See all ›
56 References
INTEGRATED NATURAL
RESOURCE MANAGEMENT
IN THE HIGHLANDS OF
EASTERN AFRICA
This book documents a decade of research, methodological innovation, and lessons
learned in an eco-regional research-for-development program operating in the
eastern African highlands, the African Highlands Initiative (AHI). It does this through
reflections of the protagonists themselves—AHI site teams and partners applying action
research to development innovation as a means to enhance the impact of their research.
This book summarizes the experiences of farmers, research and development workers,
policy and decision-makers who have interacted within an innovation system with the
common goal of implementing an integrated approach to natural resource management
(NRM) in the humid highlands.
This book demonstrates the crucial importance of “approach” in shaping the
outcomes of research and development, and distils lessons learned on what works,
where and why. It is enriched with examples and case studies from fiv e benchmark sites
in Ethiopia, Uganda, Kenya, and Tanzania, whose variability provides the reader with
an in-depth knowledge of the complexities of integrated NRM in agro-ecosystems
that play an important role in the rural economy of the region. It is shown that the
struggle to achieve sustainable agricultural development in challenging environments
is a complex one, and can only be effectively achieved through combined efforts and
commitment of individuals and institutions with complementary roles.
Laura German is Senior Scientist at the Center for International Forestry Research
in Bogor, Indonesia.
Jeremias Mowo is Regional Coordinator and Senior Scientist at the World
Agroforestry Centre in Nairobi, Kenya.
Tilahun Amede is Nile Basin Leader for the Challenge Programme on Water for Food
and Scientist at the International Livestock Research Institute and the International
Water Management Institute in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
Kenneth Masuki is Knowledge Management Specialist for the African Highlands
Initiative at the World Agroforestry Centre in Nairobi, Kenya.
This page intentionally left blank
INTEGRATED
NATURAL RESOURCE
MANAGEMENT IN
THE HIGHLANDS OF
EASTERN AFRICA
From concept to practice
Edited by Laura German,
Jeremias Mowo, Tilahun Amede,
and Kenneth Masuki
publishing for a sustainable future
International Development Research Centre
Ottawa • Cairo • Dakar • Montevideo • Nairobi • New Delhi • Singapore
First published 2012
by Earthscan
2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN
Simultaneously published in the USA and Canada
by Earthscan
711 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10017
Earthscan is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business
Co-published with the
International Development Research Centre
PO Box 8500, Ottawa, ON K1G 3H9, Canada
info@idrc.ca / www.idrc.ca
(IDRC publishes an ebook edition of this book, ISBN 978-1-55250-530-4)
© 2012 World Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF) and International
Development Research Centre
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or
utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now
known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in
any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing
from the publishers.
Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or
registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and explanation
without intent to infringe.
British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data
A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library
Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data
Integrated natural resource management in the highlands of eastern Africa :
from concept to practice / edited by Laura German ... [et al.].
p. cm.
Includes bibliographical references and index.
1. African Highlands Initiative. 2. Natural resources--Africa, Eastern-
-Management. 3. Upland conservation--Africa, Eastern. 4. Ecosystem
management--Africa, Eastern. 5. Watershed management--Africa, Eastern.
6. Conservation of natural resources--Africa, Eastern. 7. Sustainable
development--Africa, Eastern. I. German, Laura A.
HC840.Z65I58 2011
333.709676--dc22
2011028391
ISBN: 978-1-84971-424-2 (hbk)
ISBN: 978-0-415-69736-1 (pbk)
ISBN: 978-0-203-13918-9 (ebk)
Typeset in Bembo
by GreenGate Publishing Services, Tonbridge, Kent
This book is dedicated to Dr. Ann Stroud—colleague, mentor, and friend. Ann
served as Regional Coordinator of the African Highlands Initiative (AHI) system-
wide program from 1998 to 2006. Ann approached her work as a visionary, with
a remarkable level of personal commitment and a strong philosophical underpin-
ning that gave form to both the program and those of us within its expansive
conceptual and geographical reach. This book is a symbolic gesture of gratitude
for the sacrifices she made so that we all might have a space in which to “create.”
By buffering us from the exigencies of ever-shifting institutional demands of host
institutions and the ongoing challenge to keep the program resourced, we were
free to rally behind her vision and unlock creative energies in an effort to advance
understanding and impact among the poor—whose needs and perspectives have
so often been bypassed by externally imposed development schemes. We rec-
ognize you as the intellectual force behind this volume, and are grateful for the
opportunity to have learned so much at your side.
Ann Stroud was born in California in 1952 and obtained degrees from the
State University of New York at Geneseo (BSc) and Cornell University (MSc,
PhD). After working as a pioneering organic farmer in the USA, she moved to
Africa in 1982, where she lived and worked for 24 years (in Kenya, Ethiopia,
Tanzania, and Uganda). Before working with AHI, her jobs included the design
of a sustainable gardens project in Kenya, employment with FAO as a weed man-
agement adviser to Ethiopia’s Ministry of Agriculture, and national adviser to the
Tanzanian farming systems research program with support provided by DGIS
Netherlands. Ann passed away in May 2007. She leaves behind two children,
Katie and Andrew, husband Roger Kirkby, and her mother, Frances Stroud.
I worked with Ann in the Western Kenya Benchmark site for a long time and
admired her vision and passion for success in whatever she put her fingers on.
She became a great inspiration to us in the benchmark site and to date we are
proud of her for the legacy she bequeathed on us.
Dr. Kenneth Otieno
My colleagues in IDRC appreciated your contributions and all of them are
with me in this acknowledgement and celebration of your life and contri-
butions to development thinking and application in the moment of your
departure. You inspired many who will become your followers and call on
you for inspiration. I know I will, as long as I can stay on this track of the ideals
and objectives we shared and valued so much.
Dr. Luis Navarro
In her short lifetime, Ann made a tremendous contribution to people-centred
research and development—and her enthusiasm and humour and innovative
ideas inspired countless people.
Ann Waters-Bayer
All of us who had the privilege of knowing and working with Ann will recall
her professionalism, her instinctive understanding of the values of inclusive-
ness and participation and the pleasure she gave and took in working with
anybody and everybody. Her illness robbed Africa of an outstanding scientist
and a true friend with a commitment to improving the lives of resource-poor
rural people.
Dr. Monty Jones
Ann was a pioneering, innovative and caring scientist, willing to take risks,
adopting participatory and integrated research as fundamental, and strongly
committed to capacity building. She received a great deal of recognition,
donor and partner support for the work of AHI yet was down to earth, not
seeking honors for herself but constantly promoting others. She always strove
to fully participate, to add value to any meeting or workshop, to bring her
insights and years of experience to enrich any discussion. Ann was the best
colleague one could have.
Diane Russell
In all the spectrum of people I worked with in Africa Ann was one that I
most admired. She had the unique combination of being a good scientist,
having a deep understanding of the needs and aspirations of the farmers and
very effective management skills. But above all she was always a delight to be
with. I have many fond memories of discussions and arguments in workshops
and over lunch or dinner, which always left me with something new to take
away. The world is a lesser place without her; but … her work will remain as a
memorial; she will remain in the thoughts of the countless people she helped.
Dr. Mike Swift
CONTENTS
List of figures ix
List of tables xi
List of boxes xiii
Notes on contributors xvii
Foreword xxii
Preface xxv
Acknowledgments xxvii
List of abbreviations xxix
1 Integrated natural resource managment:
from theory to practice 1
Laura German, Jeremias Mowo, and Chris Opondo
2 Participatory farm-level innovation 38
Tilahun Amede, Charles Lyamchai, Girma Hailu,
Bekele Kassa, Leulseged Begashaw, Juma Wickama,
Adugna Wakjira, and Gebremedhin Woldegiorgis
3 Participatory integrated watershed management 83
Laura German, Waga Mazengia, Simon Nyangas,
Joel Meliyo, Zenebe Adimassu, Berhanu Bekele,
and Wilberforce Tirwomwe
4 Participatory landscape governance 159
Laura German, Waga Mazengia, Simon Nyangas,
Joel Meliyo, Zenebe Adimassu, Berhanu Bekele,
and Wilberforce Tirwomwe
viii Contents
5 District institutional and policy innovations 195
Joseph Tanui, Pascal Sanginga, Laura German,
Kenneth Masuki, Hussein Mansoor, and Shenkut Ayele
6 Institutional change and scaling up 240
Chris Opondo, Jeremias Mowo, Francis Byekwaso,
Laura German, Kenneth Masuki, Juma Wickama,
Waga Mazengia, Charles Lyamchai, Diana Akullo,
Mulugeta Diro, and Rick Kamugisha
Annexes 278
Index 298
FIGURES
1.1 Map of eastern Africa showing AHI mandated areas and
the benchmark sites 14
1.2 Illustration of the relationship between action research
(upper box) and PAR (lower box) 19
2.1 Simplified model of farm level entry point and linked
technologies 58
2.2 Stepwise integration of various technologies and approaches
to improve natural resources management in the
Ethiopian highlands 59
2.3 Integration of food and feed legumes and legume cover
crops into small-scale farms as a function of resource
endowments and market conditions 70
2.4 Levels of technology “spillover” relative to project
interventions 73
3.1 Digital elevation model illustrating hydrological boundaries
and features of Gununo watershed, Ethiopia 87
3.2 Baga watershed demarcated using (village) administrative
boundaries 89
3.3 Relationships between adjacent watershed units and the
need for a flexible interpretation of watershed boundaries 90
3.4 Soil and water management cluster 118
3.5 Integrated production and nutrient management cluster 119
3.6 Hypothetical impact of boundary trees on the yield of
adjacent crops in cases with (b) and without (a) thresholds 129
3.7 Farmers’ perceptions of the relative equitability and benefits of
the AHI/HARC approach as an alternative to that employed by
the Government Extension Service, Areka, Ethiopia 138
3.8 Observed impacts from collective action in porcupine
control 140
4.1 Perceived causal linkage between soil erosion on the
hillsides and soil fertility in the valley bottoms, Lushoto,
Tanzania 167
x Figures
4.2 Livestock holdings by wealth category in four AHI
benchmark sites 168
4.3 UWA communication and decision-making channels
on co-management 174
5.1 Operational framework for participatory policy action research 211
5.2 Gendered patterns of participation in by-law meetings
over time in pilot communities 218
5.3 Information flow in demand-driven information provision 223
5.4 Use of VICE phones in 2008, Rubaya Sub-County,
Kabale District, Uganda 227
6.1 Scaling out and scaling up in AHI 242
6.2 AHI “Learning loops” 243
6.3 Cornerstones for effective research in Ethiopia and
Tanzania 259
Colour plate section (between pages 146 and 147)
1 Farmers in Kwalei village, Lushoto, load up their tomatoes for transport
to Dar es Salaam
2 Metallic hook used to trap mole rats in Areka
3 Participatory map showing locations of year-round (blue dots), seasonal
(circled blue dots), and extinct (red dots) springs in Dule village, Lushoto,
Tanzania
4 Spring in Kwekitui Village, Lushoto, which yields much less water today
than in the past
5 Tolil Watershed Committee in Kapchorwa, Uganda
6 Village representatives involved in participatory watershed planning in
Lushoto, Tanzania
7 Progressive clearing of forest and absence of soil and water conserva-
tion activities in the catchment and riparian zone just upstream of the
Sakharani Mission are believed to have caused sharp declines in the
Mission’s water supply in recent years
8 Introduction to the watershed approach to farmers in Rwanda
9 Seeing is believing: water and sediment collection chambers in Ginchi
BMS make the extent of soil loss visible to farmers
10 Ginchi landscape prior to soil conservation interventions
11 Ginchi farmers exploring terraced landscape at Konso
12 Farmers in Lushoto complain that eucalypts, such as those lining this tea
estate boundary, lead to the drying of nearby springs
13 Cultivation up to the edge of a spring in the Baga watershed, Lushoto
14 Landscape with (bottom) and without (top) natural resource governance
TABLES
1.1 Characteristics of African Highlands Initiative benchmark
sites 17
1.2 Distinctions between participatory action research and
action research as operationalized within AHI 20
1.3 Methodological innovations developed by AHI and
selected reference materials 23
1.4 Number of contributions made to different types of
publications by different contributing partners 31
2.1 Local credit arrangements in Lushoto 65
2.2 Positive and negative agro-ecological impacts associated
with technologies introduced in Lushoto, Tanzania 75
2.3 Gendered patterns of technology sharing in Lushoto and
Western Kenya 76
2.4 Exchange of different types of technologies among farmers
in Lushoto 76
3.1 Delineation approaches used by different benchmark sites 90
3.2 Local institutions in Areka, Ginchi and Lushoto benchmark
sites 95
3.3 Local institutions most linked to livelihood goals by wealth
category 96
3.4 Watershed characterization and baseline methods used
in different sites 97
3.5 Average income from selected crops by wealth category in Baga
watershed, Tanzania (Tsh) 98
3.6 Standard deviation (SD) in household income from selected crops
in Baga watershed 98
3.7 Sample database illustrating socially disaggregated ranks at
watershed level 106
3.8 Identification of concerns common to each stakeholder
in the Sakharani boundary case 110
3.9 Relative strengths and weaknesses of approaches for
participatory watershed diagnosis and planning 113
xii Tables
3.10 Rankings of watershed issues by social group, Ginchi benchmark
site, Ethiopia 116
3.11 Planning framework for integrating diverse learning approaches
in research and development 123
3.12 Final ranks of the top two watershed issues in Ginchi site 126
3.13 Characteristics of local control methods for porcupine 131
3.14 Performance of identified indicators by phase of
intervention 136
3.15 Seedling performance under diverse outfield intensification
strategies 148
4.1 Comparison of approaches to participatory by-law reforms 186
4.2 Proposed solutions to identified NRM problems in
Ginchi benchmark site 189
5.1 Decentralized structures in Uganda: Levels and main functions 209
5.2 New soil conservation measures established in 2005 219
5.3 Categories of information needs articulated by groups in
different parishes of Rubaya Sub-County 225
5.4 Focal areas and activities of KADLACC 232
5.5 Comparison of development practice before and after
the establishment of the multi-stakeholder platform 232
BOXES
2.1 Optimization of enset-based systems for enhanced food
security in Ethiopia 46
2.2 Examples of entry points used in addressing more complex
system constraints in southern Ethiopia 49
2.3 Tomato varieties meeting market requirements—a successful
entry point in Lushoto BMS 50
2.4 Use of farmer field schools in promoting potato-related
innovations in the Ethiopian highlands 54
2.5 Case study on mole rat control in Areka, Ethiopia 56
2.6 Linked technologies for livestock production and soil
conservation in Areka BMS 60
2.7 Community driven micro-credit systems: Building the
financial capital of smallholder farmers in Lushoto District,
Tanzania through FRGs 64
2.8 Case study on the use of by-laws for equitable technology
diffusion in Areka, Ethiopia 66
2.9 Socio-economic criteria to integrate legumes into farming
systems of the highlands of eastern Africa 69
2.10 Patterns of technology sharing in Lushoto, Tanzania 76
3.1 Watershed issues that do and do not conform to
hydrological boundaries 87
3.2 The importance of a flexible concept of watershed
boundaries 90
3.3 Managing hydrological and administrative boundaries:
Biophysical and social “balancing acts” 91
3.4 Data collected in household surveys in AHI benchmark sites 93
3.5 Reformulated and harmonized by-laws in Rubaya
Sub-County 102
3.6 Selection of entry points in Galessa 107
3.7 Common scenarios requiring the needs of multiple stakeholders
to be met 108
xiv Boxes
3.8 The role of prior stakeholder consultations in
multi-stakeholder engagement: The case of the
Sakharani boundary, Lushoto, Tanzania 109
3.9 The importance of detailed action planning during
multi-stakeholder negotiations: The case of Ameya Spring 111
3.10 Format for integrated R&D protocols for each cluster 121
3.11 Farm-level entry points 125
3.12 Landscape-level entry points 126
3.13 Scientific research can help inform policy makers and
legitimize local stakes vis-à-vis more powerful actors 129
3.14 Scientific research can make visible processes otherwise
difficult for farmers to see 129
3.15 Local knowledge on vertebrate pests: Specialized
knowledge and barriers to spontaneous sharing 130
3.16 Social science research on local knowledge as inputs to
multi-stakeholder negotiations 131
3.17 Local knowledge on springs: Identification of environmental
“hotspots” and tested solutions 132
3.18 Basic steps in participatory M&E 135
3.19 Format for process documentation 141
3.20 Process documentation of multi-stakeholder negotiations
for the Sakharani boundary case 143
3.21 “Don’t give up!”: The importance of sustained monitoring
to address challenges 147
3.22 Seeing is believing: The importance of cross-site visits in
expanding farmers’ mental models on “what is possible” 149
3.23 Administrative hurdles faced when stepping outside
sectoral mandates 150
4.1 Controlling porcupine in Areka: Two deterrents to
collective action 162
4.2 Controlling run-off in Kapchorwa District, Uganda:
From “lone ranger” to collective action 163
4.3 Nursery management in Ginchi: Learning through
iterative phases of implementation and adjustment 164
4.4 Local beliefs governing the use of communal grazing areas
in Areka 165
4.5 Case study on conflict: The role of sequential negotiations 170
4.6 Principles of multi-stakeholder negotiation: The case of
the Sakharani Mission 171
4.7 The importance of detailed planning for the implementation
of agreements 173
4.8 Negotiation support in the Baga forest boundary: Managing
delicate power dynamics 175
Boxes xv
4.9 Ensuring that “bottom lines” are met to sustain stakeholder
commitment to a negotiation process 176
4.10 Mobilizing collective action for common NRM
problems: The porcupine case 180
4.11 Variations on the approach for mobilizing collective action
through local government and NRM committees 181
4.12 The livelihood costs of improved governance 188
4.13 NRM by-laws should embody fairness if they are to be
upheld and widely adopted 189
5.1 Vertical integration for water source protection in Galessa,
Ethiopia 202
5.2 Use of farmer learning cycles to articulate development
priorities and initiate dialogue with district level actors 205
5.3 Formal by-law formulation process in Uganda 210
5.4 Institutionalizing grassroots policy formulation and
implementation 214
5.5 The focus of deliberative processes within participatory
by-law reforms 215
5.6 Gendered outcomes of by-laws 218
5.7 Technology adoption as an indication of by-law effectiveness 219
5.8 The “dark side” and limits of by-law reforms 219
5.9 Challenges in information sourcing and dissemination
identified in Kabale District 222
5.10 Basic components of the information needs protocol 224
5.11 Sample checklist to aid service providers in seeking information
from diverse sources 226
5.12 Use of wireless phones to enhance farmer information
access 227
5.13 Development of a district multi-stakeholder platform
in Kapchorwa District, Uganda 231
6.1 Characteristics that determine the potential of an innovation
to go to scale 244
6.2 Field day in Areka, southern Ethiopia 252
6.3 Developing performance criteria for evaluating institutional
change 258
6.4 Scaling up and out AHI approaches to INRM: The case of
ISAR in Rwanda 260
6.5 National policy priorities and donors as drivers of internal
change in NARS 262
6.6 Variations in institutional change processes led by EIAR and
NARO managers 262
6.7 Linking farmers to policy makers: The role of action research
in farmer institutional development 264
xvi Boxes
6.8 Efforts to institutionalize demand-driven information
provision in NAADS 266
6.9 The importance of “ownership” of the change initiative by
key decision-makers 269
CONTRIBUTORS
Zenebe Adimassu is a PhD student at Wageningen University and Research
Centre, the Netherlands. Zenebe served as AHI site coordinator for the
Galessa site before he initiated his PhD studies. He co-edited a book entitled
Working with Rural Communities on Integrated Natural Resources Management
(INRM), which profiles AHI research and development outputs from
Galessa site, Ethiopia.
Diana Akullo works with the Association for Strengthening Agricultural
Research in eastern and central Africa (ASARECA) Secretariat in Entebbe,
Uganda, under the Staple Crops Programme. She previously worked as
a Senior Research Officer in Quality Assurance with the Secretariat of
Uganda’s National Agricultural Research Organization (NARO). Her
work has been to facilitate learning in the agricultural research domain in
eastern and central Africa. She holds a PhD in social science, with a focus
on institutional reforms in response to national and regional development
policies.
Tilahun Amede is currently a leader of the Nile Basin Challenge Programme
on Water for Food (CPWF), based in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. Before assum-
ing his current position, he served as a Systems Agronomist for the African
Highlands Initiative and the Tropical Soils Biology and Fertility Institute
with the International Center for Tropical Agriculture (CIAT). Tilahun
has served as Guest Editor for special issues in the Rangeland Journal (2009)
and Experimental Agriculture (2011).
Shenkut Ayele works with the Catholic Relief Service in Ethiopia as Early
Warning Assessment and Response Manager. He previously served as a
Socio-Economics and Extension Researcher and Head of the Research and
Extension Department at the Ethiopian Institute of Agricultural Research.
Shenkut holds an MSc in Agricultural Extension Education from the
University of Agriculture Dharwad (UAS-Dharwad), India.
Leulseged Begashaw is a plant pathologist with the Southern Agricultural
Research Institute, based at the Areka Agricultural Research Center,
xviii Contributors
Ethiopia. He led AHI’s research on vertebrate pest control in Areka bench-
mark site.
Berhanu Bekele is a wheat breeder at Debre Zeit Agricultural Research Center,
Ethiopia. He was one of the researchers who introduced different improved
barley varieties in Galessa and the surrounding areas.
Francis Byekwaso is Planning and Monitoring Manager for the National
Agricultural Advisory Services (NAADS) in Uganda. He holds a PhD in
Nutrition Planning and Decentralization. Past work has included action
research on pro-poor decentralized service delivery; community-based
agricultural extension services; farmer empowerment and demand for agri-
cultural extension services; and natural resource management.
Mulugeta Diro holds a PhD in Plant Physiology and currently works as an
independent consultant on a collaborative NRM project with Wageningen
University. Before assuming this responsibility, Mulugeta was the Director
of the Crop Directorate, Southern Regional Agricultural Research Institute
(SARI), Awassa, Ethiopia. He also served as a National Coordinator for
enset research in Ethiopia.
Laura German is Senior Scientist at the Center for International Forestry
Research (CIFOR) in Bogor, Indonesia, where she contributes to CIFOR’s
research on managing the impacts of globalized trade and investment on
forests and forest communities. Past work has included action research on
integrated natural resource management and landscape governance with
AHI; human ecological research in the Brazilian Amazon; and agricultural
development in Honduras. She holds a PhD in Cultural and Ecological
Anthropology. Her recent publications include two edited volumes,
Governing Africa’s Forests in a Globalized World (Earthscan, 2009) and Beyond
the Biophysical (Springer, 2010), and a special issue in Ecology and Society on
the social and environmental impacts of biofuels.
Girma Hailu holds a PhD in Agroecology from Kenyatta University, Kenya.
He is an agricultural scientist with over 12 years’ experience in designing,
conducting, and managing research projects. He has worked as Program
Coordinator at Farm Radio International (Canada), Project Manager
at African Highlands Initiative (AHI), and Research Scientist at World
Agroforestry Centre. He currently works as an independent consultant.
Rick Kamugisha is a social scientist with the World Agroforestry Centre
(ICRAF), based in Kampala, Uganda. He holds an MA in Development
Studies from Mbarara University of Science and Technology, Uganda. Rick
has been involved in facilitating local communities in natural resource man-
agement and governance through efforts to strengthen local level policies
and grassroots institutions under Landcare and AHI. He has vast experience
Contributors xix
working with policy taskforces, innovation platforms and conflict manage-
ment in NRM. Rick has worked with AHI for nine years.
Bekele Kassa is a Senior Pathologist with the Ethiopian Institute of Agricultural
Research, based at Holetta Agricultural Research Center (HARC). Bekele
served as a site coordinator in the second phase of AHI and was one of the
researchers who facilitated Farmers’ Field Schools on potato late blight in
the Galessa and Jeldu areas.
Charles Lyamchai is a principal agricultural research officer at Selian Agricultural
Research Institute, Arusha, Tanzania. His current work focuses on improv-
ing natural resource governance at community level and mainstreaming
Integrated Natural Resource Management in research and development
institutions to foster sustainable management of natural resources, increased
income and poverty alleviation. He holds an MSc in Agro-meteorology.
Hussein Mansoor holds a PhD in Plant and Soil Sciences from the University
of Aberdeen, Scotland. He is currently an assistant director for crop research
in the Division of Research and Development, Ministry of Agriculture,
Food and Cooperatives, Tanzania. Before assuming his current post he was
involved in numerous research activities in land management, integrated
natural resource management, integrated soil fertility management and soil
and water conservation at Selian Agricultural Research Institute, Arusha,
Tanzania.
Kenneth Masuki is a knowledge management specialist with the African
Highlands Initiative, based at the World Agroforestry Centre, Nairobi,
Kenya. His professional experience includes research in agriculture, soil and
water management, integrated natural resource management, and knowl-
edge management. He holds a PhD in Agricultural Education and Extension
from Sokoine University of Agriculture, Morogoro, Tanzania.
Waga Mazengia is a senior researcher in agronomy at the Southern Agricultural
Research Institute, based as the Hawassa Agricultural Research Center. Waga
coordinated AHI project activities at Areka benchmark site for many years.
Joel Meliyo holds an MSc in Soil Science and Land Management from Sokoine
University of Agriculture (SUA). He has extensive experience in soil and
land resources inventories, mapping, land evaluation and suitability assess-
ment for land use planning, using tools such as remote sensing, geographical
information systems and research on integrated soil fertility management.
He is currently pursuing his PhD at SUA.
Jeremias Mowo holds a PhD in Soil Science from Wageningen University,
the Netherlands. He has over 30 years of research and development experi-
ence in natural resources management in eastern Africa. Currently, he is the
Regional Coordinator for ICRAF eastern Africa. His areas of interest include
xx Contributors
integrated natural resource management, farmer participatory research and
research on methods and approaches for technology transfer.
Simon Nyangas is a coordinating secretary for the Landcare Chapter in
Kapchorwa, Uganda and serves as the NAADS Coordinator in the town
council overseeing Agricultural Technology and Agribusiness Advisory
Services. Previous responsibilities included agricultural extension services in
the Ministry of Agriculture, Animal Husbandry and Fisheries (MAAIF) in
Kapchorwa local government, where he worked on sustainable conserva-
tion and development in Mt. Elgon. He is an agronomist by training.
Chris Opondo, sociologist by profession, joined AHI in 2002 as a regional
research fellow with an emphasis on monitoring and evaluation. In 2008 he
joined United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) as a monitor-
ing and evaluation manager, based in Pretoria, South Africa. In May 2011
Chris passed away after an acute asthmatic attack. All members of the AHI
and partners who worked with him will continue to remember him for the
contribution he made to science and practice, as illustrated in this volume.
