identify conservation problems and understand and prescribe for the complexities of farming systems. Experts have undertaken natural resource surveys, land capability classifications and land suitability evaluations, compiled long questionnaires, conducted long interviews, extracted much data and struggled with the analysis in order to decide what should be recommended to farmers as being in their own interests. Farmers have been thought incapable of doing their own data collection and analysis. More and more evidence suggests this is wrong (see Mascarenhas et al 1991). What has been missing is the ability of the experts to facilitate analysis by the farmers.
Recent experience suggests that if rapport, methods and materials are right, farmers whether literate or illiterate, have a much greater ability than outside experts have supposed to map, model, quantify, rank, score, diagram, experiment, observe, analyze, plan, implement and evaluate. What has been wrong has been the behaviour and attitude of the experts, what has been missing has been the ability of the experts to facilitate the farmers own analysis, faith that farmers can do it, and the rapport, methods and materials needed for farmers to express, enhance and analyze what they know (Chambers 1993a).
In its early days RRA seemed little more than organised common sense, and some of the methods had been in use already. During the 1980s, though, much creative ingenuity was applied and more methods invented. In approach there is a distinction between RRA and PRA, but most of the methods are shared (Chambers 1993b). A wide range of PRA methods already exist and new ones are being developed all the time (see box 46). They all have potential for learning from farmers and very importantly allowing the farmers to analyze and describe their own circumstances and providing them with a means of identifying possible solutions to their own problems.
Box 46 The following list gives an idea of the range and variety of RRA/PRA methods currently being used:
|
(after Mascarenhas et al 1991, Douglas 1992a, Chambers 1993b)
It is clear that while the processes that reduce soil productivity are bio-physical the causes will often be a product of the socio-economic and political circumstances in which the land is used. Tackling soil degradation therefore requires the involvement of a range of disciplinary specialists (both natural and social sciences). The consequences of soil degradation will be of concern not only to those agencies with direct responsibility for soil and water conservation at the small-scale farm level, but also to a wide range of other government and non-government organizations involved in rural development issues.
The implications are that implementing a programme for the sustainable use of agricultural soils requires an integrated and multi-sectoral development approach. Whereas the agricultural sector, in the form of the Ministry of Agriculture, can be expected to take the technical lead, agencies in many other sectors may have to be actively involved (e.g. forestry, public works, finance, law).
Yet more may have an interest in the outcome (e.g. health, industry, energy, fisheries etc). Practical difficulties may arise in coordinating the activities of different government departments, bureaus and agencies, all with different sectoral concerns, priorities and work programmes.
There is now general recognition of the need for planning teams, involved in agricultural development and watershed management, to include specialists with different disciplinary backgrounds. Typically such teams would have an economist, an agronomist, and forester. Depending on the area and its development potential the team may include one or more specialists in livestock, irrigation, soil conservation, and marketing. These days it is becoming more common to find a sociologist, in belated recognition of the need to `consult' the beneficiaries. Most planning teams follow what can be described as a multi-disciplinary approach.
It is believed that what is needed is an inter-disciplinary rather than multi-disciplinary approach. The two terms are often wrongly assumed to mean the same thing. In practice they represent different development approaches. Although a multi-disciplinary approach involves the active participation of a number of different disciplinary specialists, it is categorised by the fact that each specialist largely plans, executes and evaluates separately his/her component of an overall programme. For instance the social scientist may deal exclusively with behavioural studies, the agronomist only focus on crop production problems, the soil conservation specialist solely consider soil erosion problems, and the forester only address issues related to the growing and management of trees.
While an inter-disciplinary team will contain a similar range of disciplinary expertise as a multi-disciplinary one, the major difference is that all team members work together to mutually plan, execute and evaluate a programme. The emphasis is on promoting disciplinary interaction with each member contributing to a common analysis from his/her own technical perspective. When formulating SARM programmes the aim should be to initially arrive at a consensus understanding of farm household circumstances (bio-physical and socio-economic). The inter-disciplinary interaction then continuing into the development and appraisal of improved land uses and farm management practices as well as the planning of any project interventions required to assist their adoption.
Table 6. A typology of participation:
How people participate in development programmes and projects.
