Integrating nutrition into the curricular of agriculture education institutions
My contribution starts from the last question on experience from incorporating new ideas into training curricular. I draw my experience from working with natural resources management NGOs based in Kenya with activities in Eastern and Southern Africa - one of the projects was coordinated by FAO in the 1990s and early 2000s.
The activity focused on the introduction and incorporation of collaborative natural resources management into forestry training institutions (colleges and universities). The project resource consuming but the end result was worth the effort. The process involved analyzing existing curricular of the training institutions, which revealed a mostly plantation forestry orientation with scientific management processes and management practices of forest guards to keep intruders – too far apart from collaborative forest management which involves stakeholders (local communities, government departments, training institutions, industry, etc.). We implemented community-based research to identify the reality on the ground. Then identified and involved trainers (lecturers) and decisions makers (administration) from forestry training institutions in field visits and informational sessions on benefits of collaborative management. Once the individuals bought into the idea, we facilitated sessions for representatives from training institutions, the Ministry in charge of forestry and the private sector.
The question of resources required to make revisions to an educational curricular came up – financial, human, publications and more. We created and strengthen networks at local and international levels, especially for the sharing of case studies and available training materials. Luckily for us, the FAO Coordinated FTPP programme was global, therefore easier to strengthen networks, especially with projects and training institutions in countries of Asia where community and collaborative forestry had taken route. The financial part involved the establishment of collaborative programs with colleges and universities and mobilizing financial resources for project implementation. We relied on our networks for field visits (by trainers from colleges and universities, government, private sectors and forest adjacent communities) for the purpose of learning from others. The result was a revised Forest Act in support of collaborative forest management, which indirectly required training institutions to make revisions to their curriculum, which was a manageable task for the trainers and decision-makers had been exposed to information and case studies on successful collaborative natural resources management projects. The lesson learnt was that the integration of new ideas into existing curricular involves awareness creation, sensitization on benefits of collaboration, mobilization of resources (financial, human, case studies, how-to-manuals) and availability of supportive policy.
Thank you for the timely topic.
Integrating nutrition into the curricular of agriculture education institutions
My contribution starts from the last question on experience from incorporating new ideas into training curricular. I draw my experience from working with natural resources management NGOs based in Kenya with activities in Eastern and Southern Africa - one of the projects was coordinated by FAO in the 1990s and early 2000s.
The activity focused on the introduction and incorporation of collaborative natural resources management into forestry training institutions (colleges and universities). The project resource consuming but the end result was worth the effort. The process involved analyzing existing curricular of the training institutions, which revealed a mostly plantation forestry orientation with scientific management processes and management practices of forest guards to keep intruders – too far apart from collaborative forest management which involves stakeholders (local communities, government departments, training institutions, industry, etc.). We implemented community-based research to identify the reality on the ground. Then identified and involved trainers (lecturers) and decisions makers (administration) from forestry training institutions in field visits and informational sessions on benefits of collaborative management. Once the individuals bought into the idea, we facilitated sessions for representatives from training institutions, the Ministry in charge of forestry and the private sector.
The question of resources required to make revisions to an educational curricular came up – financial, human, publications and more. We created and strengthen networks at local and international levels, especially for the sharing of case studies and available training materials. Luckily for us, the FAO Coordinated FTPP programme was global, therefore easier to strengthen networks, especially with projects and training institutions in countries of Asia where community and collaborative forestry had taken route. The financial part involved the establishment of collaborative programs with colleges and universities and mobilizing financial resources for project implementation. We relied on our networks for field visits (by trainers from colleges and universities, government, private sectors and forest adjacent communities) for the purpose of learning from others. The result was a revised Forest Act in support of collaborative forest management, which indirectly required training institutions to make revisions to their curriculum, which was a manageable task for the trainers and decision-makers had been exposed to information and case studies on successful collaborative natural resources management projects. The lesson learnt was that the integration of new ideas into existing curricular involves awareness creation, sensitization on benefits of collaboration, mobilization of resources (financial, human, case studies, how-to-manuals) and availability of supportive policy.