Pascal Sanginga is a senior programme specialist for Agriculture and
Environment at the International Development Research Centre’s regional
office for eastern and southern Africa. Pascal joined the African Highlands
Initiative in 1999 as a regional research fellow, and went on to work for
the International Center for Tropical Agriculture (CIAT) as Senior Social
Scientist. He holds a PhD in Rural Sociology and has conducted and man-
aged interdisciplinary and participatory action research for agriculture
and natural resource management in eastern, southern, western and cen-
tral Africa. His recent publications include two edited volumes, Innovation
Africa: Enriching Farmers’ Livelihoods (Earthscan, 2009) and Managing Natural
Resources for Development in Africa: A Resource Book (University of Nairobi
Press, 2010).
Joseph Tanui is an agricultural economist and coordinates the Landcare pro-
gram based at the World Agroforestry Centre, Nairobi, Kenya. Joseph has
extensive experience on smallholder collective action and grassroots insti-
tutional development, from a research, policy and extension perspective.
He is currently undertaking PhD research at Wageningen University, the
Netherlands, with a focus on the institutional economics of sustainable land
management.
Wilberforce Tirwomwe holds a BA in Social Sciences with a specialization
in Development Studies and has extensive experience in facilitating local
communities in natural resource management and governance in Kabale
District, Uganda. He worked as a consultant for both AHI and ICRAF-
Uganda’s Landcare program. He currently works for CARE International
in Kabale District, Uganda.
Contributors xxi
Adugna Wakjira holds a PhD in Crop Breeding, with a focus on oil crops. He
is a senior researcher with the Ethiopian Agricultural Research Institute,
based at Holetta Agricultural Research Center.
Juma Wickama holds an MSc in Soil and Land Management from Sokoine
University of Agriculture in Tanzania. He currently works at the Agricultural
Research Institute of Tanzania as a principal researcher in soils and soil
management consultant. The bulk of his work has focused on researching
and promoting efficient resource use in the West Usambara mountains and
reclamation of salt affected fields on the lower slopes of Mt. Kilimanjaro
in northern Tanzania. He is currently a PhD student at Wageningen
University, the Netherlands.
Gebremedhin Woldegiorgis is a senior researcher at the Ethiopian Institute of
Agricultural Research, based at the Holetta Agricultural Research Center
(HARC). With expertise in potato breeding and production, he is currently
seconded by the International Potato Center in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
FOREWORD
As this book goes to press, the Horn of Africa is experiencing one of the worst
food crises and droughts in five decades, with millions of lives in danger. In
times of such crises, attention is naturally focused on the urgent short-term
responses needed to keep people alive. Well-intentioned efforts often fail to
recognize the complex, multidimensional, and long-term causes of hunger,
poverty, and environmental degradation. Experience and lessons from over 40
years of international development and research suggest that there are no easy
solutions to avoiding such crises. Rather, it requires integrated, multilevel and
multidimensional approaches that have the support of the people affected, and
a sustained commitment by society at large to build resilience for rural Africans
and their food systems in the face of increasing uncertainty.
Since its establishment in 1970, the International Development Research
Centre (IDRC) has supported networks and partnerships of researchers in devel-
oping countries to contribute to the operationalization of participatory action
research and institutional innovation for community-based natural resources
management, in “hot spots” of poverty and environmental degradation. The
highlands of eastern and central Africa are home to several millions of people
whose livelihoods depend on natural resources and agriculture. The African
Highlands Initiative is one of the networks and innovative programs that has
received consistent and continued support from IDRC and other donors, since
1992, to advance the conceptualization and the practice of integrated natural
resources management (INRM) as a modest but effective approach to support
inclusive decision making, access to resources, rehabilitation of degraded natu-
ral resources, and the development of agriculture in a sustainable manner.
This book describes a compelling success story of an ambitious program
with an inspiring narrative. Early work of the African Highlands Initiative
focused on developing and facilitating the uptake of techniques and practices
to intensify and diversify farming systems. AHI then embarked on innova-
tive but untested concepts of participatory integrated watershed management,
collective action, integrated agricultural research for development, and insti-
tutional change processes, under the umbrella of Integrated Natural Resource
Management (INRM). This marked a significant departure from most
Foreword xxiii
agricultural research initiatives in the region that concentrated on commodity-
based and uni-disciplinary research. While AHI experienced several challenges
in its organizational structures, capacities, leadership, and institutional man-
dates, as this book demonstrates, it has remained focused, nimble, flexible,
and willing to experiment with new approaches at the forefront of INRM in
eastern Africa.
After over a decade of support to AHI, IDRC commissioned an external
review and impact assessment of the whole initiative. The findings of this
evaluation were summarized by the evaluators in a simple phrase: “AHI has
achieved unique success in implementing INRM that works.” A crucial fea-
ture of this success is the production of an impressive number of peer reviewed
articles in mainstream international journals, edited books, method guides,
and briefs, vital contributions to international and national public goods. This
book consolidates those contributions to the science and practice of INRM
in an easy-to-read volume. As the six chapters demonstrate, AHI has devel-
oped innovative tools and approaches and practical methods for putting INRM
principles into action, with tangible results that have bettered the lives of
resource-poor farmers in five eastern African countries. Examples of impacts
are discussed in the book with honesty, recognizing challenges and limitations
and, more importantly, reflecting on the lessons learned to provide some prac-
tical “how to” tips for practitioners.
However, as the different chapters of the book demonstrate, INRM remains
a work in progress. The challenging conjunction of poverty, environmental
degradation, and food and personal insecurity remains daunting. A vital next
step, conceptual and practical, strategic and tactical, methodological and out-
comes-oriented, is to “learn our way” toward innovating on a much broader
scale. We need to bring together people, institutions, and ideas, to experiment
in a very explicit and systematic manner, and on a society-wide scale, with the
concepts of social learning, adaptive management, and socio-ecological resil-
ience that are emerging from the work of AHI and others.
This book and the evolution of AHI illustrate a key principle of IDRC’s
mission: long-term strategic investment in building the capacity of thinkers,
innovators, and practitioners in the global South. It is clear from the experi-
ences of AHI that long-term support and commitment are needed for INRM;
natural resources management research requires patience and a significant
commitment to investment in resources and people, over periods of ten years
or longer. At IDRC we have been privileged to see the fruits of consistent sup-
port, intellectual mentoring, practical advice, and a willingness to take risks in
uncertain ventures. IDRC staff placed great emphasis on engaging with AHI
researchers and their partners, helping to open spaces for intellectual leader-
ship in a spirit of mutual learning. It is a rare opportunity and privilege to be
involved with an organization such as AHI from inception and program estab-
lishment to “closing the loop.” We have been privileged to be involved in this
initiative, and have learned much ourselves.
xxiv Foreword
As much as this book is an institutional memory of over a decade of “mud-
dling through complexity” of INRM research and development, it is also a
strong tribute to the late Luis Navarro, an IDRC colleague and friend. Luis
championed and channeled IDRC’s support to AHI from its inception to its
maturity in 2006 when he fell ill. Luis was instrumental in the conceptualiza-
tion of INRM and in its practical application with farming communities and
other stakeholders. This book represents a scientific and professional testimony
to Luis’ pioneering efforts to further the application of participatory approaches
and systems thinking in integrated natural resources management in eastern
Africa. The application of these principles, which he spent his career thinking
about, in f arming-systems intensification and diversification, in landscape inno-
vations, in district-level initiatives linking local communities to decentralized
government structures and institutions, and in support of institutional change
in research and development organizations, has inspired scientists in this region
and elsewhere, and makes compelling reading. I think he would feel gratified
that the lessons are now being shared.
Simon Carter
Director, Regional Office for Eastern and Southern Africa
International Development Research Centre (IDRC)
PREFACE
This book represents an ambitious effort to document over ten years of
research, methodological innovation, and lessons learning in AHI through
reflections by the protagonists themselves—AHI site teams and partners
involved in innovating to enhance the impact orientation of research. It
attempts to summarize the experiences of farmers, researchers, and develop-
ment workers, and policy and decision-makers who have interacted with
AHI on the theme of Integrated Natural Resource Management in the
humid highlands of eastern Africa. It aims both to raise awareness of the
crucial importance of methods or “approaches” in the outcomes derived
from research and development work, and to distill lessons learned on “what
works, where, and why.” The book therefore is enriched with examples
and case studies from five benchmark sites whose variability provides the
reader with an in-depth knowledge of the complexities of natural resource
management (NRM) in agro-ecosystems that play an important role in the
rural economy of the region. The struggle to achieve sustainable agricultural
development in challenging environments is a difficult one, and can only
be effectively achieved through combined efforts and commitment of indi-
viduals and institutions with complementary roles.
The book is organized into six chapters. Chapter 1 gives an overview
of INRM as a concept and the birth and evolution of AHI, including the
methodological framework through which innovations were developed
and tested and its results. Chapter 2 provides an overview of farm-level
methodological innovations oriented towards participatory intensification
and diversification of smallholder farming systems for optimal system pro-
ductivity (economic, social, and ecological). Chapter 3 summarizes AHI
experiences with a set of approaches employed to operationalize participa-
tory watershed management through an integrated lens which looks not
only at soil and water but at a wider set of system components and intera-
tions. Chapter 4 explores lessons learned to date on methods and approaches
for participatory landscape governance, exploring how processes that cut
across farm boundaries, involve trade-offs between different land users
or require collective action may be addressed effectively and equitably.
xxvi Preface
Chapter 5 explores the role of district level institutions and cross-scale link-
ages in supporting grassroots development and conservation initiatives,
including improved coordination and better support to local livelihood pri-
orities and bottom-up governance reforms. Chapter 6 explores methods and
approaches for scaling up and institutionalizing integrated natural resource
management innovations (e.g., those presented in earlier chapters), as well
as approaches for self-led institutional change that can institutionalize the
process of methodological innovation and impact-oriented research.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Many people and organizations contributed to the work of AHI in the decade
of work profiled in this volume and in the effort to compile it, and it would
be an impossible task to list them all. The authors would like to recognize, first
and foremost, the commitment of the farmers of the humid highlands of east-
ern Africa whose enthusiasm, dedication, and patience enabled the program
to engage in a host of previously untested innovations in order to accomplish
its mandate. The dedication of AHI site teams and their courage to explore
the unknown were key factors in the success the program has achieved, for
which AHI staff, partners, and donors are grateful. Without the leadership and
support of the managers of national agricultural research institutes (NARIs) in
Ethiopia, Kenya, Madagascar, Rwanda, Tanzania, and Uganda, this work would
not have been successful; we bank on their continued support as we move into
the next decade. Other partners who served instrumental roles in the evolution
of AHI include sister CGIAR programs and centers (CAPRi, CIAT, ICRAF,
IFPRI, ILRI, CIMMYT, CIP, and ICRISAT); non-governmental organiza-
tions (CARE International—Uganda, Africare, Africa 2000 Network, Action
Aid, Farm Africa, and SOS-Sahel); the National Agricultural Advisory Services
of Uganda (NAADS); extension organizations in AHI benchmark sites; the
Kapchorwa District Landcare Chapter (KADLACC); and a host of farmers’
organizations in AHI benchmark sites.
The ability of AHI to sustain innovation and learning over more than a
decade is in large part attributable to the generous financial support AHI has
received from a few committed donors who have shown total commitment to
the piloting of new forms of professionalism and its potential to unlock change
in rural livelihoods and environmental management—namely, the Swiss
Development Cooperation (SDC); the International Development Research
Centre (IDRC); the European Commission; Cooperazione Italiana; and the
Ministerie van Buitenlandse Zaken (the Netherlands). We are also grateful to
other donors who funded AHI for specific initiatives that have gone a long
way in furthering our learning on topics of instrumental importance to the
program and the region. Among these donors, we would like to acknowledge
the Collective Action and Property Rights program of the CGIAR (CAPRi);
xxviii Acknowledgments
the Department for International Development (UK); Aus-AID (Australia);
the Rockefeller Foundation; and the Norwegian government.
A number of individuals provided periodic mentoring and facilitation to
support the conceptualization of the AHI approach over the years. While
many individuals have made significant contributions in this regard, Jürgen
Hagmann and Rajiv Khandelwal deserve special mention. We would also like
to acknowledge the support of those who have helped to usher us through the
publication process. Those deserving special mention include Dina Hubudin
at CIFOR for her patient assistance in formatting the manuscript to Earthscan
style guides, Paul Stapleton and Rose Onyango at ICRAF for facilitating vari-
ous communications with Earthscan, and Tim Hardwick and Ashley Irons at
Earthscan, and Bill Carman of IDRC who patiently guided the book to its
completion.
We are also grateful to our institutional hosts, ASARECA and ICRAF, for
their technical, financial and administrative support to AHI activities and guid-
ance during times of transition. We give special thanks to Dr. Seyfu Ketema,
Dr. Denis Garrity, Dr. Eldad Tukahirwa, Dr. Jan Laarman, Dr. Mohamed
Bakarr, and the ICRAF finance and human resource departments. We would
like to also express our sincere appreciation to Dr. Roger Kirkby, who assisted
in steering AHI through a challenging transition away from Dr. Ann Stroud’s
competent leadership.
And last but not least, we would like to acknowledge the intellectual guid-
ance and commitment of the late Dr. Luis Navarro. From the very beginning,
Luis was much more than a donor to AHI – participating in steering com-
mittee meetings, engaging in regular dialogue to shape the program’s vision
and evolution, and challenging the AHI team to step beyond conventional
boundaries. We are most grateful for the creative tensions inspired by your
mentorship.
ABBREVIATIONS
AAR after action review
AHI African Highlands Initiative
ASARECA Association for Strengthening Agricultural Research in Eastern
and Central Africa
BMS benchmark sites
CA collective action
CAP community action plan
CAPRi CGIAR Systemwide Program on Collective Action and
Property Rights
CBF community-based facilitator
CBO community-based organization
CEED Coalition for Effective Extension Delivery
CIAT Centro Internacional de Agricultura Tropical
CIP International Potato Center
CGIAR Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research
DEM digital elevation model
DfID Department for International Development (UK)
DRC Democratic Republic of the Congo
DRD Department of Research and Development (Tanzania)
DU developmental unit
ECA Eastern and Central Africa
EIAR Ethiopian Institute of Agricultural Research
EU European Union
FAO Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
FFS farmer field school
FPR farmer participatory research
FRG farmer research group
FSR farming systems research
GPS global positioning systems
HARC Holetta Agricultural Research Center
IAR4D integrated agricultural research for development
IARCs International Agricultural Research Centers
xxx Abbreviations
ICRAF World Agroforestry Centre
ICTs information and communication technologies
IDRC International Development Research Centre
IFPRI International Food Policy Research Institute
ILAC institutional learning and change
INRM integrated natural resource management
ISAR Institut des Sciences Agronomiques du Rwanda
KADLACC Kapchorwa District Landcare Chapter
LCC legume cover crops
NAADS National Agricultural Advisory Services (Uganda)
NARES national agricultural research and extension systems
NARIs national agricultural research institutes
NARO National Agricultural Research Organization (Uganda)
NARS national agricultural research system
NGO non-governmental organization
NRM natural resource management
PA peasant association
PAR participatory action research
PCC parish coordination committee
PIWM participatory integrated watershed management
PM&E participatory monitoring and evaluation
PTF policy task force
PTD participatory technology development
QAC Quality Assurance Committee
R&D research and development
SACCOS savings and credit cooperative society
SDC Swiss Development Cooperation
Tsh Tanzanian shilling
ToT transfer of technology
UgSh Ugandan shilling
USD United States dollar
VICE village information center
VWC village watershed committee
WHO World Health Organization
1
INTEGRATED NATURAL
RESOURCE MANAGEMENT
From theory to practice
Laura German, Jeremias Mowo, and Chris Opondo
Introduction
Highlands worldwide are important repositories of biodiversity as well as water
towers for vast lowland and urban populations. The highlands of eastern Africa
are no exception, with the Eastern Arc mountains home to a host of endemic
species and a globally renowned biodiversity hotspot (Burgess et al., 1998). Yet
while the ecological importance of highland areas cannot be underestimated,
neither should their cultural and economic importance. Surrounded in most
eastern African countries by semi-arid lowlands, the highlands have historically
been home to disproportionately large human populations attracted by good
rainfall, relatively good soils, and—in some locations—the potential to develop
vast irrigation networks (SCRP, 1996).
In the past four decades, the eastern African highlands have seen rapid
population growth and unprecedented land-use changes (Zhou et al., 2004),
heightening the challenge of sustaining the resource base while providing for
a growing population heavily dependent on natural resources for their liveli-
hoods. Population growth and inheritance practices have contributed to very
small household landholdings, reducing incomes and food security and in turn
undermining farmers’ capacity to invest in conservation activities, often char-
acterized by delayed returns.
Population pressure has also caused people to expand into marginal hilly
areas, increasing soil and water loss, and destroying unique habitats (Amede
et al., 2001; Stroud, 2002). The erosion in collective action traditions and
traditional authority structures at a time when interactions among adjacent
landscape units and users are ever more tightly coupled has undermined coop-
eration in natural resource management and led to increased incidence of
conflict (German et al., 2009; Sanginga et al., 2007, Sanginga et al., 2010).
2 Laura German, Jeremias Mowo, and Chris Opondo
Historical factors have also established powerful path dependencies in local
attitudes and behavior that continue to undermine local natural resource man-
agement investments. Colonial era agricultural policies—externally imposed,
coercive and often brutal—led to such an active resistance to soil conservation
practices that they played a key role in the growth of organized resistance to
colonial rule (Anderson, 1984; Throup, 1988). Fortress conservation policies
in the colonial and post-colonial era have served as a similar disincentive to
sustainable forest management (Borrini-Feyerabend et al., 2002; Colchester,
2004; Western, 1994). Shifts in political regimes and related land reform poli-
cies have also resulted in significant ambiguity in resource ownership and
control, contributing in some cases to resource mining behaviors (Bekele,
2003; Omiti et al., 1999).
Yet if the colonial state “failed to show the farmer what tangible benefits
the conservation effort would bring to the land … [or to] provide an adequate
incentive for this effort” (Anderson, 1984: 321), to what extent have contem-
porary natural resource management interventions done any better? Within
the conservation establishment, fortress conservation policies and approaches
have slowly given way to a host of decentralized approaches—variously labeled
Joint Forest Management, Co-Management, and Integrated Conservation and
Development (Blomley et al., 2010; Brown, 2003; Hobley, 1996). Yet with
the bottom line almost always one of natural resource conservation, some
authors have begun to question whether such approaches have shifted the bur-
den of conservation to local people without corresponding shifts in authority
and benefits (Nsibambi, 1998; Wells, 1992). Others question whether these
more participatory approaches are even suited to biodiversity conservation
(Oates, 1999; Terborgh, 1999). Furthermore, these efforts have focused almost
exclusively on production and protection of forests, leaving what happens in
surrounding “anthropized” landscapes either beyond the scope of concern or
of interest only to the extent that it furthers conservation objectives within
protection forests (Hughes and Flintan, 2001). Where real powers for for-
est management have been devolved to local communities, it has often been
where resources are already degraded and therefore of limited economic or
conservation value (Blomley and Ramadani, 2006; Oyono et al., 2006).
Within the agricultural establishment, on the other hand, natural resource
management concerns are squarely focused on landscapes where the human
influence on landscape structure and function is dominant. Early emphasis, still
prominent among agricultural research and extension institutions, was placed on
soil erosion and its effect on soil fertility decline—with smaller communities of
researchers focused on crop and livestock pests, agro-biodiversity, and rangeland
management. With the vast majority of agricultural scientists and practitioners
emanating from biophysical disciplines, problem definition has focused almost
exclusively on biophysical constraints, and solutions put forward to address these
have been largely technological (German et al., 2010). Early approaches, still evi-
dent today in the structure and functions of agricultural research and extension
Integrated natural resource management 3
agencies, stressed a unilinear “transfer of technology” (ToT) approach in which
research diagnoses problems and generates technologies to address these and
passes them along to extension agents, who in turn disseminate them to farm-
ers (Hagmann, 1999). Criticized for limited adoption levels and inability of this
approach to catalyze effective responses to local needs, the rhetoric—and to some
extent research practice as well—has slowly given way to a focus on more par-
ticipatory forms of research. This has led to the proliferation of new approaches
to address deficiencies in the old model, from “on-farm research” (advocated
to adjust technologies to local conditions), “farmer participatory research” and
“participatory technology development” (seeking to integrate farmers’ criteria
into technology testing and evaluation), and “farming systems research” (to take
a more holistic look at farms as systems and explicitly address component interac-
tions and the allocation of finite resources among multiple production objectives)
(Byerlee and Tripp, 1988; Farrington and Martin, 1987; Haverkort et al., 1991;
Walters-Bayer, 1989). While these approaches went a long way in adapting
agricultural research and extension to local concerns and priorities, their institu-
tionalization has been partial at best; the focus has remained largely technological
and exclusive attention to the farm level and individualized decision-making has
left many natural resource management problems unaddressed.
A host of newer approaches to conservation and natural resource manage-
ment1 hold great promise in placing the nexus of ownership and control squarely
with local institutions, taking a wider view on natural resource management
(beyond the farm, beyond the biophysical) and linking local users with out-
side actors and institutions. Yet, with a few notable exceptions (e.g., Colfer,
2005), the proliferation of jargon and rhetoric far outpaces efforts to operational-
ize them in practice (Rhoades, 2000; Sayer, 2001). This volume focuses on one
such approach, Integrated Natural Resource Management (INRM), and tries to
address this gap by profiling efforts to conceptualize the concept, develop and
test approaches to operationalize it, and distil lessons learned. This chapter seeks
to set the stage for the rest of the book by providing an overview of the INRM
approach and how it is framed and interpreted in this volume, and by introduc-
ing and defining key concepts that form the “conceptual core” of the approaches
profiled in the chapters to follow. The second half of the chapter is dedicated
to an introduction to an eco-regional program operating in the eastern African
highlands where the INRM concept was defined, piloted, and evaluated.
Integrated natural resource management
Key aims
Integrated natural resource management is a scientific and resource management
paradigm uniquely suited to managing complex natural resource management
challenges in densely settled landscapes where people are highly dependent
on local resources for their livelihoods, thus heightening the tension between
4 Laura German, Jeremias Mowo, and Chris Opondo
livelihood and conservation aims. The explicit effort to bridge productivity
enhancement, environmental protection, and social well-being (Sayer and
Campbell, 2003b) therefore makes INRM strategically relevant in such situa-
tions. The CGIAR (2001) defines INRM as “an approach to research that aims
at improving livelihoods, agro-ecosystem resilience, agricultural productivity
and environmental services. It does this by helping solve complex real-world
problems affecting natural resources in agro-ecosystems.”2
Yet, what does this mean in practice? A wide variety of research, devel-
opment and conservation actors would already claim to be working towards
such aims without employing the INRM label. So what aims and features set
INRM apart from other approaches designed to address complex agricultural
and natural resource management challenges? The CGIAR Task Force on
INRM identified a number of success factors in managing an effective INRM
process (CGIAR, 2002). Grouped by organizational level, these include:
Research and development teams:
● Employment of a participatory action research, learning process approach
by all.
● Partnerships built on mutual trust, respect, and ownership by all.
● Multi-institutional arrangements with clear roles and commitments.
● Effective facilitation and coordination of interactive processes.
● Cross-disciplinary adaptive learning of research teams and development agents.
● Explicit scaling up/out strategy, building on “to-be” successes and strate-
gic entry points.
● Effective communication strategy.
Partner and target communities/institutions:
● Application of a participatory action research, learning process approach by all.
● Shared problem and opportunity-driven focus.
● Short-term gains through the process itself (rather than via “handouts”).
● Local organizational capacity for INRM.
● Access to knowledge, technological, policy, and institutional options.
Thus, the concept as it has evolved within the CGIAR emphasizes the process
through which NRM innovations evolve. As stated by Hagmann et al. (2003),
INRM is grounded in a learning paradigm, premised upon a social construc-
tivist approach3 to development and grounded in learning process approaches.
Yet what is the substance of INRM? Key proponents emphasize the following
core aims (Campbell, 2001; Sayer, 2001; Voss, 2001):
● Fostering sustainable agriculture, forestry and fisheries.
● Enhancing local adaptive capacity (in agriculture, forestry and fisheries),
while supporting adaptive management beyond community level (e.g., the
Integrated natural resource management 5
evolution of NARS, government agencies, and international organizations
into learning organizations).
● Acknowledging and addressing trade-offs in NRM through negotiation
support.
● Emphasizing sustainable livelihoods through a client-centered approach.
● Solving real-world problems with partners through the integration of sys-
tem components, disciplines, stakeholders, and scales.
Given the complexity of aims and the arbitrariness of “system boundaries”
within multi-scale NRM initiatives, it is essential that these boundaries be set
in some clear way (Campbell, 2001). Aside from bounding the “system” spa-
tially, it is important to clearly define the nature of challenges to be addressed.
While INRM could encompass efforts to reconcile local livelihood needs and
NRM concerns with societal and global interests in environmental services
emanating from rural areas, this volume makes an explicit effort to focus on
the NRM concerns of local land users. It therefore focuses on natural resource
management within landscapes managed by local resource users to meet their
own livelihood goals, addressing issues related to protected areas only to the
extent that these more “exclusionary” conservation efforts are of concern to
adjacent land users. The scope of issues encompassed in subsequent chapters
therefore includes the following:
● Stimulating farmer investment in natural resource management and
adoption of land management innovations through innovative efforts to
package and deliver technologies which address the livelihood and NRM
concerns of farmers in an integrated manner.
● Addressing the social, economic, and cultural factors influencing NRM at
farm and landscapes scales, including the pervasive tension between indi-
vidual and collective goods.
● Improving farmer feedback to research, extension and development agen-
cies within a social learning process, so as to exploit the complementary
knowledge, skills, and mandates of different sets of actors in addressing
pressing development and NRM problems.
● Achieving synergies between local technological, institutional, market,
and policy innovations in NRM.
● Enabling higher-level innovations within research and development insti-
tutions to support local resource users, foster synergies in knowledge and
skills, and institutionalize lessons learned.
Conceptual overview
This section provides an introduction to some of the key concepts utilized to
frame this book and the methodological innovations that underlie it. It there-
fore sets the conceptual foundations to the chapters that follow.
6 Laura German, Jeremias Mowo, and Chris Opondo
Integration
AHI has worked with the concept of integration in its efforts to pursue integrated
research and development innovations since its inception. In the first two phases,
this concept was advanced by the work done to foster synergies among diverse sys-
tem goals at farm level. In many benchmark sites, for example, teams experimented
with “linked technologies,” defined as a set of technologies whose benefits are
best manifested when applied as an integrated whole rather than in isolation. For
example, farmers experimented with soil conservation structures (bench terraces,
fanya juu) stabilized with fodder, which was in turn fed to zero-grazed livestock
in improved sheds, which in turn helped to make more efficient use of dung for
fertilizing high-value crops on these structures. The integration concept is seen in
the functional linkages established between system components (crops, livestock,
soil, trees, water), which may be either ecological or economic. Ecologically,
tighter nutrient recycling between crop and livestock components is designed
to enhance the productivity of both crop and livestock components. From an
economic standpoint, improved income from high-value crops on conservation
structures may give farmers an incentive to invest in soil and water conservation,
as well as additional disposable income. In Phase II the concept continued to be
employed for achieving multiple and linked production objectives at farm level,
but was further expanded to consider how integrated forms of support (e.g., tech-
nological, organizational, credit) to farm-level production could generate synergies
and unlock change. Several years of systems modeling and experimentation in
Areka, Ethiopia, also led to methodological innovations for understanding farms
as systems—namely, integrated production units where multiple aims are pursued
simultaneously in a context of limited financial, nutrient, and labor resources. It
also led to strategies for enhancing component contributions to the wider farming
system (as opposed to research efforts seeking to simply maximize returns to the
component itself) and to participatory approaches to systems intensification.