Typology |
Characteristics of each type |
1. Passive participation |
People participate by being told what is going to happen or has already happened. It is a unilateral announcement by an administration or project management without any listening to people's responses. The information being shared belongs only to external professionals |
2. Participation in information giving |
People participate by answering questions posed by extractive researchers using questionnaire surveys or similar approaches. People do not have the opportunity to influence proceedings, as the findings are neither shared nor checked for accuracy. |
3. Participation by consultation |
People participate by being consulted and external agents listen to views. These external agents define both problems and solutions, and may modify these in the light of people's responses. Such a consultative process does not concede any share in decision making and professionals are under no obligation to take on board people's views. |
4. Participation for material incentives |
People participate by providing resources, for example labour, in return for food, cash or other material incentives. Much on-farm research falls into this category, as farmers provide the fields but are not involved in experimentation or the process of learning. It is very common to see this called participation, yet people have no stake in prolonging activities when the incentives end. |
5. Functional participation |
People participate by forming groups to meet predetermined objectives related to the project, which can involve the development of or promotion of externally initiated social organization. Such involvement does not tend to be at early stages of project cycles or planning, but rather major decisions have been made. These institutions tend to be dependent on external initiators and facilitators, but may become self-dependent. |
6. Interactive participation |
People participate in joint analysis, which leads to action plans and the formation of new local institutions or the strengthening of existing ones. It tends to involve interdisciplinary methodologies that seek multiple perspectives and make use of systematic and structured learning processes. These groups take control over local decisions and so people have a stake in maintaining structures or practices. |
7. Self-mobilization |
People participate by taking initiatives independent of external institutions to change systems. They develop contacts with external institutions for resources and technical advice they need, but retain control over how resources are used. Such self-initiated mobilization and collective action may or may not challenge existing inequitable distributions of wealth and power. |
Source table 6.1 page 173 of Pretty J.N. 1995. Regenerating Agriculture. Earthscan Publications Ltd London
In an inter-disciplinary team the sociologist, for instance, can inform the team members as to the social implications of a technical recommendation, while the economist calculates the financial costs and benefits. Thus ensuring that recommendations are not only technically valid but socially and economically acceptable. In targeting crop and livestock production problems the livestock specialist might recommend cut and carry feeds, the agronomist improved crop combinations and the forester suitable multi-purpose trees. The role of the soil conservation specialist/land use planner being to show how the others' recommendations for the production of annual crops, livestock and trees could be integrated within a farm household's land holding in a conservation-effective manner (e.g. as components of a contour layout). A multi-disciplinary planning team, in which each member is only concerned with his/her component, runs the risk of failing to identify potential options in which different on-farm enterprises and management practices could interact beneficially to enhance the total productivity of a farm.
Within agricultural development circles there appear to be two opposing development strategies to meet future demands for production. There are those who believe that the needs of future generations can only be met by transforming natural resource based low input farming into higher input `science' based agriculture (FAO 1991b). This view is backed up by an FAO study (FAO 1982, 1984) that, by the year 2000, out of a total of 117 developing countries studied, 64 will not be able to meet the minimum dietary requirements of their populations, from their own land resources using low levels of inputs.
The other view is that excessive and unbalanced use of high levels of external (off-farm) inputs can have serious ecological, economic and socio-political consequences (Reijntjes et al 1992). The belief is that monocrop systems, based on high yielding varieties that require high levels of fertiliser and pesticides, cannot be sustained and there should be a shift to low external input mixed farming systems. This view is based on the experience of countries such as India where the `green revolution', involving the adoption of capital intensive agriculture, has led not only to environmental problems but also increasing inequalities between regions and individual households (Singh Hara 1989). Whereas the green revolution has led to major increases in overall food production this is believed to have benefited the better-off farmers and largely bypassed the majority of small-scale farming households.
The primary objective of the first approach is to obtain national food security. The strategy being to promote the use of high levels of purchased inputs, especially in high potential areas. Major drawbacks of this approach are that the seasonal farm costs are high and beyond the capital resources of many small-scale farming households. Also in marginal areas the returns from using fertiliser are commonly low and the risks of crop failure high. A high external input strategy may also cause problems at the national level, for instance a landlocked country, remote island country or one with a shortage of foreign exchange, may find the costs associated with fertiliser and pesticide imports a major burden on its national economy.
With the second approach the objective is to provide for individual household food security. The strategy being to increase the productivity of individual small-scale farmers, in any environment, by enabling them to make better use of inputs (largely organic materials) that can be obtained from the farm and immediate surroundings. The problem with this approach is that many of the low external input systems currently available for the tropics and sub-tropics cannot produce the required output levels or match the net producer returns of the high-input systems they would have to replace (FAO 1990b). Densely populated countries, or those with high populations relative to the available area of good arable land, have to achieve relatively high yields in order to satisfy growing consumption requirements.
It is clear that what is needed is a blending of both approaches with the specific actions being tailored to individual agro-ecological and socio-economic situations (FAO 1990b). What is needed for SARM for productive agricultural purposes is an approach akin to that of integrated pest management (IPM). IPM does not reject the total use of chemical pesticides in favour of organic pest control methods. Instead it calls for a holistic approach whereby pest problems are tackled by combining the use of resistant varieties, improved cultivation and crop hygiene practices, observation of the numbers of pests and predators, with pesticides applied at lower rates and frequencies. Not only does this strategy reduce adverse environmental effects and the risk of pesticide resistance but also reduces costs to the farmer.
SARM requires a similar holistic approach that will both prevent soil productivity losses by erosion and replace nutrients removed from the field in the form of harvested products. This is likely to combine simple soil conservation and water management measures with biological means of nitrogen-fixing, agroforestry based nutrient cycling systems, improved crop husbandry, and better integration of crop and livestock production systems, with mineral fertilisers being applied at lower rates and less often. The use of some external inputs will almost certainly be unavoidable, for instance it is unlikely that the rate at which nutrients (other than nitrogen) and trace elements can be replenished from the weathering of soil parent materials will match the rate of nutrient loss. Some mineral fertiliser will need to be applied periodically to prevent the progressive development of nutrient deficiencies. The aim should be to use external inputs on a need basis, i.e. to supplement, rather than replace, what can be obtained from on farm sources. Thus what is required is better land husbandry combined with the concept of integrated plant nutrition systems (IPNS).