During Phase 3, AHI began to experiment with integration concepts at the
watershed level. These innovations helped to consolidate our understanding not
only about what integration means at this level, but also overall. A typology of
three forms of integration was developed during this phase to concretize cur-
rent understanding of the integration concept (German, 2006). The first form,
“component integration,” involves understanding and managing the impacts of
any given component (or component innovations) on other parts of the system.
Farm-level components include trees, crops, livestock, and soil, while landscape
components include these same components plus common property resources
(including water, both for productive and domestic use). “Integration” in this
sense implies moving beyond component-specific objectives (i.e., maximizing
the yield of edible plant products) and outcomes. Integration generally implies
an optimizing logic, ensuring balanced returns to diverse system components
(yields from tree, crop, and livestock components) or increasing biomass yield
without depleting system nutrients or water. At times, optimization requires
Integrated natural resource management 7
sacrificing yield gains in one component of the system so as to balance returns
to other system components or goals. An example of this would be the selec-
tion of a crop variety that does not exhibit the highest grain yield, but yields an
optimal return to crop and livestock components in the form of grain and plant
biomass (for fodder). Yet the integration concept may also cater to the logic of
maximization, common to market-oriented production systems, by elucidat-
ing the consequences to other system components (synergies and/or trade-offs)
when maximizing outputs from one component. For example, research might
quantify the effects of fast-growing tree species—chosen to maximize timber
yield and tree income—on crop yield and income within the landholding and
on adjacent farms, and on spring discharge. Understanding such trade-offs pro-
vides information on what is gained and lost to different system goals and land
users, which may provide important inputs into development practice or policy.
The second form, “constructivist integration,” is more socio-political in
nature—aiming to integrate the needs and priorities of different interest groups
into research. “Constructivism” acknowledges that there is not one ‘correct’
view of reality but rather multiple, socially constructed realities (Chambers
et al., 1992). In systems innovation, the priorities of these different social actors
are actively solicited and integrated into the design of innovations. One form
of constructivist integration is participatory research, in which farmers articu-
late research priorities and variables to be maximized or optimized. Variables
that will often enter into research through participatory processes (and which
would otherwise be absent) include those associated with risk; those exposing
trade-offs related to the allocation of limited resources (land, labor, organic
nutrient resources, capital) to different system components; and cultural vari-
ables such as those relating to local culinary practices and preferences (German,
2006). A second form of constructivist integration acknowledges the social
trade-offs of current and alternative land-use scenarios by making explicit
who gains and who loses from diverse types of innovations. By making social
trade-offs explicit during the planning stage, alternative solutions or means of
implementation can be considered that aim to optimize gains to diverse social
actors while minimizing losses to any given one. By monitoring who wins and
loses during an implementation process, creative strategies can be developed to
ameliorate losses suffered by any given land user and to enable more equitable
access to the benefits stream.
A third form of integration involves efforts to foster positive synergies among
diverse types of innovations—for example, linking biophysical innovations to
the social, policy, and institutional processes required to bring far-reaching
change. This “sectoral integration” concept helps to frame scientific inquiry
around the synergies among technological and other forms of innovation
(social, organizational, policy, economic). The latter might include negotiation
processes, participatory policy reforms and strategies to enhance market access
so as to foster multiple goals simultaneously (i.e., income generation, equity,
good governance, sustainable NRM).
8 Laura German, Jeremias Mowo, and Chris Opondo
Participation
“Participation” means different things to different people. All too often, how-
ever, it is taken to mean mere numbers of people present in community fora.
AHI has been experimenting with ways to understand participation in more
meaningful terms, by exploring the mechanisms and processes through which
equitable development strategies and local empowerment may be achieved.
Empowerment means enhancing people’s ability—individually or collec-
tively—to address their own concerns by leveraging existing resources and
capacities and capturing opportunities. Equity, on the other hand, is about
the fairness and social justice in the distribution of resources, opportunities,
and benefits within a society. It is also about how approaches used by external
facilitators or local change agents structure patterns of benefits capture.
Fostering these two goals requires experimenting with different approaches
at different stages of farm and watershed-level natural resource management.
It may involve attention to gendered participation and outcomes; strategies to
mobilize communities around a common cause; mechanisms to ensure adequate
representation of the many “voices” in large villages or watersheds through
representational democracy (e.g., watershed structures and decision-making
processes, socially targeted consultations); strategies to “level the playing field”
between more and less powerful actors (e.g., stakeholder analysis, negotiation
support); or instruments to hold people accountable to negotiated agreements
(e.g., by-law reforms). Attention to participation is often concentrated at
the planning stage of community interventions. Yet attention to equity and
empowerment is needed at all stages—from problem diagnosis and prioriti-
zation to planning, implementation, and monitoring. At the planning stage,
attention must be given to adequately capturing the diversity of “voices” in
rural communities who may have different interests and goals. For farm-level
innovations, it involves identification of variables of importance to male and
female household members—not just to researchers or elite farmers. For water-
shed-level innovations, it involves instruments to explicitly capture a diversity
of opinions when diagnosing problems, prioritizing, and planning. Similarly,
during implementation and monitoring, it involves consulting diverse local
interest groups (including participants and non-participants) on their views of
how things are evolving to ensure diverse interests and concerns are considered
when exploring how to improve upon ongoing change processes. Importantly,
each of these phases of farm and watershed innovation requires attention to
divergent opinions within communities, and means to reconcile these.
Collective action
Collective action may be defined as action taken by a group, either directly or on
its behalf through an organization, in pursuit of members’ perceived shared interests
(Marshall, 1998). This pursuit of common goals may go well beyond formal social
Integrated natural resource management 9
structures (farmers’ groups) or direct activities carried out by such groups. In the
context of AHI, we have experimented with a set of approaches to foster collective
action in watershed management, leading us to identify a number of different forms
of collective action (see German and Taye, 2008 for a related discussion). The first,
and by far the most widely used, refers to direct actions carried out by groups of
people working towards common goals (Lubell et al., 2002; Swallow et al., 2001;
Tanner, 1995). This may range from two neighboring resource users managing a
common boundary to the mobilization of large groups to work towards common
interests. German et al. (2006) have called this the “social movement” dimension
of collective action.
Another form of collective action involves collective regulation of individual
actions (Meinzen-Dick et al., 2002; Pender and Scherr, 2002; Gebremedhin
et al., 2002; Scott and Silva-Ochoa, 2001). In other words, rather than involv-
ing direct actions by groups of people pursuing common goals, this dimension
of collective action refers to collectively agreed-upon rules to govern individ-
ual behavior—often proscribing what “not to do” or individual responsibilities
towards the group. Such rules are generally formulated to minimize the negative
impacts of one person’s behavior on another person or on an environmental ser-
vice of public concern, or to bolster individual commitments to group activities.
Such rule-making is often one element of other forms of collective action which
enable them to work owing to the prior agreement on “rules of the game.”
Mechanisms for group representation in decision-making may also be con-
sidered another form of collective action. Given the sheer number of resource
users in watersheds, equal levels of direct participation in decision-making
on natural resource management or interaction with outside actors is seldom
possible. Mechanisms for effective representation of all watershed users in
decision-making and benefits sharing are therefore essential to minimize the
tendency for elite capture of decision authority and benefits. This role of col-
lective action has been included in collective action definitions of some authors
(Meinzen-Dick et al., 2002), but features little in actual case studies.
A final form of collective action includes mechanisms for addressing power rela-
tions so as to achieve political equality. This dimension of collective action involves
acknowledgment of diverse political interests around any given resource or manage-
ment decision, and their effective integration into more equitable decision-making
processes (Sultana et al., 2002). Issues of political equality among stakeholders have
largely been addressed in the literature through case studies illustrating the “winners
and losers” of development and conservation interventions owing to the frequent
failure to establish mechanisms for equitable outcomes (Munk Ravnborg and
Ashby, 1996; Rocheleau and Edmunds, 1997; Schroeder, 1993).
Watershed
The standard definition of watershed refers to a region of land drained by a water-
course and its tributaries to a common confluence point (outlet) (Pattanayak,
10 Laura German, Jeremias Mowo, and Chris Opondo
2004). However, given the AHI emphasis on participatory watershed manage-
ment and an integrated approach to NRM, the spatial delineation of hydrological
watershed boundaries was taken as only a tentative unit of analysis and engage-
ment. These units were to be adjusted as the landscape-level natural resource
management priorities of local users, and the spatial dimensions of these prob-
lems and related solutions, came to light. Following the participatory diagnosis
of watershed problems, it was found that some “watershed problems” con-
formed to hydrological boundaries but many others did not. Problems related
to the declining quality and quantity of water and the destruction of property
from excess run-off, and the land-use practices contributing to this resource
degradation, had clear hydrological boundaries. Yet many other landscape-
level natural resource management problems did not conform to hydrological
boundaries. These included damage caused by free grazing, incompatible trees
on farm boundaries, conflict surrounding protected areas, and pests and diseases.
Yet even when problems may be defined by hydrological boundaries, solu-
tions may be more readily found through the use of administrative boundaries.
For example, spring rehabilitation may require village-level organizing and the
support of government institutions whose mandate covers larger administrative
units (e.g., districts), in addition to collective action among land users within
catchment areas. In these cases, a flexible approach to defining watershed pro-
cesses and boundaries was used. Use of the term “watershed” in this book is
often, therefore, used interchangeably with the word “landscape.” Similarly,
“watershed management” often encompasses problems and solutions whose
dimensions extend beyond the biophysical realm altogether.
Institutional innovations
Addressing farm and landscape-level natural resource management problems—and
capturing related opportunities—often requires innovation in the institutions that
structure patterns of interaction among land users and other entities. Institutions
may be defined as “rules of the game in society, … the humanly devised constraints
that shape human interaction” (North, 1990) or “decision structures” (Ostrom,
1994). Institutional innovations may therefore be defined as changes in the stand-
ard set of rules governing social behavior and in the social structures and processes
through which decisions are made. AHI has experimented with each of these forms
of institutional innovation. Innovations in organizational structure have included
the testing of diverse forms of farmer organization for farm-level technological
innovation, demand-driven technology and information provision, and policy
innovation. It has also included the testing of novel organizational structures (plat-
forms) to foster district-level collaboration in natural resource management. AHI
experimentation with organizational processes has been even more extensive, as
exhibited throughout this book. It has included processes for planning, for negotiat-
ing rules to govern collective action processes or natural resource management, for
monitoring, and for enforcing agreed-upon rules. It has also included organizational
Integrated natural resource management 11
processes for improving the effectiveness of innovations at farm, landscape, district,
and national level (e.g. within national agricultural research systems). Finally, AHI
has experimented with rules for governing how external resources (technologies,
training, credit) will be shared within communities; for governing collective action
processes (contributions to be made, benefits accruing to different members, and
sanctions to be applied when contributions are not made); and for governing indi-
vidual behavior at farm and landscape level (for example, to curtail certain practices
having negative effects on other resource users or to negotiate and incentivize
actions that individuals must take in addressing a common problem).
The birth and evolution of the African Highlands Initiative
The African Highlands Initiative (AHI) is an eco-regional research program
working to improve livelihoods and reduce natural resource degradation in the
densely settled highlands of eastern Africa. To this end, AHI has been develop-
ing and pilot testing an integrated natural resource management approach in
selected highland areas of Ethiopia, Kenya, Tanzania, and Uganda and insti-
tutionalizing its use in key partner organizations. AHI work targets the poor
in degraded highland watersheds where environmental and related livelihood
problems are widely visible on farms and landscapes and of concern to local
residents due to their effects on livelihoods. It is this awareness and concern
of natural resource management issues by local land users, rather than external
conservation concerns, that has framed the scope of innovations tested by AHI.
The idea of a highland eco-regional program was tabled in 1992 at a regional
meeting of the National Agricultural Research Institute (NARI) directors and
International Agricultural Centers (IARCs) out of the concern that sustainable
use of natural resources was given insufficient attention in agricultural research in
the region. AHI was conceived as a NARI–IARC collaborative initiative aimed
at improving farmer livelihoods while improving natural resource management
so as to sustain rural livelihoods into the future. For most of its history, AHI has
therefore operated as an eco-regional program of the Consultative Group for
International Agricultural Research (CGIAR) and a regional network of the
Association for Strengthening Agricultural Research in East and Central Africa
(ASARECA), convened by the World Agroforestry Centre. While AHI’s host-
ing arrangements have shifted over the years, and the focus of core innovations
has evolved to build on lessons learned and address new challenges, its core
vision of developing an integrated approach to improved livelihoods and better
management of natural resources has remained unchanged.
The main impetus behind AHI’s conception was a growing concern that
the absence of a coordinated, inter-institutional effort had contributed to the
limited adoption by farmers and communities of technologies and practices
that improve and sustain natural resources. Although previous, independent
research efforts had generated technologies to improve soil fertility and con-
serve water and other natural resources, they were not necessarily suited to
12 Laura German, Jeremias Mowo, and Chris Opondo
the diverse socio-economic and biophysical circumstances of farmers living
in the humid tropical highlands. Nor were farmer decision frames—the key
considerations driving behavior, the “bottom lines” (e.g., food sufficiency and
income generation in the near term) and the timeframe over which these are
manifest—very often taken into consideration. Yet the ideas leading to the
program’s birth had less to do with the deficiency of research “inputs” to
development and natural resource management (e.g., technologies, knowl-
edge, decision tools) than with the limitations in the approaches through which
the research–development interface was structured and these inputs brought to
bear on the everyday challenges lived by rural households.
Implementing a regional research-for-development initiative involving mul-
tiple stakeholders at multiple levels, and accountable to different actors (farmers,
national, regional, and international agricultural research institutes), is no sim-
ple task. It requires careful thought regarding institutional aims and design, key
concepts that will help to anchor program evolution, and effective program gov-
ernance (see Annex I). It also requires periodic evaluations to adjust program
directions and governance as needed to effectively position the program to make
unique contributions or to address challenges emerging through implementation.
Adding to this complexity is the emphasis on the development and testing of
new methodologies and approaches for integrated natural resource management
(INRM) at different scales. This requires a strong methodological backbone to
operationalize a social learning process at village, district, and higher levels and to
link actors at different levels in a research and innovation process.
With these considerations as a background, the program was born with a
mandate to do the following (Stroud, 2001):
● Develop a participatory approach to foster farmer innovation and adaptation.
● Employ an integrated systems approach rather than a commodity-based
approach, so as to solve multiple and linked problems and make an impact
on livelihoods and the environment.
● Develop a more integrated approach among research and development
(R&D) actors in solving land degradation and related poverty issues.
● Give attention to social dimensions of natural resource management, such
as local institutional arrangements for managing communal resources or
issues of mutual concern.
● Consider how the short-term concerns of smallholders, which often over-
ride other considerations and lead to an inability or unwillingness to make
investments with medium- to long-term returns, could be taken on board
in efforts to support improved natural resource management.
● Explore mechanisms to identify and address external circumstances that act
as disincentives to technology adoption—such as lack of market outlets,
credit and input supplies.
● Interface with local and national policies that shape local natural resource
management and the forms of institutional support to rural development.
Integrated natural resource management 13
Key phases in AHI’s evolution
Since its inception in 1995, the AHI has been operationalized through dis-
crete conceptual and funding phases of approximately three years each. This
book reports on the first four phases of program evolution. In Phase I (1995–
1997), a competitive grant scheme was employed to foster partnerships for
multidisciplinary research in Ethiopia, Kenya, Madagascar, and Uganda. Yet
achieving changes in mindset and practices among those accustomed to work-
ing in isolation proved challenging in practice, leading to a reconceptualization
of modes of operation. In Phase II (1998–2000), the program shifted away
from the competitive grant approach to the use of benchmark sites as a means
of operationalizing multidisciplinary approaches and teamwork for farm-level
innovations. Eight benchmark sites were established and the geographical cov-
erage was expanded to include Tanzania.
Following a favorable review of Phase 2, it was suggested that the program
continue with the benchmark site approach in Phase III (2002–2004). It was
also suggested that the number of sites be reduced, resulting in a reduction from
the original eight sites to six (Figure 1.1). The program was also encouraged to
shift focus from the farm to the watershed level, so as to address NRM issues
that cannot be effectively addressed at farm level. Watershed and landscape-
level innovations continued in Phase IV (2005–2007), but greater emphasis was
placed on institutional innovations to expand the reach of INRM in bench-
mark sites and to institutionalize lessons and approaches within the region. A
more detailed description of each phase of work is presented in Annex II.
Operationalizing “approach development”
An important question underlying all of this work is the “how” of methodo-
logical innovation. How are new ways of managing natural resources identified?
How are they tested in practice? And how are they evaluated for their effective-
ness? There are two answers to these questions, one looking at the “big picture”
of how collaboration is structured within benchmark sites and regionally to foster
a culture of methodological innovation—and the other looking at the methodo-
logical framework through which innovation was fostered and lessons captured.
The regional “infrastructure” for methodological innovation
The organizational structure and functions of AHI are in many ways explicitly
designed for enhancing methodological innovation. The most crucial ingredi-
ent has been the presence of functional research and development (R&D) teams
in AHI benchmark sites, consisting of representatives of diverse disciplines and
institutions with different mandates and organizational competencies (including,
minimally, those working in the realms of “research” and “development”) and
a well-facilitated process for collective deliberation and experiential learning.
This was often operationalized through smaller theme-based teams and periodic
14 Laura German, Jeremias Mowo, and Chris Opondo
meetings for cross-team reflection and replanning. A diverse institutional and
disciplinary composition has helped ensure that efforts to conceptualize the
“system” and the approaches to be tested are holistic and integrative. It has
also helped to instill a more critical perspective on approaches under develop-
ment, for example to ensure that unfounded assumptions are questioned. For
example, the common misperception of communities as homogeneous entities
for which interactions with or benefits flowing to one or more members will
automatically constitute communication with or benefits to all can be regularly
questioned by bringing experienced development practitioners into planning.
This diversity of voices has also helped to ensure that work being done on
diverse sub-components (e.g., soil and water, animal and crop husbandry) or
themes (e.g., technological innovation, watershed management) harmonize
their engagements with communities and one another.
FIGURE 1.1 Map of eastern Africa showing AHI mandated areas and the benchmark sites
Note: Two Phase II benchmark sites in Madagascar are not shown here.
Ethiopia
Uganda
Tanzania
Kenya
Ginchi
Areka
Kapchorwa
Kabale
Western
Kenya
Highlands
Lushoto
Integrated natural resource management 15
Regional research team members, hired to fill gaps in disciplines and per-
spectives represented in site teams, have also played a critical role in periodic
reflection and re-planning sessions. Their engagement with multiple teams at a
time has enabled them to bring in unique observations from other sites, which
may be at different stages in the implementation cycle or experimenting with
different approaches. It also provides a unique “birds-eye” perspective that
enables patterns and lessons to be captured across sites, thereby grounding the
development of regional synthesis products within different thematic areas.
Assisting site teams to distil lessons learned into Methods Guides and other
public goods has been a fundamental step in coming “full circle” in the inno-
vation and learning process, and in clarifying the overall role and institutional
niche of AHI in the region.
The thematic focus of learning and innovation has been structured through
external phase reviews, where broad targets for the next phase are set, and
regional phase planning meetings, where representatives of all site teams and
research managers come together to agree how to operationalize new concepts
and first steps of methodological innovation. Key regional themes are distilled
and used to structure learning by site teams, as well as regional team members
who specialize in one or more of the themes. By Phase III, the key themes
structuring learning and innovation across the program were consolidated into
the following:
● approach for integrated natural resource management for watersheds;
● local organizational capacity for collective action;
● innovation systems through partnerships and institutional arrangements
(alternatively called, “district institutional and policy innovations”);
● scaling up and institutionalization.
Different donors4 have historically funded different pieces of the whole (the-
matic and geographical), depending on their thematic and country priorities.
This has resulted in a complex matrix of sites, projects and to some extent
thematic thrusts, from which the methodological innovations and lessons in
this book are derived. Having a set of cross-cutting thematic priorities and
coordination functions at regional, national, and site levels has therefore been
instrumental in ensuring the coherence of the program as a whole.
AHI’s benchmark sites have also played a fundamental role in building and
consolidating expertise in interdisciplinary teamwork, methodological innova-
tion, and demand-driven research and development over time, and in linking
levels of innovation. By having multidisciplinary and multi-institutional teams
in place and a specific location where new ideas could be tested, an opportunity
was provided for the mindsets and practices of individual professionals to evolve
over time as well as for lessons to be more systematically learned and accu-
mulated. At the time of writing, AHI had five active benchmark sites (BMS):
Areka, located near Soddo town in south-central Ethiopia; Ginchi, located in the
16 Laura German, Jeremias Mowo, and Chris Opondo
Galessa Highlands near Ginchi town, in central Ethiopia; Kabale, located in the
Kigezi highlands of south-western Uganda; Kapchorwa, located on the foothills
of Mount Elgon in eastern Uganda; and Lushoto, located in the West Usambara
Mountains of Tanzania (Table 1.1). Each of these sites and the wider eco-regions
in which they are embedded are characterized by high population density, natural
resource degradation, and declining agricultural productivity—posing significant
challenges to farmers to provide for a growing population while maintaining the
productivity of basic resources (water, food, fuel, fodder). Benchmark sites are
delineated by topographical boundaries (micro-watersheds), encompass from six
to nine villages, and lie within larger administrative units (districts or woredas)
where some of the activities take place. A more detailed description of these
benchmark sites may be found in Annex III.
Methodological “nuts and bolts”
Once the institutional “infrastructure” for learning and innovation are in place,
how are new methods actually conceived and tested in practice to derive
broader lessons about the “approaches that matter”? Perhaps the most impor-
tant component of this is that the innovations tested by different site teams
are fully embedded in rural communities who have become equal partners in
methodological innovation. While this element can be partially encompassed
by the participatory research concept, in fact it goes much beyond a particular
method of structuring farmer–researcher interaction. It may be best character-
ized by a broader philosophy of shared learning, inquiry and—perhaps most
importantly—mutual respect and friendship. In sites where these interpersonal
relations have been strongest and the mind-sets of R&D teams most flexible,
methodological innovations have more quickly led to successful outcomes.
Another fundamental piece of the puzzle has been an emphasis on learn-
ing-by-doing rather than through pure data capture. Researchers were
encouraged from early on in Phase II to “enter the system” rather than sim-
ply study it as outsiders. As this approach flies in the face of centuries of
empiricism emphasizing the neutral observer, it was perhaps the most dif-
ficult challenge faced by AHI researchers. While lessons are therefore still
being learned at a rapid pace, the approach was advanced considerably dur-
ing Phases III and IV in efforts to operationalize the concept of “action
research” in the context of INRM. This has led to the development not only
of methodological innovations for INRM (action research “outputs”), but
to innovations in the methods employed to structure learning itself (action
research methods). The latter include tools for planning (e.g. action research
protocols), tools for observing “process,” monitoring systems (German et al.,
2007; Opondo et al., 2005), and approaches for integrating empirical and
action research approaches (German and Stroud, 2007).
Action research is exactly what it sounds like—action-oriented research. It
focuses explicitly on process, in this case the processes of development and social
TABLE 1.1 Characteristics of African Highlands Initiative benchmark sites
Site attributes Benchmark site
Areka, Ethiopia Ginchi, Ethiopia Lushoto, Tanzania Kabale, Uganda Kapchorwa, Uganda
Altitude (meters above sea
level)
1800–2600 >2200 1100–1450 1500–2700 1000–2000
Population density (/km2) 400–600 100–200 200–300 100–300 100–170
Enterprises Enset, wheat, pea,
maize, barley,
sorghum, sweet
potato, faba bean,
horticulture,
communal grazing
Barley, pulses, Irish
potato, wheat,
oilseeds, seasonal
rotation from
individual cropland
to communal grazing
Maize, banana, tea,
coffee, horticulture
in valley bottoms,
high-value trees,
zero-grazed livestock
Sorghum, pulses,
banana, zero grazed
livestock, vegetables,
potatoes
Maize, beans, banana,
wheat, coffee, barley,
Irish potatoes, some
cassava
Irrigation None None Seasonal Seasonal None
Livestock trends Low numbers and
decreasing; intensive
management
High numbers yet
decreasing; access to
grazing land good
Low numbers and
decreasing; zero
grazing mostly
Low numbers and
decreasing; mostly
zero grazed
Low numbers and
decreasing
Forest/woodlot access Medium (tree
planting common)
Limited (planting
limited; remnant
forest is distant)
Medium to high
(mostly cultivated;
natural forests are
protected)
Few trees and
decreasing
Limited forests;
extensive woodlots
Market integration Limited; some off-
farm employment
Medium Medium to good
(tea, vegetables)
Limited Medium
18 Laura German, Jeremias Mowo, and Chris Opondo
change. In the context of agricultural development and natural resource man-
agement, this might include testing different approaches to enhancing farmer
innovation; mechanisms for linking farmers to markets; strategies for improving
governance of landscape processes (such as the movement of water, soil and
pests); and approaches to institutional change (for impact-oriented research). By
superimposing research or systematic inquiry on development-oriented actions
by R&D teams, farmers, and policy makers, new lessons can be learned that may
otherwise be lost to observation. These lessons are gained by creating spaces to
reflect on processes being implemented at diverse levels—including what was
done, how it was done, the outcomes tied to particular approaches, and lessons
derived from these experiences. Lessons learning is also strengthened by mak-
ing observation more systematic, for example by clarifying the area of concern
(improved livelihoods, equity and sustainability); the framework of ideas that
structure research (for example, key challenges to development, sustainability
or equity and related knowledge gaps) (Checkland and Holwell, 1998); the
research questions (which often emphasize how to address these challenges);
and the methodology (what will be observed and documented, and how). Each
of these helps to sift out what is significant from the sum total of what is learned
and observed—in other words, to determine which findings really count as
knowledge (Checkland, 1991; Checkland and Holwell, 1998).
Action research is different from empirical research in both the questions
asked and the methods used. Action research questions are the “how” ques-
tions seeking answers to the question, “what works, where and why?” They are
questions about development and change. While action research is embedded
in an action context (i.e. community-driven watershed management activi-
ties), the “research” component helps to promote systematic inquiry about the
change process. This can serve two purposes. First, it can encourage systematic
reflection at the level where change is taking place (e.g. community, district,
institution) on how things are being done so that they can undergo continu-
ous improvement and have a higher chance of success. The second purpose
is unique to action research—namely, to derive general principles from the
change process that can be of use to other actors (farmers, research and develop-
ment institutions, policy makers) outside the immediate location. In the context
of AHI, for example, we study change processes for the purpose of developing
methods and approaches that work in meeting different livelihood or NRM
challenges. Without such scrutiny of the method-in-practice, it would be
impossible to make reliable claims about the method’s usefulness in solving real
problems on the ground. This requires both participatory assessments of the
methodology and systematic scrutiny at the level of R&D teams.5 Empirical
research, on the other hand, is a more controlled form of research which helps
to address the “what” questions. It requires more formal data collection proto-
cols and analysis, but can be equally instrumental in informing decision-making
at the local level or among policy makers. Applications of empirical research in
watershed management within AHI are explored in subsequent chapters.
Integrated natural resource management 19
Action research starts with participatory action research (PAR). PAR is a pro-
cess in which the immediate beneficiaries themselves, whether local communities,
institutional representatives or policy makers, play the primary role in designing
and testing innovations. The objective here is to enhance impact in the context
under study—whether community-level change processes, institutional change
or policy reforms. However, as applied in AHI, action research does not stop
here. AHI has a mandate to generate international public goods in the form of
“working methods and approaches,” in this case for integrated natural resource
management. Therefore, it was essential to move beyond solving site-specific
problems to distil lessons of broader relevance for the international community.
This requires an additional level of abstraction and analysis that may not be of
interest to the immediate beneficiaries.6 It also requires a particular set of skills to
link site-specific circumstances to a broader global community (knowing what
challenges and knowledge gaps exist elsewhere); to observe fine details of pro-
cess (observing how people react to processes when facilitated in certain ways,
reading body language, understanding how process relates to outcomes); and to
understand how to link the particularities of local-level learning with generaliza-
tion. While the protagonists (immediate beneficiaries) play a fundamental role
in defining research, monitoring progress, adjusting the approach and evaluating
impacts, it is generally researchers who play a primary role in managing research
quality and bringing a wider body of theory to bear on local innovations. In short,
action research encompasses, but is not limited to, participatory action learning
for solving localized NRM problems. For a better understanding of how AHI has
operationalized the difference between participatory action learning and action
research, please see Table 1.2 and Figure 1.2.
FIGURE 1.2 Illustration of the relationship between action research (upper box) and
PAR (lower box) (German et al., 2011)
Actors: action research team
Tools: observation, process documentation
Starting point
(participatory
diagnosis and
planning)
Actors: communities or other stakeholders driving the PAR process
Tools: facilitation, participatory monitoring and evaluation
Action New action New action
Reflection Monitoring Reflection Monitoring
and and
re-planning replanning
Arrival
(solution)
TABLE 1.2 Distinctions between participatory action research and action research as operationalized within AHI
Learning approach Aims and applications Roles in defining the
research and learning
agenda
Characteristics of research
design
Primary role in designing
and managing research
Research outputs and
applications
Participatory
action research
To guide a change
process and strengthen
chances of success
through systematic
reflection and
self-learning
Immediate beneficiaries
(who integrate lessons
into the change
process through
periodic reflection and
re-planning)
Informal; goals and
pathways for achieving
goals defined at the
outset but not rigidly
adhered to; “data”
capture largely informal
Immediate beneficiaries
(whether local
communities,
institutional
representatives or
policy makers)
Approaches that “work”
relative to the end goals
of a development or
change process as defined
by the immediate
beneficiaries
Action research To help guide the
development or change
process on/within which
research is conducted,
or to generate general
principles of relevance
to managers of change
in other locations with
similar conditions
End users (immediate
beneficiaries or offsite
users of results);
researchers and
facilitators (who may
wish to generalize
results)
Semi-formal; research
questions defined
at outset and fixed;
methods of data capture
may be relatively fixed
or opportunistically
defined to capture
emergent realities
Researchers (specialized
skills required to manage
research for quality, and
to generate lessons and
principles relevant to a
wider audience)
General principles about
development and change
processes, including the
conditions under which
diverse outcomes are
reached
Source: German and Stroud (2007).
Integrated natural resource management 21
Before concluding, it is important to mention two questions of common con-
cern by those new to action research. The first relates to validity, and the
second to the role of empirical research. Many people are uncomfortable with
the inability to structure controlled and replicable processes in action research,
given how participation will inevitably lead to the divergence of processes in
different sites—independently of how similarly structured the initial steps are.
Some well-known action researchers are comfortable with prior clarification
of an area of concern, framework of ideas and methodology as means to ensure
validity in action research (Checkland and Holwell, 1998). Yet comparison
can also play a fundamental role in lessons learning, to understand how diverse
approaches and contexts structure outcomes. This comparison can be opera-
tionalized in both space and time. One way in which spatial comparison was
employed in AHI to learn lessons was cross-site comparison around different
AHI thematic thrusts. Learning across cases is also possible within individual
benchmark sites, as in the case of negotiation support processes around dif-
ferent types of natural resource problems (excess run-off, spring degradation,
free grazing). Yet comparison can also be employed within a single site and
action research topic through a systematic temporal comparison of iterative
approaches used and their outcomes (as measured by local and/or scientific
indicators). While it may not enable broader generalizations to be made, such
systematic learning within cases does yield a wealth of observations about pro-
cesses that do and do not work in particular contexts.
Many researchers also wonder whether empirical research has a role to play
in action research, and struggle with the relevance of their training to action
research approaches. In watershed management processes, we have found four
discrete roles for empirical research, which are highlighted in more detail in
Chapter 3:
1. To characterize the social and biophysical dimensions of natural resource
management problems, so that interventions may be effectively targeted.
2. To monitor intermediate outcomes of different approaches to solving any
particular problem at different phases of an innovation process, particularly
in cases where variables are difficult to observe or monitor by local resi-
dents but nevertheless can help determine whether the approach is helping
to foster community or program level goals (e.g., equity, sustainability).
3. To clarify complex cause-and-effect relationships that are difficult for
farmers to observe, such as the effect of different land uses and their spatial
arrangement on system hydrology and sub-service water flows.
4. To assess the impacts once the problem is solved, so that something can be
said with confidence about the effectiveness of the approach used.
This said, it is important to clearly identify the “critical uncertainties” or pro-
gram requirements that actually require costly empirical research investments.
The tendency is for researchers to want to expand the scope of empirical
22 Laura German, Jeremias Mowo, and Chris Opondo
research within participatory processes as a means to justify their engagement,
and generate publications that conform with conventional standards of aca-
demic rigor. Ideally, these investments should be chosen carefully, based on
gaps in local knowledge and observation capacity (as in the case of sub-service
hydrology) and need (where the knowledge generated is required to identify
an effective solution to a problem). In some cases, empirical research will be
needed to fill gaps in local motives or to achieve project objectives. For exam-
ple, participating farmers will tend to focus solely on their own benefits rather
than on how to ensure equitable benefits captured by a broader community.
This may require empirical research in social science to identify how opinions
on issues differ within any given community, or to monitor how any given
approach is structuring the distribution of benefits to different sets of actors.
The same may be said about sustainability, given the tendency for farmers to
focus on the immediate benefits from any given innovation. Empirical research
that exposes the deficiencies of an approach from the perspective of equity or
sustainability (e.g., only certain groups are benefiting, the innovation is leading
to the depletion of nutrients) can help to raise awareness among the protago-
nists and encourage new innovations in the approach to address these gaps.
Main achievements
AHI program achievements are of three primary types: methodological inno-
vations for INRM, impacts resulting from the piloting of these innovations,
and various knowledge products. Regarding methodological innovations, the
program has developed a host of methodological innovations for operational-
izing INRM and addressing key natural resource management challenges. A
summary of these innovations, and the publications where additional informa-
tion may be sourced, is provided in Table 1.3.
Regarding the impacts emanating from these methodological innovations,
an External Review and Impact Assessment of the program carried out in late
2007 and early 2008 identified the following key outcomes and impacts (La
Rovere et al., 2008; Mekuria et al. 2008):
● male and female farmers have increased knowledge of technologies, and
greater ability to demand these technologies and seek support from service
providers and to freely express themselves with research and extension;
● improvements in crop production and yield owing to improved germ-
plasm, better agronomic practices, better pest and disease management,
and increased adoption of conservation practices;
● increased technology adoption owing to efforts to “link” technologies (see
Chapter 2 for details);
● benefits associated with collective efforts to address farm-level productivity
constraints, including improved access to information, training and credit;
improved financial management and business planning; and access to com-
munity banks (the last of these unique to Lushoto);
TABLE 1.3 Methodological innovations developed by AHI and selected reference materials
Theme and innovation Selected reference materials
1. Farm level innovations
Methods for systems intensification
and diversification (Areka, W. Kenya)
Amede, T., A. Bekele and C. Opondo (2006) Creating niches for integration of green manures and risk
management through growing maize cultivar mixtures in the southern Ethiopian highlands. AHI Working
Papers No. 14.
Amede, T. and R. Kirkby (2006) Guidelines for integration of legumes into the farming systems of the east
African highlands. AHI Working Papers No. 7.
Amede, T., A. Stroud and J. Aune (2006) Advancing human nutrition without degrading land resources
through modeling cropping systems in the Ethiopian highlands. AHI Working Papers No. 8.
Amede, T. and E. Taboge (2006) Optimizing soil fertility gradients in the enset (ensete ventricosum)
systems of the Ethiopian highlands: Trade-offs and local innovations. AHI Working Papers No. 15.
System-integrated technologies with
multiple benefits (Areka, Kapchorwa)
Amede, T. and R. Delve (2006) Improved decision-making for achieving triple benefits of food security,
income and environmental services through modeling cropping systems in the Ethiopian highlands. AHI
Working Papers No. 20.
Linked technologies (Lushoto) Masuki, K.F.G., J.G. Mowo, T.E. Mbaga, J.K. Tanui, J.M. Wickama and C.J. Lyamchai (2010) Using
strategic “entry points” and “linked technologies” for enhanced uptake of improved banana germplasm in
the humid highlands of East Africa. Acta Horticulturae 879(2): 797–804.
Stroud, A. (2003) Linked Technologies for Increasing Adoption and Impact. AHI Brief A3.
Use of entry points at farm level (all
sites)
Amede, T. (2003) Differential entry points to address complex natural resource constraints in the highlands
of eastern Africa. AHI Brief A2.
Farmer institutional development for
demand-driven service provision,
technology innovation and marketing
(Kabale)
Stroud, A., E. Obin, R. Kandelwahl, F. Byekwaso, C. Opondo, L. German, J. Tanui, O. Kyampaire,
B. Mbwesa, A. Ariho, Africare and Kabale District Farmers’ Association (2006) Managing change:
Institutional development under NAADS: A field study on farmer institutions working with NAADS. AHI
Working Papers No. 22.
Continued
Theme and innovation Selected reference materials
Fostering local seed delivery systems Taye, H., M. Diro and A. W/Yohannes (2006) The effectiveness of decentralized channels for wider
dissemination of crop technologies: Lessons from the AHI Areka site, Ethiopia. In: T. Amede, L. German,
S. Rao, C. Opondo and A. Stroud (eds.), Integrated Natural Resource Management in Practice: Enabling
Communities to Improve Mountain Livelihoods and Landscapes, pp. 265–73. Kampala, Uganda: African
Highlands Initiative.
Wakjira, A., G. Keneni, G. Alemu and G. Woldegiorgis (2006) Supporting alternative seed delivery
systems in the AHI–Galessa watershed site, Ethiopia. In: T. Amede, L. German, S. Rao, C. Opondo and
A. Stroud (eds.), Integrated Natural Resource Management in Practice: Enabling Communities to Improve Mountain
Livelihoods and Landscapes, pp. 240–8. Kampala, Uganda: African Highlands Initiative.
Woldegiorgis, G., A. Solomon, B. Kassa and E. Gebre (2006) Participatory potato technology
development and dissemination in the central highlands of Ethiopia. In: T. Amede, L. German, S. Rao,
C. Opondo and A. Stroud (eds.), Integrated Natural Resource Management in Practice: Enabling Communities to
Improve Mountain Livelihoods and Landscapes, pp. 124–31. Kampala, Uganda: African Highlands Initiative.
Negotiating equitable access to
technologies (Areka, Ginchi)
Mazengia, W., A. Tenaye, L. Begashaw, L. German and Y. Rezene (2007) Enhancing equitable
technology access for socially and economically constrained farmers: Experience from Gununo Watershed,
Ethiopia. AHI Brief E4.
Methods for tracking farmer-to-farmer
dissemination and impacts (regional/
Lushoto)
German, L., J.G. Mowo and M. Kingamkono (2006) A methodology for tracking the “fate” of
technological innovations in agriculture. Agriculture and Human Values 23: 353–69.
German, L., J. Mowo, M. Kingamkono and J. Nuñez (2006) Technology spillover: A methodology for
understanding patterns and limits to adoption of farm-level innovations. AHI Methods Guide A1.
Catalyzing collective learning and
innovation (Kapchorwa, community-
based facilitators in NAADS)
Mowo, J., B. Janssen, O. Oenema, L. German, P. Mrema and R. Shemdoe (2006) Soil fertility evaluation
and management by smallholder farmer communities in northern Tanzania. Agriculture, Ecosystems and
Environment 116(1/2): 47–59.
Tanui, J. (2005) Revitalizing grassroots knowledge systems: Farmer learning cycles in AGILE. AHI Brief D4.
TABLE 1.3 Continued
Theme and innovation Selected reference materials
Methodology for designing integrated
research
German, L. (2006) Moving beyond component research in mountain regions: Operationalizing systems
integration at farm and landscape scale. Journal of Mountain Science 3(4): 287–304 and AHI Working Papers
No. 21.
German, L., B. Kidane and K. Mekonnen (2005) Watershed management to counter farming systems
decline: Toward a demand-driven, systems-oriented research agenda. AgREN Network Paper 45.
German, L., A. Stroud, G. Alemu, Y. Gojjam, B. Kidane, B. Bekele, D. Bekele, G. Woldegiorgis, T.
Tolera and M. Haile (2006) Creating an integrated research agenda from prioritized watershed issues. AHI
Methods Guide B4.
2. Watershed management and participatory landscape governance
Sequenced methods for participatory
integrated watershed management:
● Participatory watershed diagnosis and
characterization
● The creation of functional clusters to
structure innovations
● Participatory watershed planning
● Selection of entry points
● Participatory monitoring and
evaluation
Adimassu, Z., K. Mekonnen and Y. Gojjam (eds.) (2008) Working with Rural Communities on Integrated
Natural Resources Management (INRM). Ethiopian Institute of Agricultural Research (EIAR), Addis Ababa.
German, L., H. Mansoor, G. Alemu, W. Mazengia, T. Amede and A. Stroud (2006) Participatory
integrated watershed management: Evolution of concepts and methods. AHI Working Papers No. 11.
German, L., H. Mansoor, G. Alemu, W. Mazengia, T. Amede PhD and A. Stroud (2007) Participatory
integrated watershed management: Evolution of concepts and methods in an eco-regional program of the
eastern African highlands. Agricultural Systems 94(2): 189–204.
German, L., K. Masuki, Y. Gojjam, J. Odenya and E. Geta (2006) Beyond the farm: A new look at
livelihood constraints in the eastern African highlands. AHI Working Papers No. 12.
German, L. and K. Mekonnen (2006) A socially-optimal approach to participatory watershed diagnosis.
AHI Methods Guide B2.
German, L., A. Stroud, G. Alemu, Y. Gojjam, B. Kidane, B. Bekele, D. Bekele, G. Woldegiorgis, T.
Tolera and M. Haile (2006) Creating an integrated research agenda from prioritized watershed issues. AHI
Methods Guide B4.
Continued
Theme and innovation Selected reference materials
Mobilizing collective action for
INRM
Ayele, S., A. Ghizaw, Z. Adimassu, M. Tsegaye, G. Alemu, T. Tolera and L. German (2007) Enhancing
collective action in spring “development” and management through negotiation support and by-law
reforms. AHI Brief E5.
Begashaw, L., W. Mazengia and L. German (2007) Mobilizing collective action for vertebrate pest control:
The case of porcupine in Areka. AHI Brief E3.
German, L., W. Mazengia, W. Tirwomwe, S. Ayele, J. Tanui, S. Nyangas, L. Begashaw, H. Taye,
Z. Adimassu, M. Tsegaye, S. Charamila, F. Alinyo, A. Mekonnen, K. Aberra, A. Chemangeni, W.
Cheptegei, T. Tolera, Z. Jotte and K. Bedane (2011) Enabling equitable collective action and policy
change for poverty reduction and improved natural resource management in the eastern African highlands.
In: E. Mwangi, H. Markelova and R. Meinzen-Dick (eds.), Collective Action and Property Rights for Poverty
Reduction. Johns Hopkins and IFPRI, Baltimore and Washington, D.C.
German, L., H. Taye, S. Charamila, T. Tolera and J. Tanui (2006) The many meanings of collective
action: Lessons on enhancing gender inclusion and equity in watershed management. AHI Working Papers
No. 17; CAPRi Working Paper 52.
Tanui, J. (2006) Incorporating a landcare approach into community land management efforts in Africa: A
case study of the Mount Kenya region. AHI Working Papers No. 19.
TABLE 1.3 Continued
Theme and innovation Selected reference materials
Participatory governance of landscape
processes:
● Negotiation support
● Participatory by-law reforms
● Solutions to address specific
landscape level challenges (spring
rehabilitation, controlling free grazing,
managing excess run-off, niche-
compatible agroforestry, vertebrate
pest control, co-management of
protected areas)
Adimassu, Z., S. Ayele, A. Ghizaw, M. Tsegaye and L. German (2007) Soil and water conservation
through attitude change and negotiation. AHI Brief A6.
German, L., S. Charamila and T. Tolera (2006) Managing trade-offs in agroforestry: From conflict to
collaboration in natural resource management. AHI Working Papers No. 10.
German, L., S. Charamila and T. Tolera (2005) Negotiation support in watershed management: A case for
decision-making beyond the farm level. AHI Brief E2.
German, L., W. Tirwomwe, J. Tanui, S. Nyangas and A. Chemangei (2007) Searching for solutions:
Technology-policy synergies in participatory NRM. AHI Brief B6.
Mazengia, W., A. Tenaye, L. Begashaw, L. German and Y. Rezene (2007) Enhancing equitable
technology access for socially and economically constrained farmers. AHI Brief E4.
Sanginga P., R. Kamugisha, and A. M. Martin. (2010). Strengthening social capital for adaptive
governance of natural resources: A participatory action research for by-law reforms in Uganda. Society and
Natural Resources 23: 695–710.
Sanginga P., A. Abenakyo, R. Kamugisha, A. Martin and R. Muzira. 2010. Tracking outcomes of social
capital and institutional innovations in natural resources management: Methodological issues and empirical
evidence from participatory by-law reform in Uganda. Society and Natural Resources 23: 711–25.
Sanginga, P.C., R.N. Kamugisha and A.M. Martin (2007) The dynamics of social capital and conflict
management in multiple resource regimes: A case of the south-western highlands of Uganda. Ecology and
Society 12(1): 6. Online at: www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol12/iss1/art6/
Sanginga, P.C., R. Kamugisha, A. Martin, A. Kakuru and A. Stroud (2004) Facilitating participatory
processes for policy change in natural resource management: Lessons from the highlands of southwestern
Uganda. Uganda Journal of Agricultural Sciences 9: 958–70. National Agricultural Research Organization,
Kampala.
Tanui, J., S. Nyangas, A. Chemangei, F. Alinyo and L. German (2007) Co-management of protected areas
is about cultivating relationships. AHI Brief B7.
3. District institutional and policy innovations
Continued
Theme and innovation Selected reference materials
Multi-institutional processes for
INRM (district level)
German, L., A. Stroud and E. Obin (2003) A coalition for enabling demand-driven development in Kabale
District, Uganda. AHI Brief B1.
Tanui, J., A. Chemengei, S. Nyangas and W. Cheptegei (2007) Rural development and conservation: The
future lies with multi-stakeholder collective action. AHI Brief B8.
System for demand-driven technology
and information provision
Masuki, K.F.G., J.G. Mowo, R. Sheila, R. Kamugisha, C. Opondo and J. Tanui (2011) Improving
smallholder farmers’ access to information for enhanced decision making in natural resource management:
Experiences from South Western Uganda. In Bationo, A., Waswa, B.S., Okeyo, J. and Maina, F. (eds)
Innovations as Key to the Green Revolution in Africa: Exploring the Scientific Facts (2): 1145–1160.
Opondo, C., L. German, A. Stroud and E. Obin (2006) Lessons from using participatory action research to
enhance farmer-led research and extension in southwestern Uganda. AHI Working Papers No. 3.
4. Scaling up and institutionalization
Self-led institutional change Mowo, J.G., L.N. Nabahungu and L. Dusengemungu (2007) The integrated watershed management
approach for livelihoods and natural resource management in Rwanda: Moving beyond AHI pilot sites.
AHI Brief D5.
Opondo, C., P. Sanginga and A. Stroud (2006) Monitoring the outcomes of participatory research in
natural resources management: Experiences of the African Highlands Initiative. AHI Working Papers No. 2.
Opondo, C., A. Stroud, L. German and J. Hagmann (2003) Institutionalizing participation in East African
research institutes, Ch. 11, PLA Notes 48. London: IIED.
Stroud, A. (2003) Self-management of institutional change for improving approaches to integrated NRM.
AHI Brief B2.
Stroud, A. (2006) Transforming institutions to achieve innovation in research and development. AHI
Working Papers No. 4.
Methods for linking farmers to
policy makers
German, L., A. Stroud, C. Opondo and B. Mbwesa (2004) Linking farmers to policy-makers: Experiences
from Kabale District, Uganda. UPWARD Participatory R&D Sourcebook. Manila: CIP.
TABLE 1.3 Continued
Theme and innovation Selected reference materials
5. Improving research–development linkages
Action research German, L., W. Mazengia, S. Charamila, H. Taye, S. Nyangas, J. Tanui, S. Ayele and A. Stroud (2007)
Action research: An approach for generating methodological innovations for improved impact from
agricultural development and natural resource management. AHI Methods Guide E1.
Opondo, C., L. German, S. Charamila, A. Stroud and R. K. Khandelwal (2005) Process monitoring and
documentation for R&D team learning: Concepts and approaches. AHI Brief B5.
Use of scientific and local knowledge
to ground decision-making
German, L., B. Kidane, R. Shemdoe and M. Sellungato (2005) A methodology for understanding niche
incompatibilities in agroforestry. AHI Brief C2.
German, L., B. Kidane and R. Shemdoe (2006) Social and environmental trade-offs in tree species
selection: A Methodology for identifying niche incompatibilities in agroforestry. Environment, Development
and Sustainability 8: 535–52; AHI Working Paper 9.
Wickama, J. and J.G. Mowo (2001) Indigenous nutrient resources in Tanzania. Managing African Soils 21,
IIED.
Planning for integrated research and
development interactions
German, L. and A. Stroud (2004) Integrating learning approaches for agricultural R&D. AHI Brief B4.
German, L. and A. Stroud (2007) A framework for the integration of diverse learning approaches:
Operationalizing agricultural research and development (R&D) linkages in eastern Africa. World
Development 35(5): 792–814 and AHI Working Papers No. 23.
30 Laura German, Jeremias Mowo, and Chris Opondo
● improved livelihoods resulting from significant increases in agricultural
income, and related improvements in housing, nutrition, and ability to
pay school fees;
● improvements in water quality and quantity owing to the by-laws protect-
ing water sources, restricted cropping near springs, and the cultivation of
water-conserving vegetation;
● improved livelihoods owing to water conservation, resulting from reduced
burdens on women, reduction in conflicts over water, the increased avail-
ability of irrigation water, and reduction in waterborne diseases and related
medical expenditures;
● significant increase in the prevalence of collective action to solve NRM
issues and cooperate on matters of common concern, and improved nego-
tiation of resource conflicts;
● greater harmony at community level when dealing with the management
of water sources/springs, boundary trees, and soil conservation issues;
● increased tendency to participate collectively in addressing NRM issues
and comply with by-laws;
● increased confidence among farmers in their ability to solve NRM problems;
● significant improvements in access to information (i.e., on input and out-
put prices, technology, financial services);
● more positive attitudes among farmers toward research;
● increased awareness and appreciation of watershed management in par-
ticular, and INRM in general, among many high level officials, leaders of
institutions, and policy makers.
Impacts associated with wider dissemination of lessons learned and meth-
odologies are impossible to assess, but the report notes that “the process of
disseminating AHI outputs, successes, and methods is fairly effective at the
international level”—in large part owing to the publication series, website,
and regional trainings carried out for ASARECA member countries to dis-
seminate select methods developed by the program. The assessment team also
notes the program’s role as a “think tank” for developing tools and methods,
and for institutionalizing INRM at the regional level. The study concludes
that INRM works so effectively owing to the interaction between AHI’s bio-
physical and socio-economic components, and to AHI’s community-driven
approach. “The capacity to put INRM to work is a rare achievement within
CGIAR centers” (Mekuria et al. 2008: 17).
Regarding AHI knowledge products, the program launched a series of AHI
Briefs in 2003 and followed this up with a set of Working Papers, Methods Guides
and Proceedings in 2006. These may be found at: http://worldagroforestry.org/
projects/african-highlands/archives.html. In addition to contributing to this series,
site and regional team members have collectively contributed to working papers of
other organizations such as ODI’s AgREN, CAPRi Working Papers, Managing
Africa’s Soils and IIED’s PLA Notes. They have also published papers in academic
Integrated natural resource management 31
journals such as Acta Horticulturae; Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment;
Agriculture and Human Values; Agricultural Systems; Development in Practice;
Environment, Development and Sustainability; Human Ecology; Journal of
Mountain Science; Society & Natural Resources; Uganda Journal of Agricultural
Sciences; and World Development, among others. They have collectively pro-
duced 195 publications, including 26 peer reviewed journal articles, two books,
23 book chapters, 39 working papers, seven methods guides, 33 briefs, 49 papers
in workshop proceedings, and 16 program reports7 (Annex IV). The project also
produced a number of knowledge products oriented toward farmers. As may be
seen by the authorship, the vast majority of these publications were developed
collaboratively by site team members, regional research team members, and other
partners. The numbers of contributions made by different contributing partners
are summarized in Table 1.4.
Conclusions
This chapter provides a brief overview of the integrated natural resource man-
agement concept, as defined in both the literature and in the research from
which this volume emanates. A few key concepts are presented and defined to
clarify the conceptual foundations of INRM and the chapters that follow. The
chapter also provided an introduction to the African Highlands Initiative, the
eco-regional program operating in the eastern African highlands under which
the methodological innovations presented in this volume were developed and
piloted. Following an introduction to the program’s mandate and evolution, key
strategies for putting INRM into practice and deriving lessons from experience
were presented—along with a summary of key program achievements to date.
TABLE 1.4 Number of contributions made to different types of publications by different
contributing partners
Publication type Number of
contributions from
site team members
Number of
contributions from
regional team
members
Number of
contributions from
other partners
Peer reviewed journal articles 54 31 31
Books and book chapters 97 20 4
Working papers 75 51 25
Methods guides 25 8 5
Briefs 31 39 2
Conference proceedings 134 37 32
Program reports 19 15 0
Totals 424 200 99
32 Laura German, Jeremias Mowo, and Chris Opondo
When reflecting back on the investments in time, energy, and funding to
AHI over the years, a key question that emerges is “What is the value added of
such a program, relative to other research programs in the region and beyond?”
AHI is unique in the region in its efforts to identify gaps in professional practice
that undermine the effectiveness of agricultural research and development, to
identify innovative approaches—through action research—that can help to fill
these gaps, and to document and share lessons learned for the global community.
It therefore sits squarely on the interface of research and development, bringing
systematic learning to bear on contemporary development challenges. Another
important aspect of added value lies in navigating complexity. On the one hand,
this refers to the complexity of the farming systems and mountain landscapes
in which AHI works, for which multiple enterprises and aims are the norm
and where tightly coupled interactions among system components and adjacent
land users means that changes in any one component or farm may induce any
number of (often unanticipated) spin-off effects. On the other hand, AHI has
had to grapple with the complexity of approaches for contributing to rural live-
lihood improvements while also fostering more sustainable and equitable natural
resource management. By drawing on the skills of biophysical scientists from
diverse disciplines and social scientists, and on the vast array of skills that devel-
opment practitioners bring to the table when working with rural communities,
AHI has worked to integrate and strategically sequence technological, social,
governance, and market innovations for “win–win” outcomes. The need to
navigate complexity also encompasses the methodological challenges associated
with facilitating innovations within benchmark sites while attempting to distil
lessons and “international public goods” for a wider audience.
As “AHI’s comparative advantage lies in its implementation of ‘INRM that
works’,” a program review proposes that
evolution of the program is towards a center of excellence on INRM, that
… international organizations, NGOs and national institutes can refer to
in order to initiate and implement successful INRM approaches to that
work. Failures or partial successes of others to implement INRM effec-
tively offer elements for reflection on AHI and open for AHI a niche for
which there is increasing demand.
Mekuria et al. 2008: 23
This volume seeks to support the knowledge management component of this
vision by documenting methods, experiences, and lessons learned to date in
efforts to implement INRM in practice. While the book emphasizes AHI
successes, it is important to recognize that many of these came on the back
of early failures to operationalize integrated and demand-driven research, to
move beyond extractive research and “enter the system” in an action research
and social learning mode, and to move beyond the status quo in research and
development practice. And as highlighted in the “Missing links” section at the
Integrated natural resource management 33
end of each chapter, many challenges remain—some of these despite concerted
efforts to bring change. It is hoped that these will form the basis of productive
efforts by AHI and other NRM researchers and practitioners to learn new les-
sons on “what works, where, and why” and to fill these knowledge gaps.
The chapters that follow summarize the methodological innovations
carried out in efforts to operationalize INRM at diverse levels. Chapter 2
summarizes experiences operationalizing INRM and systems intensification
at farm level. Chapters 3 and 4 provide a detailed description of AHI efforts
to foster participatory landscape-level innovation. The first of these chap-
ters takes an in-depth look into methods for operationalizing participatory
integrated watershed management, while Chapter 4 focuses in on efforts to
address landscape level NRM problems through a participatory governance
lens. Chapter 5 then explores district institutional and policy innovations in
support of local level NRM efforts. The book concludes with a chapter sum-
marizing the program’s early experiences with scaling out pilot innovations
and institutionalizing participatory, integrated approaches within national
research and extension organizations.
Notes
1 These include community-based natural resource management (Fabricius and Koch,
2004), participatory watershed management (Rhoades, 2000; Shah, 1998), adaptive
collaborative management (Colfer, 2005), and integrated natural resource management
(Sayer and Campbell, 2003a).
2 See also: www.icarda.cgiar.org/INRMsite/index.htm
3 Social-constructivist approaches foster collective understandings through deliberative
process (open discussion and debate among actors), peer learning, and other means of
engaging diverse sets of interests and knowledge (Fosnot, 1996).
4 With the notable exception of the Swiss Development Cooperation and the Ministerie van
Buitenlandse Zaken, who have historically funded the AHI program as a whole.
5 The latter has been done through process documentation, a research tool that formalizes
data collection on any facilitated change process and ensures changes are made to adapt
the tools to the challenges faced during implementation. PM&E and process documenta-
tion are defined, with examples provided, in Chapter 3.
6 In AHI, we have found rather that the liaison function of drawing explicit linkages
between site-level experiences and the interests and concerns of a broader global com-
munity tends to empower local actors (farmers, development partners) to care for what
they do and to want to share their experiences with others.
7 This list is far from complete, with a number of annual and phase reports and this volume
not captured in these statistics. We also experienced difficulty tracking down early AHI
team members and publications derived from their experiences with AHI.
References
Amede, T., T. Belachew, and E. Geta (2001) Reversing the degradation of arable land in
the Ethiopian highlands. Managing Africa’s Soils 23. London: IIED.
Anderson, D. (1984) Depression, dust bowl, demography, and drought: The colonial state
and soil conservation in East Africa during the 1930s. African Affairs 83(332): 321–343.
34 Laura German, Jeremias Mowo, and Chris Opondo
Bekele, M. (2003) Forest property rights, the role of the state and institutional exigency:
The Ethiopian experience. Ph.D. Thesis, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences,
Uppsala. 220 pp.
Blomley, T. and H. Ramadhani (2006) Going to scale with Participatory Forest Management:
Early Lessons from Tanzania. International Forestry Review 8(1): 93–100
Blomley, T., H. Ramadhani, Y. Mkwizu, and A. Böhringer (2010) Hidden harvest:
Unlocking the economic potential of community-based forest management in Tanzania.
In: L. German, A. Karsenty and A.-M. Tiani (eds.), Governing Africa’s Forests in a
Globalized World. London: Earthscan.
Borrini-Feyerabend, G., T. Banuri, T. Farvar, K. Miller, and A. Phillips (2002) Indigenous
and local communities and protected areas: Rethinking the relationship. Parks 12: 5–15.
Brown, K. (2003) Integrating conservation and development: A case of institutional misfit.
Front Ecol Environ 1(9): 479–487.
Burgess, N.D., J. Fjeldså, and R. Botterweg (1998) Faunal importance of the Eastern Arc
Mountains of Kenya and Tanzania. Journal of East African Natural History 87(1): 37–58.
Byerlee, D. and R. Tripp (1988) Strengthening linkages in agricultural research through
a framing systems perspective: The role of social scientists. Experimental Agriculture
24:137–151.
Campbell, B. (2001) What is INRM? In: Adamo and Hagmann (eds.), Integrated Management
for Sustainable Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries. Proceedings of a Workshop of the INRM Task
Force, Cali, Colombia, August 28–31, 2001.
Chambers D.E., Wedel K.R. and Rodwell M.K. (1992) Qualitative research methods
and the constructivist paradigm in the evaluation of social programs and policies. In:
Chambers D.E. (ed.) Evaluating Social Programs. Boston: Allyn & Bacon, 288–332.
Checkland P. (1991) From Framework through Experience to Learning: the essential nature
of Action Research. In: H.-E. Nissen (ed.), Information Systems research: Contemporary
Approaches and Emergent Traditions. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Checkland, P. and Holwell, S. (1998) Action Research: Its Nature and Validity. Systemic
Practice and Action Research, Volume 11, Issue 1, February : 9–21.
Colchester, M. (2004) Conservation policy and indigenous peoples. Environmental Science &
Policy 7(3): 145–153.
Colfer, C.J.P. (2005) The Complex Forest: Communities, Uncertainty, and Adaptive Collaborative
Management. Washington, D.C. and Bogor, Indonesia: Resources for the Future and
Center for International Forestry Research.
Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR) (2001) Integrated
Management for Sustainable Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries. Proceedings of a Workshop
of the INRM Task Force, Cali, Colombia, August 28–31, 2001.
Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR) (2002) Putting
INRM into Action. Proceedings of a workshop of the INRM Task Force, Aleppo, Syria,
September 16–19, 2002.
Fabricius, C. and E. Koch (eds.) (2004) Rights, Resources and Rural Development: Community-
Based Natural Resource Management in Southern Africa. London: Earthscan.
Farrington, J. and N. Martin (1987) Farmer Participatory Research: A review of concepts
and practices. Agricultural Administration Network Paper 19. London: ODI.
Fosnot, C.T. (1996) Constructivism: Theory, Perspectives and Practice. New York: Teachers
College Press.
Gebremedhin, B., Pender, J. and Tesfay, G. (2002) Collective action for grazing land
management in mixed crop-livestock systems in the highlands of northern Ethiopia.
Integrated natural resource management 35
Socio-Economics and Policy Research Working Paper No. 42. Nairobi, Kenya:
International Livestock Research Institute.
German, L. (2006) Moving beyond component research in mountain regions: operationalizing
systems integration at farm and landscape scale. Journal of Mountain Science 3(4): 287–304.
German, L., W. Mazengia, H. Taye, M. Tsegaye, S. Charamila, and J. Wickama (2009)
Minimizing the livelihood trade-offs of natural resource management in the eastern
African highlands: Policy implications of a project in ‘Creative Governance’. Human
Ecology 38(1): 31–47.
German, L., J. Ramisch, and R. Verma (eds.) (2010) Beyond the Biophysical: Knowledge,
Culture and Politics in Agriculture and Natural Resource Management. Dordrecht: Springer.
German, L.A., A.M. Tiani, T. Mutimukuru Maravanyika, A. Daoudi, E. Chuma, N.
Beaulieu, H. Lo, C. Jum, N. Nemarundwe, E. Ontita, G. Yitamben and V. Orindi
(2011) The Application of Participatory Action Research to Climate Change Adaptation: A
Reference Guide. Ottawa: IDRC.
German, L., W. Mazengia, S. Charamila, H. Taye, S. Nyangas, J. Tanui, S. Ayele, and
A. Stroud (2007) Action Research: An Approach for Generating Methodological
Innovations for Improved Impact from Agricultural Development and Natural Resource
Management. AHI Methods Guide E1.
German, L. and A. Stroud (2007) A framework for the integration of diverse learning
approaches: Operationalizing agricultural research and development (R&D) linkages in
eastern Africa. World Development 35(5):792-814.
German, L. and H. Taye (2008) A framework for evaluating effectiveness and inclusiveness of
collective action in watershed management. Journal of International Development 20: 99–116.
German, L., H. Taye, S. Charamila, T. Tolera, and J. Tanui (2006) The many meanings
of collective action: Lessons on enhancing gender inclusion and equity in watershed
management. AHI Working Papers No. 17.
Hagmann, J. (1999) Learning Together for Change: Facilitating Innovation in Natural Resource
Management through Learning Process Approaches in Rural Livelihoods in Zimbabwe.
Weikersheim: Margraf Verlag.
Hagmann, J., E. Chuma, K. Murwira, M. Connolly, and P.P. Ficarelli (2003) Success
factors in integrated natural resource management R&D: Lessons from practice. In: B.M.
Campbell and J.A. Sayer (eds.), Integrated Natural Resource Management: Linking Productivity,
the Environment and Development. Wallingford, UK: CABI Publishing, pp. 37–64.
Haverkort, B., J. van der Kamp, and A. Waters-Bayer (1991) Joining Farmers’ Experiments:
Experiences in Participatory Technology Development. London: IT Publications.
Hobley, M. (1996) Participatory Forestry: The Process of Change in India and Nepal. Rural
Development Forestry Study Guide. London: Overseas Development Institute.
Hughes, R. and F. Flintan (2001) Integrating conservation and development experience: A
review and bibliography of ICDP literature. Biodiversity and Livelihoods Issues 3. London:
International Institute for Environment and Development.
La Rovere, R., M. Mekuria, and J. Szonyi (2008) External Review and Impact Assessment of
the African Highlands Initiative (AHI): Program Evaluation Report. Mexico City: CIMMYT.
Lubell, M., M. Schneider, J.T. Scholz, and M. Mete (2002) Watershed partnerships and
the emergence of collective action institutions. American Journal of Political Science 46(1):
148–163.
Marshall, G. (1998) A Dictionary of Sociology. New York: Oxford University Press.
Meinzen-Dick, R., A. Knox, B. Swallow and F. Place (2002) Introduction. In: R.
Meinzen-Dick, A. Knox, F. Place, and B. Swallow (eds.), Innovation in Natural Resource
36 Laura German, Jeremias Mowo, and Chris Opondo
Management: The Role of Property Rights and Collective Action in Developing Countries.
Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press, pp. 1–11.
Mekuria, M., R. La Rovere, J. and Szonyi (2008) External Review and Impact Assessment of
the African Highlands Initiative (AHI). Program Evaluation report. February 2008 Mexico
City: CIMMYT.
Munk Ravnborg, H. and J.A. Ashby (1996) Organising for local-level watershed
management: Lessons from Rio Cabuyal watershed, Colombia. AgREN Network Paper
65: 1–14.
Nsibambi, A. (ed.) (1998) Decentralisation and Civil Society in Uganda: The Quest for Good
Governance. Kampala: Fountain Publishers.
North, D.C. (1990) Institutions, Institutional change and economic performance. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Oates, J.F. (1999) Myth and Reality in the Rain Forest. Berkeley: University of California
Press.
Omiti, J.M., K.A. Parton, J.A. Sinden, and S. K. Ehui (1999) Monitoring changes in land-
use practices following agrarian de-collectivisation in Ethiopia. Agriculture, Ecosystems and
Environment 72: 111–118.
Opondo, C., L. German, S. Charamila, A. Stroud, and R. K. Khandelwal (2005) Process
monitoring and documentation for R&D team learning: Concepts and approaches. AHI
Brief B5.
Ostrom, V. (1994) The Meaning of American Federalism: Constituting a Self Governing Society.
San Francisco, CA: Institute for Contemporary Studies.
Oyono, P.R., J.C. Ribot and A.M. Larson (2006) Green and Black Gold in Rural Cameroon:
Natural Resources for Local Governance, Justice and Sustainability. Environmental
Governance in Africa Working Papers No. 22. Washington, D.C. and Bogor: WRI
and CIFOR.
Pattanayak, S.K. (2004) Valuing watershed services: Concepts and empirics from Southeast
Asia. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 104(1): 171–184.
Pender, J. and Scherr, S.J. (2002). Organizational development and natural resource
management: Evidence from central Honduras. In: Innovation in natural resource
management: The role of property rights and collective action in developing countries, (ed.)
Meinzen-Dick, R., A. Knox, F. Place, and B. Swallow. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins
University Press.
Rhoades, R. (2000) The participatory multipurpose watershed project: Nature’s salvation or
Schumacher’s nightmare? In: R. Lal (ed.), Integrated Watershed Management in the Global
Ecosystem. London: CRC Press, pp. 327–343.
Rocheleau, D. and D. Edmunds (1997) Women, men and trees: Gender, power and
property in forest and agrarian landscapes. World Development 25(8): 1351–1371.
Sanginga P, R. Kamugisha, and A. M. Martin. (2010) Strengthening social capital for
adaptive governance of natural resources: A participatory action research for by-law
reforms in Uganda. Society and Natural Resources 23: 695–710.
Sanginga, P.C., R.N. Kamugisha, and A.M. Martin (2007) The dynamics of social
capital and conflict management in multiple resource regimes: A case of the south-
western highlands of Uganda. Ecology and Society 12(1): 6. Available online at: www.
ecologyandsociety.org/vol12/iss1/art6
Sayer, J.A. (2001) Integrated Natural Resource Management: A progress report. In: Adamo
and Hagmann (eds.), Integrated Management for Sustainable Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries.
Proceedings of a Workshop of the INRM Task Force, Cali, Colombia, August 28–31, 2001.
Integrated natural resource management 37
Sayer, J.A. and B.M. Campbell (2003a) Integrated Natural Resource Management: Linking
Productivity, the Environment and Development. Wallingford, UK: CABI.
Sayer, J.A. and B.M. Campbell (2003b) Research to integrate productivity enhancement,
environmental protection, and human development. In: J.A. Sayer and B.M. Campbell
(eds.), Integrated Natural Resource Management: Linking Productivity, the Environment and
Development. Wallingford, UK: CABI.
Schroeder, R.A. (1993) Shady practice: Gender and the political ecology of resource
stabilization in Gambian garden/orchards. Economic Geography 69(4): 349–65.
Scott, C.A. and Silva-Ochoa, P. (2001) Collective action for water harvesting irrigation in
the Lerma-Chapala Basin, Mexico. Water Policy 3: 555–72.
Shah, A. (1998) Watershed development programmes in India: Emerging issues for
environment-development perspectives. Economic and Political Weekly (June, 1998):
A66–A79.
Soil Conservation Research Programme (SCRP) (1996) Data base report (1982–1993),
Series II: Gununo Research Unit. Berne: University of Berne.
Stroud, A. (2001) Proposal—2001: One-year extension of Phase 2. A proposal to SDC.
Kampala, Uganda: AHI.
Stroud, A. (2002) Broadening horizons: Institutional, policy and technical innovations for
improving NRM and agricultural productivity in the east and Central African highlands.
Phase 3 Report. Kampala, Uganda: AHI.
Sultana, P., P.M. Thompson, and M. Ahmed (2002) Methods of consensus building for
collective action: Community based aquatic habitat and floodplain fisheries management
in Bangladesh and the Mekong delta. Paper presented at the workshop Methods for
Studying Collective Action, Nyeri, Kenya, February 25–March 1, 2002.
Swallow, B. M., D. P. Garrity, and M. van Noordwijk (2001) The effects of scales, flows
and filters on property rights and collective action in watershed management. CAPRi
Working Paper No. 16. Washington DC: IFPRI.
Tanner, C.L. (1995) Class, caste and gender in collective action: Agricultural labour unions
in two Indian villages. The Journal of Peasant Studies 22(4): 672–698.
Terborgh, J. (1999) Requiem for Nature. Washington, D.C.: Island Press and Shearwater
Books.
Throup, D. (1988) Economic and Social Origins of Mau Mau, 1945–53. London: J. Currey.
Voss, J. (2001) Integrated management for sustainable agriculture, forestry and fisheries. In:
Adamo and Hagmann (eds.), Integrated Management for Sustainable Agriculture, Forestry and
Fisheries. Proceedings of a Workshop of the INRM Task Force, Cali, Colombia, August 28–31,
2001.
Walters-Bayer, A. (1989) Participatory technology development in ecologically-oriented
agriculture: Some approaches and tools. Agricultural Administration Network Paper 7.
London: ODI.
Wells, M. (1992) Biodiversity, affluence and poverty: Mismatched costs and benefits and
efforts to remedy them. Ambio 21: 237–243.
Western, D. (1994) Ecosystem conservation and rural development: The case of Amboseli.
In: D. Western, R.M. Wright, and S.C. Strum (eds.), Natural Connections: Perspectives in
Community based Conservation. Washington, D.C.: Island Press, pp. 15–52.
Zhou, G., N. Minakawa, A.K. Githeko, and G. Yan (2004) Association between climate
variability and malaria epidemics in the East African highlands. PNAS 101(8): 2375–2380.
2
PARTICIPATORY FARM-LEVEL
INNOVATION
Tilahun Amede, Charles Lyamchai, Girma Hailu,
Bekele Kassa, Leulseged Begashaw, Juma Wickama,
Adugna Wakjira, and Gebremedhin Woldegiorgis
Context and rationale
Improved natural resource management in the densely settled highlands of
eastern Africa must begin at the farm level, as this is the basic decision unit
and the locus of key inputs (land, labor, capital) which have a defining role
in agricultural production systems. It is also here where concrete livelihood
improvements can be made most directly, thus enhancing the likelihood that
farmers will invest in natural resource management (at farm and landscape
scale) with slower returns, or wider landscape governance initiatives (covered
in Chapter 4) with more diffuse or uncertain returns.
Throughout the centuries, farmers have on their own initiative devised,
developed, adopted, and adapted ingenious strategies and technologies for
ensuring food security and economic welfare for their households (O’Neil,
1995). Farmer innovations such as the plough and the domestication of plants
and animals that revolutionized agriculture date back more than 10,000 years.
Farmer innovation is a process through which individuals or groups discover
or develop new and better ways of managing available resources to suit their
particular conditions. The resulting innovations or outcomes of the innova-
tion process may be technical or socio-institutional (Waters-Bayer and Bayer,
2009). Innovation also occurs within a wider socio-economic and institutional
context which conditions the extent and directionality of innovation processes,
including the interaction among individuals or groups, policies and norms, and
institutional and societal cultures. Innovative farmers are those who have tried
or are trying out new, often value-adding agricultural or NRM practices, using
their own knowledge and wisdom while also appropriating outsiders’ knowl-
edge (Assefa and Fenta, 2006). For instance, improving crop varieties through
careful selection of seed, harvesting rainwater from roads, and implementation
Participatory farm-level innovation 39
soil and water conservation measures, among others, are often carried out in
the absence of any outside facilitation or support. Traditional irrigation sys-
tems (e.g., of the Chagga and Sonjo in Tanzania and Qantas in Iran), local
knowledge on weather forecasting, biological control technologies, produc-
tion of new pesticide concoctions, use of different plants and roots for soil
fertility improvement, and local cures for different animal and human ailments
are some of the well-documented farmer innovations (Lyamchai et al., 2006).
These innovations have clearly played a significant role in the improvement of
rural livelihoods and will continue to do so in the future.
Yet while local knowledge is essential to household food security, income
generation and risk management vis-à-vis market fluctuations and an uncertain
climate, formal research can play an instrumental role in supporting farmer
innovation. This is either because certain techniques are beyond farmers’ reach,
as in the case of complex crop and livestock breeding technologies, or because
researchers have access to a wider range of information and technologies that
can assist farmers in capturing new opportunities or coping with a fast pace of
change. As stated by O’Neil (1995: 1):
Farmers are the ultimate integrators of the information they receive to
increase production, stabilize yields, use pesticides, etc. It is the farmer
that “lives the problem,” gains the benefits and suffers the consequences.
Therefore, a combination of farmers’ and scientific knowledge will increase
the rate of success and identify new areas of effort that neither group alone
would have discovered.
Characteristics of crop–livestock systems in the eastern
African highlands
The highlands of eastern Africa, with an average altitude of 1,500 metres above
sea level, occupy 23 percent of the total land area but support 80 percent of the
population (Alumira and Owiti, 2000). Mixed crop–livestock systems predom-
inate, where 70 percent of the total human population and approximately 80
percent of the cattle and small ruminants can be found (Thornton et al., 2002).
These systems are predominantly small-scale and highly diversified, combin-
ing annual and perennial crops with livestock. The area receives relatively
high annual rainfall (>1,000 mm), the soils are generally more productive than
the adjacent lowlands and in some countries irrigation water is also prevalent.
Given this endowment, the highlands have been a major locus of human set-
tlement historically, as well as a source of food and nutritional security within
the wider subregion. These areas also produce important export crops such
as tea, coffee, khat, and other horticultural crops that contribute to hard cur-
rency earnings. Livestock is a major component of these systems and makes
significant contributions to food production, income, and social security. The
importance of livestock is most apparent in countries such as Ethiopia and
40 Tilahun Amede et al.
Sudan, where crop production depends heavily on animal traction and nutrient
recycling between crop and livestock components and livestock plays a critical
role in expanding the area under cultivation and enhancing labor productivity.
It also improves environmental processes such as the turnover of nutrients and
soil carbon (van Keulen and Schiere, 2004).
In these crop–livestock systems, livestock and crops are produced within the
same farm unit, whereby the by-products of one enterprise serve as a valuable
resource for the other (Tarawali et al., 2004). Accordingly, the crop and the
livestock components are strongly integrated through livestock feed, nutrient
cycling (via manure), draught power, and input–output markets. The crop–
livestock systems in the region are not homogeneous but vary from place to
place depending on rainfall, soil fertility, population density, socio-economic
characteristics, and access to capital and markets, among others. They are also
at different levels of intensification, integration, and productivity. The pro-
duction systems vary from the perennial banana–coffee gardens in the mid
highlands of Uganda to the maize–beans systems of western Kenya and the
more temperate barley-based systems of Ethiopia. These mixed farming sys-
tems have also evolved over time in response to changes in relative access to
land, labor, and capital (van Keulen and Schiere, 2004).
These low-input systems are heavily reliant on the recycling of internal and
organic nutrient resources and rainfall. Annual food production and availability
in the region varies widely according to the seasonal climate, with the number
of food-insecure people increasing significantly in seasons characterized by an
uneven distribution and/or shortage of rainfall. Meanwhile, in good years not
only food production but also national economies recover rapidly.
Yet while these highland areas are relatively rich in natural resources, liveli-
hoods in the region are negatively affected by the following system constraints,
which together with climate change limit people’s coping and adaptive capacity:
● High and growing population density, leading to small landholdings, high
degrees of fragmentation of landholdings and land tenancy regimes limit-
ing systems intensification.
● Declining crop and livestock yields, owing in large part to declines in soil
fertility, limited access to improved seeds and breeds, and increasing inci-
dence of disease.
● Limited access to reliable markets, thus discouraging farmers from intensi-
fying their systems and investing in their land.
● Limited capacity to develop water resources for multiple uses, including
irrigation.
● The erosion of local genetic diversity and management systems, leading
to declining ability of crop and livestock enterprises to resist climatic and
disease-related shocks.
● Widespread poverty, with limited investment in yield- and value-enhanc-
ing technologies and practices.
Participatory farm-level innovation 41
● Limited and/or top-down extension services that do not reflect socio-eco-
nomic realities, and limited institutional and policy support for enhancing
access to inputs, credit and markets.
The high human and livestock population densities, land shortage, and steep
slopes jointly contribute to resource degradation through overgrazing, nutri-
ent mining, soil erosion, and water depletion. The outcome of this is that in
some countries such as Ethiopia, a quarter of the crop–livestock systems are
seriously eroded—of which approximately 15 percent are so seriously affected
that it will be difficult to make them economically productive in the near
future (Amede, 2003). Also in Ethiopia, three out of the five principal farm-
level problems listed by farmers to be critically affecting farm productivity were
the loss of seed and fertilizer from excess run-off, soil erosion, and increasing
cost of fertilizers owing to soil fertility decline (Amede et al., 2006). Above
all, nutrient depletion is a much more serious concern to food security in sub-
Saharan Africa than in any other part of the world (Smaling, 1993).
Degradation of natural resources in the region is therefore partly a conse-
quence of rural poverty, resulting from the interplay between rising population
density, shrinking landholdings and livestock numbers, unreliable markets, and
weak institutional and policy support in responding to emerging challenges.
Livelihood strategies and assets management at farm level are also changing or
need to change as families repeatedly face food deficits, livestock deaths, and
degradation of the resource base.
Intensification of crop–livestock systems
Intensification is one option for fulfilling the growing demand for food, feed,
and energy in the region. Intensification is a process to increase production
levels, both in terms of amount, quality and fulfillment of local priorities and
preferences (see also Morrison, 1994). In simple terms, it has been defined as
an increase in average inputs of labor or capital on smallholdings, either on cul-
tivated or uncultivated land, for the purpose of increasing the value of output
per land area (Tiffen, 2003). Reardon et al. (1999) distinguish between cap-
ital-led and labor-led intensification. While labor-led intensification involves
excessive dependence on labor as a key input to production, capital-led inten-
sification refers to intensification based on substantial use of non-labor inputs
such as chemical fertilizers and herbicides that enhance the productivity of
land resources. Intensification has also been facilitated or induced by exog-
enous factors including population pressure, land shortage, and increasing
labor availability. It can also be induced by external factors including increas-
ing demand for livestock products and improved access to markets. In some
cases, farmers are forced to shift from extensive cereal-based to intensive crop–
livestock systems. The recent shift in policy towards market-led agriculture
in Ethiopia, for instance, has influenced the way farmers are managing their
42 Tilahun Amede et al.
resources. Introduction of small-scale irrigation into the cereal-based systems
has induced farmers to diversify their cropping systems by growing high-value
vegetables, fruits, coffee, and other crops. It has also led to the intensification
of production systems through increased investment in high-yielding seeds and
livestock breeds, chemical fertilizers, pesticides, and soil conservation prac-
tices. In these cases, both diversification and intensification are outcomes of
farmers’ responses to market opportunities while simultaneously striving to
satisfy household food demands. Similarly, in places where dairy enterprises are
becoming a major source of household income, such as in central Kenya, farm-
ers have integrated fast-growing forage grasses (e.g., Napier grass) and fodder
shrubs (e.g., Calliandra) in an effort to intensify the dairy component of their
maize–beans–dairy systems.
As the intensification of agricultural production commonly requires external
inputs, small-scale farmers in Africa tend to rely on government support in the
form of loans and subsidies to finance external inputs.1 Access to credit is one
of the three pre-conditions identified by Reardon et al. (1999) for sustainable
agricultural intensification in Africa, along with the availability of productive
labor and high returns to investment resulting from accessible input and output
markets. For the majority of households intensifying their systems based on
scarce endogenous resources, the process is much slower. Kelly et al. (1996)
suggest that in order to obtain sustainable intensification of agriculture in
Africa, agricultural policies must also consider:
● improved access to quantity and quality seed/breeds;
● improved strategies in restoring soil fertility;
● functional land tenure policy; and
● increasing rural cash income and investments to improve food security and
input access.
From the social welfare-based perspective of AHI, agricultural intensification
should be a means to improved livelihoods and household income of rural
communities without degrading the natural resource base (water, nutrients,
vegetation), irrespective of its manifestations.
This chapter summarizes AHI experiences in supporting farm-level inno-
vation for improved livelihoods and more sustainable management of natural
resources underpinning agricultural production. While its focus is on the farm
level and individual households as decision units, it also describes group ini-
tiatives that supported, in one way or another, farm-level innovations. The
chapter presents the methods used and the main approaches developed to
support farmer-led system intensification and diversification as pathways to
achieve farmers’ own livelihood and resource management goals. It displays
strategies used to minimize resource degradation, and highlights the impact
they have had on people’s livelihoods and production systems. By providing
detailed steps in each thematic section, it aims to facilitate the dissemination
Participatory farm-level innovation 43
and adoption of the various approaches used by AHI and its partners within the
wider eco-region.
Understanding systems and clients
The crop–livestock systems within this region differ in their agro-ecological
and socio-economic features and in the wider policy, economic, and institu-
tional contexts in which they are embedded. Efforts to understand the farming
systems and farmers’ needs and priorities are therefore required as a first step to
any innovation process.
Approach development
Approach 1—Understanding systems and clients through
participatory approaches
The first approach, used by all site teams, was to conduct a participatory
appraisal of system problems and possible solutions as a means of setting the
participatory research process in motion. By attempting to understand a system
from the perspectives of farmers themselves, the diagnostic process in effect
integrates the deep knowledge farmers bring with them on the constraints they
face and the pathways most likely to unlock the potential for change.
Following a preliminary reconnaissance survey for the identification of
research sites, a general meeting was called by local government officials,
involving farmers from the area and researchers. This meeting consisted of the
following steps:
1. An introduction to the purpose of the meeting and a clarification of
expectations.
2. The division of farmers into subgroups based on different system com-
ponents (crops, livestock, soil, and socio-economics). Using participatory
rural appraisal (PRA) techniques, farmers identified constraints they
faced—often identifying more than 20 per group, both researchable and
non-researchable.
3. Return to plenary, where farmers ranked and prioritized the identified
constraints.
4. Key informants were then asked to group farmers into different wealth and
gender groups. The important constraints identified by the general com-
munity, along with potential solutions proposed, were presented to these
subgroups to solicit their reactions. Practical solutions were discussed with
these groups and final decisions were made on what potential solutions
they would like to pursue.
5. Proposals were then developed collaboratively by groups of researchers
and farmers, who were organized into small working groups according
44 Tilahun Amede et al.
to sub-themes derived from the priorities set by farmers. These farmer
groups critically discussed the various proposals put forward by farmers
and researchers, and farmers were consulted on methodological issues and
possible treatments to be employed in the design of on-farm trials. During
proposal formulation, explicit attention was given to wealth and gender
considerations.
The major system constraints identified in step 4 included soil erosion, soil
fertility maintenance, livestock feed, lack of credit, and limited access to
improved varieties of various crops (Amede et al., 2006). The aforementioned
steps show how farmers were involved in problem identification, priority set-
ting, the identification of solutions, and technology evaluation. Subsequent
steps of engagement consisted of hands-on training, implementation of on-
farm trials, evaluation, and replanning—with regular contact with technical
assistants (hired or seconded by the project, and present on a daily basis) and
researchers to discuss on-farm challenges and to evaluate performance. These
steps will be discussed in greater detail in the sections that follow.
Approach 2—Understanding systems through optimization models
Models can also play a useful role in understanding systems and enhancing the
capacity of farm managers and development actors to make strategic decisions.
In AHI, models were employed to predict the short-term risks and long-term
impacts of agricultural interventions. They also provided a mechanism for eval-
uating the vulnerability of livelihoods and assets to external factors, targeting
potential technologies to clients, and extrapolating and synthesizing knowledge
for wider use.
One modeling approach was designed to enhance household food security
in the context of limited resources such as land, water, nutrients, and labor
(Amede et al., 2004). The aim of the modeling process was to select the best
crop combinations to produce the required amount and quality of food for
rural households through the reallocation of cropland to expand the area under
crops with high content of nutrients in deficit, considering resource availability
and local preferences. Stated in another way, the model helps communities and
households to maximize the returns from investments of fertilizer, labor, land,
water, manure, and other resources by helping them to optimize investments
to enhance system productivity and household nutrition.
Use of a participatory, multiple-criteria decision model was considered to
be particularly suited to assessing appropriate resource allocation strategies,
considering local resources, socio-economic preferences, and market options.2
Participatory steps in the modeling process helped to define key production
objectives of farmers and to define potential pathways to achieving these—in
recognition that there are many alternative ways to maximize farm productiv-
ity. By considering the production objectives and socio-economic preferences
Participatory farm-level innovation 45
of farmers together with the available resources, the modeling process aids in
exploring what is possible and—with the help of farmers—feasible for achiev-
ing established objectives.
When employing the model to optimize land resources for food and nutri-
tional security, the modeling process consisted of the following steps (see also
Box 2.1):
1. Identify representative households to participate in modeling, based on
locally-defined social categories. A community meeting was organized to
identify households keen to gain a deeper understanding of their resources
and design cropping strategies for improved income, food security, and
environmental protection. Based on these objectives, community members
were asked to classify themselves into different social groups based on locally
defined criteria. These could relate to farming system characteristics, the
location and features of landholdings or resource endowments. The estab-
lished groupings were then facilitated to identify their major production
constraints, to discuss the causes of recurrent food insecurity and to suggest
potential and practical solutions based on local resource endowments.
2. Quantify household and farm resources. Household resource inventories
were carried out during the growing season. Researchers recorded farm
size, distribution of land for crop production and grazing, type of crops
grown, amount of land allocated for each crop, frequency of cropping,
grain yield, and crop residues for each participating household. Household
data were also obtained from women related to household demographics
(including household members, resident guests), amount and type of food
consumed per day and other relevant data. Community leaders played an
important role in cross-checking household information.
3. Quantify the amount and distribution of resources. Once yields of the
various crops and livestock were established, and annual household pro-
duction levels estimated, additional household resources such as labor,
nutrients, cash, and other assets were assessed.
4. Compare household resource endowments with established or calculated
norms to identify levels of vulnerability and nutrients in deficit or excess.
In this case, community averages, resource holdings of a representative
household or internationally established norms (e.g., for household nutri-
tion, the recommended daily dietary nutritional allowance of the World
Health Organization (WHO)) were employed to establish optimal levels
of resources (e.g., amount of nutrition required per person per day). This
was used to identify households vulnerable to malnutrition, famine, or
drought; to identify factors involved (e.g., labor shortage); and to identify
nutrients that are in excess or deficit in the system.
5. Use optimization models to suggest an improved resource allocation strat-
egy. Optimization and trade-off models were then used to optimize scarce
resources, with provisions for placing constraints on certain parameters
46 Tilahun Amede et al.
based on household objectives or constraints. It was used, for example, to
discuss the cropping and resource (e.g., labor, nutrient) allocation implica-
tions for maximizing different household production objectives such as
human nutrition or cash income.
6. Validate model outputs with communities. Commonly, model outcomes
represent optimal solutions, but do not represent realistic solutions unless
they are validated by end-users and modified to match socio-economic
realities. This process was used to update farmer preferences, such as a
desire to maintain some enterprises and get rid of others—which were then
newly incorporated as model parameters. In addition to discussions with
individual households on the implications of different land and resource
allocation decisions, this step should include an intensive and iterative
process of community visioning. This is useful for deepening researchers’
understanding of farmers’ decision frames; for raising awareness among
farmers on mechanisms to improved income and food security, reduce
resource degradation, and reduce vulnerability to famine; and for articulat-
ing the agronomic management implications of desired future conditions.
7. Establish potential trade-offs of different farming system innovations. Trade-
off analysis could be done either as an integral component of optimization
models or as ex ante analysis once optimum choices for the intended objec-
tive function are made. In the mixed crop–livestock systems of the Ethiopian
highlands, farmers considered both the crop and livestock sub-systems when
deciding to integrate new interventions such as crop varieties into their farms.
Hence, there is generally a need to establish how changes in one or more
components affect other system components (Box 2.1). In other words, there
is a need to quantify how possible changes in one enterprise affect the perfor-
mance of other enterprises, with all other factors remaining constant.
This modeling process was found to be a powerful tool not only for help-
ing farmers better understand and manage their farming systems, but also for
enhancing collaboration between farming households and researchers by deep-
ening mutual understanding.
BOX 2.1 OPTIMIZATION OF ENSET-BASED SYSTEMS
FOR ENHANCED FOOD SECURITY IN ETHIOPIA
The site: The Areka site, in southern Ethiopia, is characterized by a multiple crop-
ping system, with heavy reliance on perennials such as enset and coffee but a
high level of diversification also achieved with sweet potato, taro, maize, wheat,
and many other crops. The population pressure is high (>400 people/km2),
with average land holdings of less than 0.5 ha (about 816.8 m2/person). The
most apparent problems include small landholdings, limited livelihood options
Participatory farm-level innovation 47
Lessons learned
The following lessons were learned from AHI efforts to understand farming
systems and clients in Phase II:
● Efforts to understand farmers’ socio-economic realities from the start of
any innovation process strengthen researcher–farmer communication and,
ultimately, increase the chance of technology adoption and impact.
● Feedback mechanisms between researchers and farmers and timely responses
from research are critical for identifying solutions likely to be effective in
addressing the challenges faced by agricultural systems and clients.
beyond farming, limited flow of information and investments, and very low
income from farm operations.
The system: Currently, more than 50 percent of the land is allocated to root/
corn crops, in particular sweet potato, Irish potato, enset, and taro, with land
allocations in the order of 25.8, 16.2, 10.1, and 2.75 percent of household
landholdings, respectively. Most of these crops are grown in the homestead
or in fields just outside homestead areas (where nutrients are concentrated).
Another 45 percent of the land area, on average, is allocated to cereals—pre-
dominantly maize. The total land allocated to legumes and vegetable crops is
less than 5 percent. The current production system was found to be deficient
in its ability to satisfy human nutritional needs for almost all nutrients. The
daily energy supply of resource-poor households was only 75 percent of that
recommended by the WHO. Extremely high deficits were found for vitamin A,
vitamin C, zinc, and calcium, at 1.78, 12, 26.5, and 34 percent of the required
levels, respectively. The trend was similar even for relatively resource-rich farm-
ers, for whom all nutritional indices other than energy were deficient.
Results: To enhance household nutrition, the model recommended a signifi-
cant shift from cereals and root crops to an enset–bean dominant system.
The shift was significantly high, from about 10 to 36 percent and from 0.1 to
40 percent for enset and the common bean, respectively. However, during a
feedback meeting, farmers revealed that there is a need for modification on
the outcomes of the model for them to adopt the recommendations as a risk
minimization measure. Their main concern was about retaining high propor-
tions of sweet potato, considered by them to be a crop essential to household
food security. This is because sweet potato can be planted throughout the
year and is available when other crops are not yet ready for harvest or have
failed (e.g., due to rainfall shortage). Following further iterations in which
farmers’ objectives were considered alongside nutritional ones, an agreed goal
was reached to reduce the targeted cropland allocation for enset from 40 to
18 percent while increasing the target for sweet potato to 20 percent.
48 Tilahun Amede et al.
Building rapport and farmer confidence to innovate
One of the first steps in any farmer innovation process supported by outside
actors and institutions is to build rapport between farmers and service pro-
viders (research, extension, NGOs) and to boost farmers’ confidence in their
ability to solve their own problems. Although research in natural resource
management needs to take a holistic view as well as acknowledge the com-
plexities and diversity of farming systems, research with farmers should also
address critical problems that they have identified and prioritized (Amede
et al., 2001). While a range of options were available to address the wide
array of constraints identified by farmers in the diagnostic phase, it was
important that those first tested would advance these aims, so as to encour-
age farmer engagement in more complex endeavors later on. This section
therefore focuses on the use of “entry points”—defined here as an initial
action that is strategically applied to enhance the likelihood of success of early
innovations, and thus to build rapport between actors jointly engaged in an
innovation process.
The choice of entry points has been proven to have a significant effect on
whether farmers will be keen to invest in a partnership with researchers and
extension agents for the purpose of experimentation, and whether farmers will
continue to innovate in solving their problems without the support of external
actors (Amede et al., 2001; Amede et al., 2006). Entry points can be an inter-
vention in the form of an attractive technology or incentive. Entry points are
essential to build trust between the community and outside actors, arouse their
interest and keep their spirits high as the innovation process evolves—despite
ever-complex challenges that may be tackled.
Approach development
Entry points utilized by AHI were commonly crop varieties, which could
be identified on the basis of key constraints identified by farmers (e.g. mar-
ket requirements), tested and disseminated rapidly. In some sites, varieties of
high-value vegetable crops were used as entry points while in others fast grow-
ing forage grasses, such as napier, were used—based on farmer preferences.
Researchers involved in AHI used “entry points” as a strategy to quickly get
engaged with the farmers by providing some “best bet” technical solutions to
priority problems (Wickama and Mowo, 2001).
Key steps in the process included the following:
1. Identification of the constraints faced by different wealth and gender
groups, along with potential solutions, as discussed above.
2. Identification of criteria for selecting entry points. These often included:
a) of high priority, addressing felt needs of intended beneficiaries;
b) capable of bringing quick benefits (often economic in nature); and
Participatory farm-level innovation 49
c) low risk (e.g., involving limited cost or having been tested and vali-
dated in similar agro-ecological zones previously).
3. Generate a basket of options for farmers by matching specific technologies
(sourced from research stations, extension agencies, sites with similar agro-
ecologies, innovative farmers within the benchmark site) to farmers’ felt
needs and goals.
4. Facilitate the formation of “interest groups” for technology testing.
Researchers facilitated the formation of thematically-based ‘interest
groups’ based on technology preferences, to work as a group in carrying
out a number of experiments on a particular theme.
5. Participatory testing of a wide range of technologies by farmer interest
groups. Based on group plans, group members implement experiments
assigned to them. Group members periodically visit each others’ experi-
ments, monitor performance, share information (e.g., on yield, observed
characteristics or performance of technological options) and disseminate
popular technologies to other group members.
6. Facilitate cross-group sharing of popular technologies likely to be of inter-
est to the wider community.
In some cases, as a result of proper selection and implementation of entry
points, AHI and its partners managed to reach more than 75 percent of farm-
ers with income-enhancing technologies (Box 2.2). Entry points actually
BOX 2.2 EXAMPLES OF ENTRY POINTS USED IN
ADDRESSING MORE COMPLEX SYSTEM CONSTRAINTS
IN SOUTHERN ETHIOPIA (AMEDE ET AL., 2006)
Case 1—Sweet potato, a major staple crop planted year-round as a mono-
crop or intercropped with maize, is frequently damaged by the sweet potato
butterfly. Controlling the pest is one strategy for increasing household food
security. By planting sticky vines of desmodium around sweet potato fields,
farmers reduced the incidence of the pest. They have also used desmodium
as a protein source for dairy cows (together with carbohydrate-rich elephant
grass). This technology became popular among farmers.
Case 2—Tephrosia and Canavalia are effective legume cover crops (LCCs) to
restore soil fertility. Farmers started to integrate these LCCs as short-term fal-
lows. Tephrosia was adopted in part because of farmer interest in its reputation
for controlling mole rats, a pest affecting many crops. Farmers in Areka used to
invest at least four hours to dig out and kill just one or two mole rats. Thus, it
was an effective entry point by addressing an issue of high concern with short
response time, while also contributing to the high-priority but medium-term
aim of restoring soil fertility.
50 Tilahun Amede et al.
adopted by farmers were also found to vary according to their social status and
agro-ecologies, evidencing the need for effective targeting and participatory
selection of entry points to be tested by different households. A detailed analy-
sis of selection preferences in the Areka benchmark site, for example, showed
that resource-rich farmers with fertile plots and many livestock (and ample
manure) preferred high yielding crop varieties, while resource-poor farmers
with degraded land and limited access to manure preferred interventions con-
tributing to soil fertility improvement as entry points (Amede et al., 2006).
Examples of successful entry points with win–win effects from AHI sites are
presented in Box 2.3.
BOX 2.3 TOMATO VARIETIES MEETING MARKET
REQUIREMENTS—A SUCCESSFUL ENTRY POINT IN
LUSHOTO BMS
During the PRA with farmers in Kwalei village, Lushoto in 1998, low crop
productivity was reported to be the major problem in the village. On the
other hand, vegetable crops were identified as the best options for gener-
ating much-needed cash income throughout the year because they can be
produced three times a year. As a result, the majority of farmers, especially
the youth, prioritized tomato and cabbage as top priorities for production
and marketing innovations. Small-headed cabbage and firm tomato varie-
ties that can withstand transportation and with a long shelf life were said
to fetch a better price in the market than those cultivated locally. Tengeru
Horticultural Research Institute supplied the required varieties of tomato
(Tengeru 97 and Tanya) and cabbage (Glory F1) for testing. Farmers were
then taught improved agronomic practices, from nursery management to
transplanting, spacing, integrated soil fertility management, weeding, disease
and pest control, harvesting, packaging, and marketing. After several seasons
of bumper harvests and good marketing, more than 50 percent of farmers in
Kwalei were found to be eagerly producing the introduced varieties—which
had spread through family members and friends to distant areas of the district
(German et al., 2006b). When consulted about the benefits, different house-
holds claimed to have used the income to pay school fees for their children,
improve their houses, purchase more land, save up for marriage, and/or adopt
improved land management practices. Farmers are now responding to mar-
ket demands through grading, improvements in the quantity and quality of
produce, and timely delivery. They are also in contact with traders in Dar es
Salaam and Arusha via telephone, to keep an eye on current market prices.
In this way they are making more informed marketing decisions (see Plate 1).
Participatory farm-level innovation 51
Lessons learned
The following lessons were learned from AHI’s experiments with entry points:
● Interventions that bring immediate and visible benefits to farmers and their
families are essential within any INRM initiative, as they build farmers’
confidence in their ability to solve their own problems and help to build
trust and rapport between farmers and support services. This is particularly
true when the entry point addresses multiple concerns simultaneously (at
least one of which brings quick returns).
● Characteristics of good entry points include their high priority for farm-
ers, their ability to address concrete problems of local concern, their ability
to generate quick benefits—particularly income, their simplicity for and
accessibility to a wide range of households (so that unequal benefits do not
compromise the enthusiasm of large portions of the community), their high
chance of success (as early successes go a long way to enhance enthusiasm
and trust) and the ease with which they can be managed and multiplied.
● To maximize impact, entry points need to be matched to household pref-
erences and constraints, as well as to local agro-ecological and marketing
conditions. For example for teff, the staple crop in Ethiopia, women’s
major selection criterion was color (white grain fetches more money
than red, and is preferred for cooking the local bread enjera), while men
considered yield and resistance to lodging as the most important criteria.
Meanwhile, in Tanzania farmers preferred high yielding and firm tomato
varieties with long shelf life and that can withstand transportation because
better markets are more than 300km away.
● Owing to the simplicity and low-cost, low-risk nature of entry point tech-
nologies, they can often be effective in reaching less advantaged social
groups.
● To maximize the contribution of entry points to addressing more complex
system or NRM challenges, it is important to consider entry points that
can enhance the subsequent adoption of other NRM technologies.
● Where benefits, especially monetary benefits, accrued from entry point
technologies, farmers are often more willing to engage in more complex
and integrated technological innovations.
● Initially unaware of the potential benefits of a lasting partnership with
researchers, farmers may initially come to the innovation process with
expectations of quick rewards such as fertilizers and seeds. With a lack of
experience working with research and understanding its value, they may
be unprepared to take risks associated with adopting complex technolo-
gies and practices. Finding means to respond to their immediate demands
without creating dependency while working on more complex innova-
tions with slower returns can go a long way in fostering interest in the
latter and in moving towards more sustainable farming practices.
52 Tilahun Amede et al.
Supporting farmer innovation to address farm-level
constraints
There is general agreement in the agricultural research and development
community in the region that low agricultural productivity and resource deg-
radation in Africa are not owing to the absence of technologies, but to the
limited adoption, adaptation, and dissemination capacity of farmers and the
ineffectiveness of methodologies employed to support these processes. Farmer
experimentation and innovation are recognized as essential in efforts to improve
productivity and reverse natural resource degradation. This innovation is not
only technological in orientation, but may also encompass networking and
communication, the strengthening of local institutions, planning and monitor-
ing, or accessing resources and marketing—anything that may be considered
“new ways of doing business” (Assefa and Fenta, 2006).
While diverse approaches were employed in supporting farmer experi-
mentation in AHI, some elements were common to all. For example,
different actors tended to make different types of decisions. Decisions on the
location of trials, choice of crops, and harvesting time are usually made by
farmers. Experimental design and implementation were carried out jointly,
but researchers had a strong input into the basic research design to ensure
adequate replication and controls. Researchers also participated in identify-
ing parameters to be tested and in carrying out the analysis, but farmers were
involved in managing experiments and evaluating technologies. Officers of
local offices of agricultural ministries were also involved in the decision-mak-
ing process, given their familiarity with wider areas over which technologies
could be applicable. Farmers generally tried to address their specific problems
by testing a wide range of technological options selected in response to the
problems they face. In certain cases, researchers also assisted client farmers in
resource mobilization, leadership, building organization skills, group man-
agement, and conflict resolution.
Approach development
AHI experimented with at least three different approaches to supporting
farmer innovation: local testing and adaptation of the farmer field school (FFS)
approach, approaches for inducing innovation based on local knowledge,
and approaches for linking complementary technologies to achieve synergies
between livelihood and natural resource improvements.
Approach 1—Farmer field schools
The FFS approach is an innovative, participatory, and interactive learning
approach developed by FAO in the 1980s to address pest and disease prob-
lems of rice farmers in Southeast Asia (Pontius et al., 2002). It builds farmers’
Participatory farm-level innovation 53
capacity to understand their systems, identify system constraints, and to test
and adopt technologies and practices matched to those constraints. With more
than 1,000 FFS active in Kenya, the FFS approach is not new to the eastern
Africa region. The FFS approach employs non-formal adult education meth-
ods, particularly experiential learning techniques. Farmers are selected based
on their interest and willingness to follow the proposed methodology or action
plan and their commitment to invest and allocate their time in the program.
Typically, a group of 20 to 25 neighboring farmers meets regularly, commonly
once a week, on one of the farmers’ fields during the entire experimental cycle.
The school is not meant to introduce farmers to new technologies developed
outside their environment, but to provide them with tools and methods that
will enable them to analyze their own production practices and identify pos-
sible solutions.
The AHI team and its partners used FFS in selected cases where there was a
need for intensive interaction between researchers and farmers. It was applied
particularly when a farm constraint demanded a comprehensive package of
knowledge, practices, and technologies, such as controlling crop diseases. It
was also tested for its relevance to addressing complex natural resource manage-
ment challenges and community organizing. Communities were empowered
to establish FFS to organize, test, adopt, and disseminate improved technolo-
gies and practices. They were also facilitated to sustain the learning process by
building the capacity of colleague farmers and communities to enable them to
respond to emerging local challenges. The approach was used to build local
capacity and interest in sustaining farmer experimentation on their own, even
in the absence of external material and technical support.
The following steps were involved in adapting the FFS approach to achieve
the program aims:
1. Facilitate a dialogue among farmers and with outside agencies (research,
extension) to enhance local awareness and refresh people’s memory about
key system constraints identified in the diagnostic phase (e.g., through PRAs)
and their implications for food security, income, and natural resources.
2. Plan and facilitate discussions together with local institutions on how to solve
these system constraints using local solutions, skills and collective action.
3. Identify farmers with similar farm-level problems or constraints and a
shared interest to find practical solutions, and assist them in organizing
themselves into thematic groups (generally consisting of a commodity and
related NRM innovations) to identify and test endogenous and exogenous
innovations.
4. Organize and conduct a formal, classroom-based training program to help
farmers to analyze the biological and socio-economic causes of the prob-
lem. This included the development of a detailed theoretical and practical
curriculum to enable farmers to understand the causes and develop skills
to solve the given constraint. In some cases, “classroom” learning was
54 Tilahun Amede et al.
supported by laboratory experiments, field days, and other practical
methods.
5. Identify a basket of technological options based on local economic and
social criteria and introduce them to farmers through cross-site visits,
exposure to on-station trials, or other means.
6. Conduct formal trainings to equip farmers with the skills needed to enable
them to successfully compare options, including formal experimental methods.
7. Organize farmers and support their efforts to test, adapt, and adopt the
interventions in their own fields, assisting them to capture data on key
parameters such as yield, income, and labor and to compare the perfor-
mance of different enterprises and management options.
Box 2.4 describes a case where FFS were used to solve farm-level constraints.
BOX 2.4 USE OF FARMER FIELD SCHOOLS IN PROMOTING
POTATO-RELATED INNOVATIONS IN THE ETHIOPIAN
HIGHLANDS
At 3,000m above sea level, the Ginchi BMS has a temperate climate with
barley and Irish potato the major crops. There are two cropping seasons, the
first from February to April (the short rainy season) and the second from June
to October (the main season). Farmers often fail to grow potatoes in the main
growing season owing to late blight infestation. A technology development
and dissemination activity was undertaken by using the Farmers Field School
(FFS) approach to develop potato technologies suitable to local conditions.
The purpose was to assist farmers in developing healthy potato farms, which
are more productive, profitable, and sustainable. Using this approach, experi-
ments including varietal evaluation and fungicide-by-variety interactions were
conducted. In order to differentiate the natural variability of potato clones in
response to major potato diseases such as late blight, two blocks were pro-
tected with fungicides while the other two blocks were left without fungicide
application. The FFS approach was found to be effective in stimulating farmer
participation by considering their goals in the targeting and design of innova-
tions. Outcomes included the following:
● A very popular potato variety was identified.
● The FFS approach helped the farmers to better understand complex envi-
ronmental interactions in the process of identifying disease-tolerant potato
varieties.
● The FFS approach enhanced the efficiency and effectiveness of the exten-
sion system.
● Many of the farmers involved in the FFS were encouraged to continue
research on their own.
Participatory farm-level innovation 55
Approach 2—Farmer experimentation using local knowledge as a
starting point
Efforts to support farmer innovation to address farm-level constraints must
begin with local innovation processes, a critical starting point for building part-
nerships of mutual respect between different actors in an innovation system. It
starts with looking at what farmers are already trying to do to solve problems
or grasp opportunities they have identified (Waters-bayer and Bayer, 2009).
Acknowledging this reality, the AHI research team in collaboration with
NARIs and international research organizations employed several participatory
techniques for integrating local knowledge into agricultural experimentation.
The aims were to: 1) develop strategies to address complex NRM issues; 2) foster
a change from a commodity orientation to a more holistic systems and participa-
tory approach in the research system; and 3) develop and improve technologies
and approaches that could be used by policy makers, development actors, and
farmers to address identified NRM challenges. Farmers were in the forefront
throughout the processes of technology development, technology dissemination,
and impact assessment—a process that included the following basic steps:
1. Participatory identification of problems and opportunities from the stand-
point of farmers and researchers;
2. Characterization of various local innovations employed by different farm-
ers, how widespread they are and their potential benefits;
3. Scientific validation of local knowledge or innovations to better under-
stand their features and benefits, and to explore how to link them to
scientific knowledge in addressing system constraints;
4. Feedback of findings and discussion with the holders of local knowledge
and other community members;
5. Demonstration and experimentation of ways to link local innovations with
exogenous technologies (an optional step, employed only where possible
synergies are identified); and
6. Promotion of best performing innovations as integrated packages to the
wider community through training and awareness creation.
Box 2.5 presents experiences from Areka, southern Ethiopia where farmers
employed local knowledge to control mole rats, a vertebrate pest causing yield
reductions of up to 60 percent in root crops. Conventional methods of con-
trolling the pest (e.g., use of poisonous substances) had proven to be ineffective
in addressing the problem. In addition to the expense, the mole rats quickly
learn to dodge them once they detect they are poisonous. Fortunately, a com-
bination of local experiences and conventional techniques proved to work,
and were both less costly and more environmentally friendly. At the time of
writing, more than 50 percent of the farmers in the village where experiments
were carried out were using the technology.
56 Tilahun Amede et al.
Approach 3—Promoting linked technologies
One key challenge in supporting farmer innovation is to identify and integrate
technologies addressing one or more identified problems without negatively
affecting other system components. For instance, during the colonial era, pro-
motion of conservation technologies was led by conservation programmes while
technologies for improving agricultural production were facilitated by agricul-
tural research institutes. Separating conservation and production, and piecemeal
promotion of technologies and management practices (using a “commodity” or
“single factor” approach) did not bring real benefits to farmers; in fact it failed
to create the desired impact. In response to this challenge, AHI developed and
tested approaches for facilitating farmer experimentation with an explicit effort
to link conservation with production-enhancing technologies.
BOX 2.5 CASE STUDY ON MOLE RAT CONTROL IN
AREKA, ETHIOPIA
Mole rat is the most troublesome wild pest affecting home garden crops
in southern Ethiopia owing to its effects in exacerbating food insecurity.
Conventional control methods such as fumigation and baits are costly for the
resource-poor farmers. The AHI team collaborated with farmers to identify
effective control measures. The few individuals with knowledge of how to con-
trol the pest were identified. These individuals used to make money by hunting
mole rats without sharing their knowledge with others. After a facilitated dia-
logue between the knowledge-bearers and other farmers, these individuals
agreed to share their methods, which involve the use of local attractant herbs
and traps. The trap is composed of a metal hook tied with sisal string on a
bended stick (see Plate 2). The bait—banana, sweet potato, or local spices—is
placed behind the metal hook in the burrow of the mole rat. In order to reach
the bait, the mole rat has to bite and cut the string. When the string is cut, the
metal hook is swiftly pulled out of the hole by the bent stick. It is this sudden
action that causes the hook to pierce and kill the mole rat.
While this proved to work initially, the mole rats were eventually able to dis-
tinguish bait that had been contaminated by human hands. To rectify this
problem and enhance the effectiveness of the trap, farmers started treating
their hands with the soil dug by mole rats to reduce the human “smell.” In
doing so, some farmers were able to control mole rats in their homesteads
and farms.
AHI scientists are cognizant of the moral dilemmas and ecological challenges
associated with vertebrate pest control practices, and have made an effort to
ensure complex spin-offs on local ecosystems are identified and managed in
the process of putting local livelihoods needs first.
Participatory farm-level innovation 57
The term “linked technologies” was coined to define technologies that
when applied simultaneously at plot or farm level render multiple benefits
by enhancing adoptability of discrete technologies or fostering synergies that
would not exist had technologies been applied in isolation. For instance, given
the steep slopes, intensive cropping, and high rainfall intensity in most of the
AHI sites, soil fertility decline was very apparent. The research teams employed
several participatory techniques in order to develop the capacity of farmers and
researchers in integrated soil fertility management; foster partnerships among
stakeholders to avail best-bet technologies; and foster a change from commod-
ity-oriented to a more holistic and participatory approach placing farmers at
the forefront of technology development and evaluation (see, for example,
Stroud, 1993). The guiding hypotheses were the following (Stroud, 2003):
● Technologies with win–win benefits (e.g., increased income, improved
soil fertility) will build farmers’ confidence to test more complex NRM
technologies, and strengthen the demand side in the technology innova-
tion process.
● Problem-solving technologies with multiple benefits will bring more food
and cash income to farmers of different resource endowments by solv-
ing multiple problems simultaneously, with solutions attractive enough to
“sell” to others.
The methodology for developing linked technologies starts with the methods
described in the above section “Understanding systems and clients”—namely,
participatory rural appraisal techniques at village level to identify constraints faced
by different social groups, followed by participatory testing of a wide range of
technologies by thematically based farmer groups—starting with identified entry
points. The next steps were specific to the linked technology approach, as follows:
1. Once solutions are found to the most pressing issues (addressed through
the testing of entry points), researchers facilitate access to more complex
technologies. These technologies often relate in one way or another (e.g.,
through nutrient or capital flows, or labor savings) with technologies that
have already been tested. The latter could have already been adopted, or
could face some constraint that a new technology can assist in alleviating.
The new innovations can also be unrelated to the entry point, and build
on farmers’ enthusiasm to innovate rather than on proven technologies
as a means to propel interest in more complex innovations. Importantly,
however, the linked technologies bring immediate benefits while also foster-
ing farmer investments in more complex NRM technologies with slower
returns. For instance, while soil and water conservation was a key inter-
vention to minimize erosion, increase water infiltration and increase input
efficiency at farm and landscape scales, farmers had a difficult time engaging
in such labor-intensive practices without immediate financial returns to their
58 Tilahun Amede et al.
labor. By combining the testing of conservation bunds with forage grasses,
organic nutrient management, and multipurpose trees as linked innovations,
farmers were able to generate immediate benefits such as livestock feed,
improved yields (crops, milk, manure), and fuel wood from investments in
soil stabilization and fertility improvements (see also Box 2.4).
2. Gradually farmers intensify and specialize in a system such as horticulture
that renders the much-needed economic as well as social benefits and sus-
tains or expands NRM investments. As the economic returns from NRM
investments begin to materialize from the high-value crop and/or livestock
enterprises, farmers are often propelled to invest more or expand the area
over which the innovation is carried out. Thus, complementary innovations
not yet tested in the first step such as integrated pest management (IPM) or
other high-value crops with complementary growing cycles (for intercrop-
ping or relay cropping) can be brought into the innovation system.
The role of research was to facilitate access to technologies, train lead farmers,
support farmer experimentation, and guide and monitor what different farmer
groups did to integrate the various technological options—and their perceived
impacts. The gradual, iterative process of planning, testing, evaluation, and
replanning in a system that becomes ever-more diversified and integrated, is
portrayed in Figure 2.1.
FIGURE 2.1 Simplified model of farm level entry point and linked technologies
Linked technologies
Intensification
Diversification
Entry point
Tomato, cabbage
Fodder, manure, soil bund, terraces
trees, animals, IPM
Tomato, cabbage
Fodder, manure,
terraces
Improved tomato
Participatory farm-level innovation 59
Integrating technologies is a function of time, space, demand, and appro-
priateness of the interventions under the given circumstances. It should be
done through targeting clients and system niches and by providing problem-
solving interventions addressing the most important household priorities. This
will improve the confidence of both farmers and researchers and the rapport
between them as they seek to address more complex system constraints that
may need more than one technological and institutional intervention.
It should be noted that the process of developing evermore complex link-
ages between technologies in wider system-wide innovations is not a one-off
process but rather a time-consuming, stepwise engagement whereby farmers
integrate options to supplement earlier investments for increasing returns from
their farms and investments. Figure 2.2 illustrates where the stepwise approach
is used to foster integrated soil fertility management in the Ethiopian highlands.
These innovations can then be integrated into watershed-level innovations at a
later stage (see Chapter 3 for details).
The approach should give emphasis to building the capacity of the com-
munities and R&D teams to implement a systems approach and address the
needs of diverse social groups. Farmers play a key role in linking technologies.
Box 2.6 presents another success case, linking soil conservation with fodder
production in Ethiopia to conserve soil while enhancing livestock production.
FIGURE 2.2 Stepwise integration of various technologies and approaches to improve
natural resources management in the Ethiopian highlands
Increasing
intensification
Stop erosion
Development of components over time
Resource recycling
Integration of components
(add critical nutrients)
Stepwise technology development
INRM
60 Tilahun Amede et al.
Lessons learned
AHI’s experience in supporting farmer innovation confirmed the need for sci-
entists to facilitate a dialogue based on mutual respect and learning by accepting
and respecting farmers’ knowledge. Scientists have important roles to play by
bringing in information, methods and analyses that complement what farmers
already know and can do themselves. Key lessons learned on efforts to foster
farmer experimentation and innovation include the following:
● A host of considerations and decision criteria enter into any innovation
process, many of which are specific to the local setting or cultural prefer-
ences, posing a challenge to diffusion of innovations. The same constraint
is not necessarily resolved in the same way in different locations, even
within the same agro-ecological region. This implies the need to replicate
farmer innovation as an approach to problem solving, not the solutions
generated through these approaches.
BOX 2.6 LINKED TECHNOLOGIES FOR LIVESTOCK
PRODUCTION AND SOIL CONSERVATION IN AREKA BMS
Farmers in Areka rated soil erosion as one of their major production constraints.
Government agencies such as the Bureau of Agriculture and the Wolaita
Agricultural Development Unit had made various attempts to promote soil
and water conservation structures in the area. With farmers perceiving these
initiatives to be externally imposed, they met with limited success. Moreover,
with small farm sizes, farmers were unwilling to allocate strips of land for the
construction of conservation bunds.
AHI and its partners organized consecutive community meetings to create aware-
ness and to seek solutions jointly. Soil bunds were selected as a practical solution
for minimizing erosion and reducing loss of seed and fertilizer from excess run-
off. Farmer Research Groups (FRG), established to test interventions, were used
as a platform for farmer organization and collective action. By-laws were first
developed by farmers to establish the working principles and arrangements for
organizing collective action in soil bund construction. Based on periodic meetings
to evaluate progress, modifications were made based on farmers’ recommenda-
tions. This included expanding the technical spacing recommendations between
two adjacent bunds to allow sufficient space for the “U-turn” of an oxen-pulled
plough. The land allocated for conservation bunds was used to grow food and
fodder crops. In addition to its role as a soil stabilizer, Napier grass attracted
farmers’ attention as a quality feed. This was further expanded by distributing
cuttings to more communities using the FRGs; but also through encouraging
farmer-to-farmer seed dissemination across villages.
Participatory farm-level innovation 61
● A critical element to developing effective partnerships between farmers,
researchers, and development actors in supporting farmer innovation is
overcoming the widespread tendency to underestimate farmers’ knowl-
edge and innovation capacity and treating them as equal partners. Learning
to listen to farmers and take their feedback on board whenever they report
challenges faced in testing and adopting interventions is essential if research-
ers are to play an important role in farmer-led innovation processes.
● Research and extension practices that build on farmers’ knowledge,
engage farmers’ creativity, and allow for their active involvement in out-
reach activities are capable of producing results that far exceed and outlast
those possible through more conventional approaches.
● The “linked technology” approach enabled farmers, development agen-
cies, and research organizations to address poverty and natural resources
degradation in a holistic manner.
● Market opportunities are an important impetus for technology adop-
tion and systems intensification, and efforts to identify and meet market
demands within a wider innovation effort can go a long way in catalyzing
change.
● Farmer–researcher partnerships for farm-level innovation require flexibil-
ity when defining the role of research. Some interventions do not require
formal experimentation, as the returns are quickly visible. In some cases,
the researcher’s role became one of conceptualizing a system so as to
introduce new ideas rather than the design and implementation of experi-
ments, of monitoring with the aim of understanding farmers’ innovations
and evaluations, and of providing support to dissemination and scaling-up
processes.
● Interventions with win–win benefits are effective in bringing about imme-
diate impact at household and community scales.
● Mechanisms to involve innovative farmers as local champions of an inno-
vation process can be an effective means of stimulating local innovation,
providing technical backstopping to other farmers and facilitating dissem-
ination—a topic to which we now turn.
Disseminating proven technologies and approaches
Conventional approaches for technology dissemination are usually top-down
and commodity-oriented, with the mode of technology dissemination assumed
to be “linear”—namely, from research to extension to farmers. Critical factors
affecting adoption such as socio-cultural, policy and institutional conditions
were not considered in this approach. Furthermore, most of the technologies
were generated on station through researcher designed and managed trials.
Direct feedback from farmers as well as several formal adoption studies have
clearly shown that technologies developed using this conventional approach
were often not appropriate to local circumstances, thus leading to low adoption
62 Tilahun Amede et al.
(Amede et al., 2001). This was largely owing to the limited involvement of
farmers in the development and dissemination of technologies, as well as to
weak institutional support to facilitate the adoption capacity of target groups.
Horizontal and geographical spread of technologies is limited even when facili-
tated by public institutions and NGOs. The challenge for AHI was therefore to
identify socio-economic and biophysical incentives to facilitate the scaling up
of innovations proven to work in select locations. Using more “bottom-up”
approaches, AHI has seen a gradual increase in farmers’ interest and adoption
of different technologies, resulting in higher incomes and food security for
households (Mowo et al., 2002).
Technology dissemination beyond partner households and villages has been
hindered by blanket recommendations and poor packaging. Contrasting pro-
duction systems and socio-economic circumstances demands a diversity of
technological innovations and approaches. The diversity of household pro-
duction objectives, for example, with some households concentrating on cash
crops and others focused more on achieving food self-sufficiency, requires
careful targeting of technological interventions. Resource-poor farmers, espe-
cially those distant from markets, face difficult decisions over the allocation of
scarce resources (e.g., land, labor, nutrients, and water). Decisions on the allo-
cation of resources are often associated with immediate financial gains and food
security, with limited assessment or appreciation of the impact of management
decisions on long-term effects or other system components (e.g., soils). There
is therefore a need to explore mechanisms for matching technologies to specific
recommendation domains, as defined by agro-ecological conditions, cropping
systems, cultural values, system niches, or socio-economic variables.
Besides technologies being poorly adapted to different agro-ecologies and
socio-economic circumstances, some technologies and approaches demand col-
lective decisions and policy support to be adopted—further limiting their spread
when these factors are not taken into consideration. Farmer-to-farmer dissemi-
nation of technologies through existing social networks—be they defined by
area of residence, friendship, kinship, marriage, religion, or other factors—has
been found to be one successful approach (Adamo, 2001), though the reach
is limited. AHI has developed approaches that have significantly increased the
spread and adoption of technologies within benchmark sites where spontane-
ous farmer-to-farmer sharing was limited or socially biased (German et al.,
2006b). Research played a critical role in helping farmers to organize them-
selves, access and multiply preferred technologies, and sustainably utilize these
interventions and promote them within the locality and beyond.
Approach development
Various technologies and practices may demand different dissemina-
tion approaches. This is because some technologies are easy to disseminate
while others are more knowledge-intensive and difficult to scale up unless
Participatory farm-level innovation 63
accompanied by intensive mentoring, guidance and institutional support. AHI
used three different approaches for scaling up: farmer research groups, exter-
nally mediated diffusion in which dissemination is governed through locally
formulated by-laws, and a formal approach based on research to identify social
and biophysical barriers to adoption.
Approach 1—Farmer research groups
In addition to being employed as a platform for farmer experimentation, FRGs
were used as a means to scale up impacts through technology dissemination
and the testing of additional innovations that might work synergistically with
technologies to enhance impact (e.g., micro-credit). As mentioned above,
the process of establishing FRGs for technology dissemination included the
organization of farmers into thematically based groups for testing technolo-
gies on behalf of the wider community, formal training, the identification and
implementation of experiments and evaluation of results. With this approach,
the transition between experimentation and scaling up is a relatively seamless
one—with steps in the latter a natural transition from the former. This means
that the use of FRGs as a platform for scaling up is informed as much by the
natural progression of farmers’ interests and experiences as it is by a set of dis-
crete steps. However, in most cases it consisted of the following components:
1. Members of different thematic groups presenting their findings to the
wider community (including FRGs working on other themes) at different
stages of experimentation.
2. Research teams and FRG members developing a scaling-up strategy and
jointly organizing field days, farm visits, posters, and demonstration trials.
3. Farmers beyond pilot communities or groups seeking support from research
to expand the FRG methodology, requiring both continued support to
farmer experimentation and a proper strategy for ensuring continuity and
sustainable delivery of technological options.
4. FRG members starting their own community seed multiplication initia-
tive as a business venture, often on their own initiative.
5. FRG experimentation with other non-technological innovations (e.g.,
credit provision, marketing) to alleviate the constraints to adoption and
thereby enhance technology adoption and dissemination either directly
or indirectly (see Box 2.7 for the case of savings and credit associations in
Tanzania).
6. Research and development teams facilitating linkages between success-
ful FRGs and local authorities to disseminate proven innovations beyond
pilot sites.
It is interesting to note that the dissemination phase exposed a number of
weaknesses in the FRG methodology as a whole, highlighting some of the
64 Tilahun Amede et al.
challenges that need to be managed for the successful implementation of
FRG-based experimentation and dissemination efforts. With the majority of
researchers initially lacking experience in applying principles and concepts of
participatory methodologies, they were ill-prepared to assist moving farmers
away from individualistic attitudes and to support the evolution of cohesive
farmer groups. In some instances, this led to limited interest in fostering col-
lective benefits, with FRG members seeing technologies as their own property
rather than something they have been given a mandate to test on behalf of the
wider community. This became apparent at the time of scaling up. In another
instance where participatory approaches were tested in a site where govern-
ment programmes were providing cash and inputs free of charge to farmers
implementing soil and water conservation, some of the technologies used as
entry points were accepted by farmers owing to these benefits rather than the
technologies themselves. This hindered subsequent efforts to scale up technol-
ogies requiring significant financial or labor inputs, as the underlying motives
for uptake were weak. Yet these experiences were more the exception to the
rule, with most farmer groups realizing the benefits of working with research-
ers during participatory technology testing and dissemination.
BOX 2.7 COMMUNITY DRIVEN MICRO-CREDIT
SYSTEMS: BUILDING THE FINANCIAL CAPITAL OF
SMALLHOLDER FARMERS IN LUSHOTO DISTRICT,
TANZANIA THROUGH FRGS
In 1998, farmers of Kwalei village identified low livestock productivity and land
degradation as major challenges. They also identified limited financial capi-
tal as one of the barriers to adopting promising technologies, and therefore
requested financial assistance to enable them to test and adopt the improved
technologies. Limited availability of capital had impaired the adoption of
technologies owing to the ever-increasing cost of farm inputs. In response,
farmers were sensitized on establishing their own savings and credit coopera-
tive society (SACCOS). Although the farmers were skeptical about the success
of such an initiative owing to negative past experiences with cooperatives,
they formed a SACCOS in 2000 after undergoing formal trainings, exchange
visits to successful SACCOS, and carrying out group negotiations. They were
able to officially register their society in 2002 under the name Kwalei SACCOS
through support from the district cooperative department. Over the next five
years, membership grew from a village association with 36 members to a
membership of 182 involving farmers from six neighboring villages, with a
credit-worthiness of 120,000,000 Tanzanian shillings (US$ 100,000).
Based on local records, farmers have borrowed money from the SACCOS to
purchase agricultural inputs as well as to address other pressing family matters
Participatory farm-level innovation 65
Approach 2—Externally mediated diffusion
AHI’s experience in several benchmark sites suggests that the spread of knowl-
edge-intensive technologies is not as fast and simple as crop varieties and
forage, even within a village. Moreover, scaling up “fast-moving” technologies
does not mean these innovations will reach different social groups or locations
without external support and facilitation by local institutions, extension depart-
ments, or research institutions. AHI and its partners therefore experimented
with different approaches for mediating technology dissemination and farmer-
to-farmer “spillover” to ensure equitable access to technologies being tested
by different FRGs. The question of how to equitably share knowledge and
technology among male and female farmers, and to reach farmers with dif-
ferent resource endowments, was discussed at community meetings involving
(Table 2.1). The majority of borrowers are women, choosing to invest their money
in establishing businesses and to cover family emergencies. Many of those going
into businesses have begun marketing agricultural produce in distant markets
and bringing back merchandise such as clothes and farm inputs. Fifteen percent
of the loans has been used to purchase farm inputs such as fertilizer, improved
seeds, and pesticides—which are normally expensive to the average farmer.
About 5 percent of the loans has been used to construct soil and water conser-
vation structures and establish tree nurseries; the majority of those investing in
nurseries doing so to produce seedlings for sale. At the time of writing, Kwalei
SACCOS had loaned 2,000,000 Tsh (US$ 1,668) to two nursery groups.
TABLE 2.1 Local credit arrangements in Lushoto
Purpose of borrowing Number of borrowers
Men Women Groups Total
loans
Payment of school fees 3126
Soil and water conservation 10 1 1 12
Establishing tree nursery – – 2 2
Purchase of farm inputs:
● Vegetables 20 10 – 30
● Food crops 9 1 – 10
● Perennial crops, e.g. coffee, tea, banana 1 1 – 2
Purchase of land 10 – – 10
Building improved houses 10 – – 10
Establishment of business 30 70 – 100
Emergency (e.g., sickness, death, school fees) 31 75 – 106
Grand Total 11 145 4 288
66 Tilahun Amede et al.
community leaders, local authorities, and early adopters. This was done in part
to ensure seeds continue to spill over from one FRG to the next, to counter
the tendency for FRG members to take project seed as their own property and
stop there. The participatory formulation of local by-laws and their subsequent
endorsement by local administrative authorities was also considered as a means
to guide or govern the technology dissemination process according to guide-
lines agreed upon by all. In short, this approach may be characterized by a very
direct mediation from outside the community designed to enhance equity.
The following steps were used to facilitate externally mediated technology
diffusion:
1. Mobilize and sensitize community members on key crop and livestock
issues identified through participatory diagnostic procedures such as PRAs,
to explore the extent to which those who wish to access technologies are
able to do so and to identify barriers to technology access and uptake.
2. In cases where inequitable access to technologies is observed (either by
gender or any other factor), hold community meetings to generate by-laws
to govern modes of technology dissemination (Box 2.8).
3. Establish technology testing sites with beneficiary farmers.
4. Form marketing committees and higher level organizations from village to
sub-county levels to facilitate market linkages, including establishment of
collection centers.
5. Establish village libraries for publicity (reading materials, pamphlets regard-
ing NRM and other agricultural activities).
6. Improve the capacity of farmers to multiply seeds, including phyto-san-
itary measures during production (as required with Irish potato) up to
post-harvest handling.
7. Promote the products using dramas, role plays, shows, demonstrations,
and other tools.
8. Encourage farmers to keep records and use them for monitoring and track-
ing progress.
Key stakeholders such as local leaders and extension agents were involved in
planning and implementation at all levels.
BOX 2.8 CASE STUDY ON THE USE OF BY-LAWS FOR
EQUITABLE TECHNOLOGY DIFFUSION IN AREKA, ETHIOPIA
In a participatory diagnostic process in Areka BMS, gender-disaggregated focus
group discussions highlighted very inequitable patterns of technology access
and extension delivery by gender and wealth—with a tendency to focus on
wealthier male farmers with larger landholdings. Efforts were made to better
Participatory farm-level innovation 67
“govern” extension services and the spread of technologies by negotiating
collective choice rules and endorsing these as formal by-laws. The proposed
by-laws included the following:
● FRG leaders must select farmers who will receive seeds to multiply fairly
from among women and men, and from poor, medium and better-off
farmers each year. At least one-third and two-third of the farmers should
be women and poor farmers, respectively.
● FRG leaders should coordinate, facilitate, and follow up with seed multipli-
cation and dissemination by identifying who is multiplying which varieties,
in what amount, and where.
● A farmer who multiplies seed has to return the same amount of seed she or
he took for multiplication to a farmer selected by FRG leaders. If a farmer
loses a portion of the harvest owing to natural factors, a similar proportion
of the seed taken has to be transferred to a farmer selected by FRG leaders.
A farmer who lost the improved seed owing to natural hazards will be free
from the sanctions for non compliance. Reasons for loss should be justified
and verified by FRG leaders.
● Farmers that take improved seed for multiplication should apply all the
necessary improved agronomic practices and should not lose or consume
the seed, unless due to a situation beyond his/her control.
● A farmer who multiplies improved seeds should ask the FRG leaders or PA
leaders before selling the seed in the market whether there are farmers in
the watershed who want to buy the seed.
● Local and external institutions are governed by this by-law and must work
with the local administration and FRGs when selecting farmers for technol-
ogy dissemination.
● When a farmer or an institution goes against this bylaw, the PA social court
should see it as disrespect to the PA regulations and should pass judgment
accordingly.
● PA leaders must facilitate the implementation of this by-law, charge non-
compliances and implement the judgments passed by social courts.
Approach 3—Targeting systems and clients for dissemination
of technologies
While technological innovations are vital in solving farm-level constraints to
food security and sustainable NRM, their adoption and utilization by local
communities can be limited unless interventions effectively target clients
68 Tilahun Amede et al.
and key system constraints, and contribute to overall household objectives.
Although farmers are keen to learn about technologies through farmer field
schools and on-farm testing, not all farmers are involved in piloting technolo-
gies and other farmers will need time to test and adapt them to their own, often
sub-optimal, conditions. Yet managing such a process with each and every
household is costly, and tools for predicting adoptability under different condi-
tions can help to reduce such costs.
Predicting the likelihood of adoption of different technologies and formulating
relevant recommendations are difficult owing to the variable nature of biological
and social-economic systems and the trade-offs that characterize production and
resource/input management decisions. Thus, the generation of decision support
tools based on detailed analyses of farming systems may provide a complemen-
tary tool to more participatory techniques in identifying technologies and their
potential socio-economic and biophysical niches. With the ability to consider
multiple variables simultaneously, the tools described below can enable more
accurate targeting of innovations and clients to foster multiple household objec-
tives simultaneously (e.g. increased productivity of crop and livestock systems,
income, and food security). Key steps in the approach include the following:
1. Characterization of systems and clients. As systems with different charac-
teristics will differ in their capacity to intensify and the pathways through
which this occurs, and different drivers of change will influence enterprise
choices and their management, the targeting of interventions should start
with a characterization of the system. This includes both socio-economic
and biophysical perspectives. The former includes household resource
endowments by wealth, gendered perspectives on constraints and priori-
ties, household involvement in institutions of collective action, and access
to technologies and innovations. The latter includes a characterization of
the production system, access to water and nutrient resources, soil fertility,
and other relevant biophysical parameters.
2. Identification of socio-economic and biophysical factors affecting adop-
tion (Box 2.9). Farmers employ multiple criteria when deciding whether a
technology in question is appropriate for their circumstances, and whether
it can be productively integrated into their farming practices. This step
involves identifying variables affecting the adoption of a particular technol-
ogy by households with variable economic and demographic characteristics,
resource endowments, and system constraints. These include the extent to
which the technology is aligned or compatible with household preferences
and cultural values, its actual or anticipated performance in different farm
and landscape niches, the immediacy of benefits derived from its adoption,
complementarities or conflicts with other system sub-components and users,
and the potential of the intervention to address multiple challenges simulta-
neously. These factors are determined based on past experience by some or
all households with the same or similar technologies.
Participatory farm-level innovation 69
3. Prioritization of major socio-economic and biophysical determinants of adop-
tion using pair-wise ranking, community validation, and case study analysis.
4. Development of decision guides to assist development agencies, exten-
sion personnel, and farmers to target systems and clients for a specific
intervention.
BOX 2.9 SOCIO-ECONOMIC CRITERIA TO INTEGRATE
LEGUMES INTO FARMING SYSTEMS OF THE
HIGHLANDS OF EASTERN AFRICA (AMEDE AND
KIRKBY, 2004)
Through the above process, the following factors were identified by farmers
as influencing the adoption of legumes in smallholder systems in the region:
● Good performance, in terms of biological productivity, under given agro-
ecological conditions. The most favorable candidate is one with relatively
high yield of both grain and biomass under variable agro-ecological
conditions, namely precipitation, temperature, soil fertility, and variable
management conditions.
● Positive effect of legume incorporation on grain yield of the subsequent
crop. If the effect on subsequent crops is negligible, adoption will be limited.
● Minimal competition with food crops for land and water. Because of land
scarcity, farmers may not be willing to grow legume cover crops as a
monocrop. Therefore, those legumes that do not strongly compete with
the companion food crop for water, nutrients and light when grown in
combination are best options.
● Contribution to minimizing soil erosion. LCCs with firm root systems
capable of protecting the soil against erosion (determined based on the
strength of the plant during uprooting) are favored by farmers with plots
on steep slopes.
● Rapid decomposition. The rate of decomposition when incorporated into
the soil (determined by the strength of the stalk and/or the leaf to be bro-
ken by hand) is considered as an important indicator to predict whether
the organic resource applied is in a position to release nutrients for the
subsequent crop in a short period of time or not.
● Mulching capacity. Mulching capacity, determined by farmers as the
moisture content of the soil under the canopy of each LCC species, is an
indication of the water use efficiency of the respective legume and its com-
patibility in multiple cropping systems.
70 Tilahun Amede et al.
● Drought resistance when exposed to dry spells. Crops less susceptible to
drought will yield returns to labor invested under variable climatic condi-
tions, and therefore be favored by farmers.
● Compatibility with other staple and cash crops. Whether the LCC is found
to compete with food legumes for space and resources, and its effects on
land productivity, were critical in this regard.
● Value as a feed. Palatability for livestock and ability to produce high quality
feed for the dry season are important considerations for farmers, owing
especially to the high calf mortality during the dry season.
● Early soil cover. LCCs with fast mulching characteristics not only conserve
water through reduced evapotranspiration, but make the soil easy to work
with—thereby reducing the labor burden for farmers. It also reduces the
kinetic effects of heavy rain on the soil and soil erosion.
In addition to these biophysical factors, a number of socio-economic indicators
affecting adoption were also identified. These included farm size, marketabil-
ity, toxicity of the pod to children and animals, risk (e.g., from the introduction
of new pests), and farm ownership and management (e.g., whether the land
was managed by the landowner or sharecroppers who would have less inter-
est in investing in long-term productivity).
Fertile land
Small to large farm
Good market
Own livestock
Fertile land
Small land size
Good to poor market
Don’t own livestock
Non-fertile land
Large farm size
Good market
Non-fertile land
Small land size
Poor market
Food and
feed legumes
Food legumes
Cover crops, food
and feed legumes
Cover crops
Decreasing
soil fertility
with distance
from homestead
FIGURE 2.3 Integration of food and feed legumes and legume cover crops into small-
scale farms as a function of resource endowments and market conditions
Participatory farm-level innovation 71
Lessons learned
The following lessons were learned in our efforts to test different strategies for
local technology dissemination:
● Building the skills and capacity of “elite” farmers may help to kick-start the
technology innovation process; however, technologies developed by these
farmers are not guaranteed to reach the broader community. This may be
owing to limitations in farmer-to-farmer sharing or, in cases where the
early innovators are wealthier farmers, to different resource endowments.
● Contrary to common perception, communities are not homogeneous
entities in which benefits to some households will automatically “trickle
down” to all. Explicit strategies are often needed to ensure resources
brought from the outside and intended for the collective benefit are well
governed based on principles of equity.
● Where select individuals step forward to test technologies on behalf of
the group, the acquired technologies will often be considered to be their
personal property unless the individual responsibilities to the group (e.g.,
subsequent sharing of information or seed) are clarified in advance.
● Building farmers’ confidence, trust and collegial spirit will go a long way
in building strong groups and enhancing farmer-to-farmer sharing of
technologies. The initial trust between farmers and research and develop-
ment teams was an important factor contributing to building strong local
institutions.
● Building farmers’ capacity to access loans and services and linking them to
district- and national-level financial institutions will significantly contrib-
ute to agricultural productivity, rural livelihoods, and ability to invest in
natural resource management.
● Targeting potential clients and system niches can help to facilitate tech-
nology dissemination and adoption by providing a cost-effective tool for
predicting adoptability of agricultural innovations. There is a need to
develop these tools together with the potential users through participatory
After comparing these factors in a pair-wise analysis, it was possible to identify and
rank the five major indicators that would influence a farmers’ decision on whether
or not to adopt LCCs. These variables and the way they were employed in local
decision processes were then employed to construct decision guides. An example
of a resulting decision guide that integrates farmer resource endowments and
market conditions as priority indicators is illustrated in Figure 2.3. For more infor-
mation, see AHI Brief A5 (Soil Fertility Decision Guide Formulation), available at:
http://worldagroforestry.org/projects/african-highlands/archives.html#briefs.
72 Tilahun Amede et al.
and data-based approaches. Testing and validating decision tools in diverse
settings can help to expand the tool’s reach beyond pilot sites.
● Different technologies and practices may demand different dissemination
approaches as some (e.g., crop varieties) are easy to disseminate, while other
technologies (e.g., conservation agriculture) are knowledge-intensive and
difficult to scale up unless the process is strongly facilitated by intensive
mentoring, guidance and external or internal institutional support.
● Finally, and most importantly, the establishment of strong local institutions
for technology dissemination requires that the demand for such institutions
comes from the grassroots, whether the community at large or historically
disadvantaged groups therein.
Tracking technology spread and impacts
In addition to proactively engaging in technology testing and dissemina-
tion strategies, it is often useful to understand the actual fate of technologies
following such formal interventions. This can help to identify adoption bot-
tlenecks, whether social, economic, or biophysical. It can also highlight the
spontaneous ways in which farmers adapt technologies or their management to
enhance their compatibility with local farming systems or increase the benefits
derived from them, so as to ensure these innovations are popularized. Finally,
it can help to identify areas where complementary innovations are needed,
for example to minimize negative social or biophysical impacts resulting from
technology adoption.
This section describes a methodology for tracking the spontaneous “spillo-
ver,” or farmer-to-farmer sharing, of introduced technologies. Conventional
adoption studies emphasize identification of factors influencing adoption and
evaluation of impact in terms of the numbers of adopters and the area over
which the technology is applied. The proposed methodology operates under
an expanded set of objectives and research questions. Identification of pros,
cons, and adoption barriers for different technologies can assist the targeting of
improvements on the technology or its mode of delivery. Identification of the
characteristics of adopting households and farming systems enables our understanding
of who benefits from introduced technologies and can improve technology
targeting for diverse social groups. Characterization of social networks through which
technology flows in the absence of outside intervention can enable us to tap into
existing social networks or to target strategies to overcome social biases inher-
ent in these (i.e., gender bias within patrilineal or male-dominated societies).
Identification of social and biophysical innovations made by farmers can help in our
understanding of how technologies may be modified to better fit the farming
system, and integrated into scaling out efforts. Finally, identification of positive and
negative social and agro-ecological impacts can shed light on how to maximize posi-
tive while minimizing negative spin-offs of technological innovation (German
et al., 2006a, 2006b).
Participatory farm-level innovation 73
Approach development
This expanded scope is achieved through a number of variations in conventional
adoption studies, which tend to follow four basic steps: 1) researcher identification
of variables likely to influence adoption; 2) structured household questionnaires
focusing on key variables; 3) statistical analysis to correlate key variables with
technology adoption; and 4) researcher interpretation of observed patterns. The
modified methodology includes these same steps, but systematically builds local
perceptions into the approach. Focus group discussions with different social groups
(adopting and non-adopting farmers, or by gender and wealth) during Step 1 of
the methodology aid in identifying basic patterns of adoption and technology shar-
ing, as observed by farmers. Newly identified variables from these focus group
discussions are then integrated into the standard household surveys, to enable
quantification of relevant variables. Focus group discussions are also utilized during
Step 4 of the methodology to integrate farmers’ interpretation of observed pat-
terns into the analysis. While researchers may believe an observed pattern may be
explained in one way, farmers will often have their own explanation that differs
considerably from researchers’ interpretations. Each of these steps ensures that the
methodology is sensitive to patterns of adoption and social interaction specific to
the local context.
Household survey methods used in Step 2 also differ in two important respects.
Sampling of interviewees can be done through the standard random sampling
approach or through a form of “snowball sampling” in which social networks
are traced from the original “project farmers” (L0) to “level one adopter” (L1)
(farmers adopting from project farmers) to “level two adopters” (L2), and so on as
presented in Figure 2.4. While random sampling may be better for rigorous econo-
metric analysis of adoption variables, snowball sampling is best for understanding
social networks through which technologies spread in the absence of outside inter-
ventions and how adoption levels and technologies themselves change through
successive levels of “spillover.” The latter also provides a picture of local adop-
tion dynamics and pathways. The household survey methods employed here also
differ by the integration of more in-depth qualitative interviews in a selected num-
ber of households. This aids in understanding social and biophysical innovations,
livelihood and environmental impact, and the steps associated with technology
adoption—generally, information requiring qualitative inquiry.
FIGURE 2.4 Levels of technology “spillover” relative to project interventions
L0
L1
L1
L1
L2
L2
L2
L2
L2
L2
L2
Farmer interacting
with technical staff
L0
L1 Level 1 spillover
L2 Level 2 spillover
Key:
74 Tilahun Amede et al.
As a whole, this methodology helps us to move from a view of technological
innovation as a one-off step (introducing new technologies) to a process that
proceeds from problem definition to technology targeting, testing, monitoring,
troubleshooting, and dissemination or discontinuation. This is of fundamental
importance in ensuring that patterns and lessons are not lost, and to mini-
mize the risks introduced through technological innovation—such as negative
agro-ecological impacts or socio-economic gap-widening resulting from biases
towards wealthier or male farmers.
The methodology is applied for at least two consecutive growing seasons
after technology dissemination, so that patterns of farmer-to-farmer sharing
may be identified. The steps in the modified methodology may be summarized
as follows:
1. Reaching a common conceptual understanding and agreeing on technolo-
gies to be tracked.
2. Focus group discussions to identify basic adoption patterns.
3. Identification of networks through which technologies flowed from source
farmers (“Tracking surveys”).
4. On-farm interviews with new adopters.
5. Data analysis to identify patterns of technology spillover.
6. Focus group discussions to interpret emerging findings.
For a detailed description of the methodology, including research instruments
and sample findings, please see German et al. (2006b).
Following application of the methodology, new technologies and dis-
semination approaches are targeted to overcome identified problems. These
problems might include social, economic or technical barriers to technology
adoption, or negative social and agro-ecological impacts of adoption. Table 2.2
presents some of the agro-ecological impacts that have been identified through
application of the methodology. This table illustrates the substantial spin-offs,
both positive and negative, that often accompany technological innovation.
These impacts are generally obscured under conventional adoption studies, but
have a profound impact on the technology’s success and system sustainability.
Examples of social and economic barriers to technology adoption are
summarized in Box 2.10. Different types of barriers lend themselves to dif-
ferent types of solutions. Negative agro-ecological impacts can be addressed
by testing complementary technologies that help to minimize negative effects
of innovation, or by further research (breeding or on-farm experimentation)
to further improve upon the technology itself. Economic barriers to technol-
ogy adoption may require coupling technology dissemination activities with
credit systems, facilitating negotiations among early and late innovators prior
to technology testing, and dissemination to establish rules for technology
dissemination that will ensure technology access by low-income farm-
ers. Gendered barriers to technology access can also be addressed through
Participatory farm-level innovation 75
TABLE 2.2 Positive and negativea agro-ecological impacts associated with technologies
introduced in Lushoto, Tanzania
Type of impact Banana germplasm and
management
Soil and water
conservation
Tomato germplasm and
management
Impact on
other system
components
Favorable effects
on other crops
when intercropped
Positive effect on
banana (soil fertility
and moisture) and
livestock (fodder
production)
Increased fallowing
of hillside plots
as more time is
allocated to cash
crop cultivation in
valley bottoms
Input
requirements
Increased demand for
scarce inputs at farm
level given high organic
matter inputs during
establishment
No outside inputs
identified
High demand for pesticide
and inorganic fertilizers
given crop demands
and extended periods
of cultivation
Land, labor
and nutrient
allocations
Recommended spacing
takes up land; increased
labor investments during
planting and mulching
Organic nutrients and
labor diverted from other
activities during terrace
establishment
Substantial diversions of
land, labor and nutrients
from coffee and maize
Pests and disease None observed Reduction in maize
stem borer
Increase in pests and
wilting disease owing to
decreased crop rotation
Soil Mulching increases
soil fertility and
water holding
capacity; reduces
erosion
Positive or negative,
depending on levels of
organic amendments
Increased water
holding capacity
and fertility from
manure usage
Weeds Sharply reduced
through mulching
Increase in weeds near
Napier grass
Increased along with
soil fertility
Note: a Positive impacts, as viewed by farmers, are in bold font and negative impacts in italics.
negotiation of rules for equitable technology access, as was done in Areka
benchmark site.
In addition to its application as a retrospective impact study, this meth-
odology can be applied within an iterative process of technology targeting,
dissemination and monitoring. In this case, adoption barriers or negative effects
of new technologies are periodically captured and addressed through further
technological or methodological innovations. The methodology would need
to be simplified for regular use, focusing on the most salient observations of
farmers and perhaps minimizing the level of formal data collection.
76 Tilahun Amede et al.
BOX 2.10 PATTERNS OF TECHNOLOGY SHARING IN
LUSHOTO, TANZANIA (GERMAN ET AL., 2006)
Gendered patterns of exchanges for Lushoto (north-eastern Tanzania) and
Vihiga (western Kenya) are highlighted in Table 2.3. While an initial attempt was
made by project personnel to enhance gender equity by working with equal
numbers of men and women, inherent social dynamics caused male farmers
to capture more of the benefits over time. Furthermore, since the percentage
of source farmers who are female declines with successive levels of spillover
owing to gender biases at lower levels of spillover, these differences are even
more striking than they seem. In Lushoto, for example, only 22 percent of all
farmers at level 1 were female, with much lower numbers of women (13.2 per-
cent) obtaining technologies from source farmers who are male. For cash crops,
exchanges with women were found to be negligible in Lushoto site, indicating
that this gender bias in the spontaneous sharing of technologies could have far-
reaching implications for women’s ability to capture cash income.
TABLE 2.3 Gendered patterns of technology sharing in Lushoto and Western Kenya
Site Source farmer Level L1 Adopters (%) Level L2 Adopters (%)
Female Male Female Male
Lushoto Female 50 50.0 60.6 39.4
Male 13.2 86.8 25.1 74.9
W. Kenya Female 66.3 33.7 55.6 44.4
Male 34.5 65.5 0.0 100.0
TABLE 2.4 Exchange of different types of technologies among farmers in Lushoto
Technology Exchange characteristics
Banana germplasm and management 88% given free of charge; the
remaining 12% was sold
Soil conservation measures 75% given free of charge; the
remainder through in-kind exchange
Tomato germplasm and management 57% was given for free; the remaining
43% was sold
Soil fertility management 67% was given for free; the remainder
was exchanged
Data on types of exchanges in Lushoto site (Table 2.4) further reveal that most
exchanges occurred at no cost to adopting farmers. This represents a positive
Participatory farm-level innovation 77
Lessons learned
Lessons learned from efforts to develop methods to track technology spread
and impacts are several:
● Technological innovation often involves substantial spin-offs, both posi-
tive and negative; failure to identify and address these can reduce demand
for the technology or introduce a set of problems that are propagated
along with the technology. Identifying them provides an opportunity for
corrective measures to be designed and tested and for “linking” multiple
technologies for improved impact.
● “Sharing biases” within rural communities can propagate inequitable access
to technologies, irrespective of efforts by extension agencies to work with
equal numbers of male and female farmers. Systematically tracking sharing
patterns can help to identify such biases and to design and test strategies to
overcome them for improved adoption and equity.
● The new approach systematically integrates farmers’ perceptions and
experience on the introduced technology into the formal methodology,
broadening the scope of what is learned and integrating farmer recommen-
dations into research and dissemination strategies designed to overcome
identified problems.
● The new approach provides an opportunity for adapting the introduced
technology to address its negative effects and better fit the targeted farming
system, by identifying local innovations introduced during the technol-
ogy’s spontaneous spread or proactively identifying adoption niches and
negative impacts.
Missing links
While substantial progress has been made in identifying effective approaches
for enabling livelihood improvements while also countering the degradation of
resources at farm level, a few key areas of methodological innovation remain
to be explored. These include the following:
trend with regard to maximizing access by resource-poor farmers. However,
while knowledge-intensive natural resource management technologies are
never characterized by cash exchanges, 12 to 43 percent of exchanges of
cash crop technologies are. This suggests that financial barriers to technology
access may exist for those technologies that can make the most immediate
livelihood impact.
78 Tilahun Amede et al.
1. There is a need to consider how to tap into a wider set of opportunities
and drivers in designing interventions, so as to tap into potential motivat-
ing factors (e.g., market outlets) and to move from a reactive to a proactive
approach in supporting farmer innovation. The choices of interventions
and innovations were often based exclusively on local preferences, without
considering wider market opportunities and policy drivers and the existing
institutional capacity to scale up interventions beyond pilot sites. By plac-
ing attention on wider market opportunities and policies shaping farmer
behavior, it may be possible to tap into wider motivating factors and thus
support more widespread adoption. By embedding innovation processes
within existing institutions, it would be possible to embed the innova-
tions—and the innovation process itself—within organizational structures
capable of sustaining the innovation process within and beyond bench-
mark sites.
2. Systems optimization through the use of models requires an analyti-
cal simplification of the system that may depart from real life decision
processes and management principles. The more detailed the analysis of
system features, community needs and preferences, market opportunities,
and drivers of change, the more likely that optimization models and par-
ticipatory optimization processes will be effective. More effort is needed
to develop and test cost-effective methods that simultaneously enhance
system understanding by farmers and researchers while targeting “best bet”
facilitation processes for system change (including policy reforms).
3. One critical gap was in the development of approaches for building on
the knowledge and skills of innovative farmers (a source of learning and
innovation) to bring change across a wider area, and thus achieve water-
shed-wide farm productivity gains. Most “early innovators” are either
isolated from others, lacking the mechanisms or motives to support inno-
vation at a wider scale, or have unique characteristics that enable them to
take risks and try out new innovations—thus limiting the extent to which
proven innovations will be automatically accessible to others. The devel-
opment and testing of methods for linking such early innovators with the
needs and capacities of a wider set of actors at village and landscape scales
is needed, including mechanisms to incentivize efforts expended for the
collective good rather than for personal gain.
4. There is a need to explore how to move beyond “linked technologies”
to “linked innovations.” The success of efforts to couple technolog-
ical innovations with credit facilities and with social and governance
innovations, and the tendency for farmers themselves to employ social
innovations when adopting new technologies (German et al., 2006a),
illustrate the promise of linking social and technical innovations. More
effort is needed to bring social scientists and marketing specialists into
efforts to support farmer innovation, so as to identify and test social
Participatory farm-level innovation 79
and marketing innovations that work in synergy with technologies in
enhancing impact at farm level.
5. More can be done to explore opportunities for enhancing impact by going
further “downstream” along the farmer-to-farmer dissemination pathway.
The technology spillover methodologies identified a number of factors
constraining adoption and positive impacts, both social and biophysical,
which could be the subject of further experimentation and innovation.
This is likely to be a very fertile area of technological and social innova-
tion, and thus impact, as it is informed by actual adoption bottlenecks.
While the program engaged in a few such innovations, for example to
address germplasm constraints to the spread of banana in Lushoto BMS,
much work remains to be done in this regard.
Conclusions
The crop–livestock farming systems in the highlands of eastern Africa are
characterized by low-input farming, heavily reliant on the recycling of
internal resources. Resource degradation is aggravated by high human and
livestock population densities, which lead to overgrazing, nutrient mining,
erosion, and water depletion. Intensification and diversification of these sys-
tems is one important pathway for improving rural livelihoods. This chapter
sought to share AHI experiences in farm-level intensification and diversifi-
cation through approaches for characterizing systems and clients (and thus
potential adoption niches), supporting farmer experimentation, reaching
larger numbers of farmers in benchmark sites through technology dissemi-
nation, and ex-post tracking of the spontaneous farmer-to-farmer spread of
innovations. Ultimately, a combination of strategies is needed at different
stages of an innovation process to effectively support farmers to generate
greater returns from a limited resource base. Farmer field schools, farmer-
managed experimentation, and farmer-led dissemination enhance farmers’
capacity to make informed choices and test them through an experimental
learning approach, whereas researcher-led development of decision support
tools and documentation of farmer-to-farmer dissemination provide a means
to identify strategic interventions to enhance impact for further testing with
farming communities.
Farmers’ choices of livelihood strategies substantially influence crop and
livestock decisions and welfare and resource outcomes. Based on our experi-
ence to date, adoption of technological innovations often depends on a few key
factors, including: 1) the type of technical and material support farmers receive
from extension and research; 2) the level of familiarity of farmers with the
suggested interventions; 3) the demands placed on limited resources by inno-
vations; 4) the associated benefits that are derived, both financial and other; and
5) the time required to derive these benefits. Bottom-up processes for engaging
80 Tilahun Amede et al.
communities are essential in integrating these and other considerations into the
innovation process, and in motivating farmers to individually and collectively
address production constraints and capture new livelihood opportunities.
There are two possibilities for achieving wider impact from the innovations
presented in this chapter. The first is to scale up the actual technological or social
innovations that were successfully employed to intensify or diversify local farm-
ing systems. The second is to scale up the approaches and tools used to generate
these innovations or to target specific niches for further uptake among devel-
opment agencies. The latter approach is the preferred approach for accounting
for the diversity in local resources, preferences, and conditions. Each approach
will be treated in greater depth in Chapter 6.
Notes
1 As observed in Areka, these subsidies also entail risks if they are not continued, given the
tendency for farmers to invest less in organic nutrient management when using chemical
fertilizers. If farmers have limited ability to continue purchasing these inputs, this means
they will have less fertile soils to fall back on.
2 The model had three basic modeling components: 1) an objective function, which mini-
mizes or maximizes a function of the set of activity levels; 2) a description of the activities
within the system, with coefficients representing their productive responses; and 3) a set
of constraints that define the operational conditions and the limits of the model and its
activities.
References
Adamo, A. (2001) Participatory agricultural research processes in Ethiopia using farmers’
social networks as entry points. CIAT Occasional Papers Series No. 33. Cali, Colombia:
CIAT.
Alumira, J. and A.O. Awiti (2000) The African Highlands Eco-region: Situation Analysis.
Kampala, Uganda: AHI.
Amede, T. (ed.) (2003) Natural Resource Degradation and Environmental Concerns in the Amhara
Regional State, Ethiopia: Impact on Food Security. Bahir Dar, Ethiopia: Ethiopian Society
of Soil Sciences.
Amede, T., T. Belachew, and E. Geta (2001) Reversing the degradation of arable land in
Ethiopian highlands. Managing African Soils No. 23. London: IIED.
Amede, T. and R. Kirkby (2004) Guidelines for integration of legume cover crops into the
farming systems of the east African highlands. In: A. Bationo (ed.), Managing Nutrient
Cycles to Sustain Soil Fertility in Sub-Saharan Africa. Nairobi, Kenya: Academy Science
Publishers, pp. 43–64.
Amede, T., A. Stroud, and J. Aune (2004) Advancing human nutrition without degrading
land resources through modeling cropping systems in the Ethiopian Highlands. Food and
Nutrition Bulletin 25(4): 344–353.
Amede, T., R. Kirkby, and A. Stroud (2006) Intensification pathways from farmer strategies
to sustainable livelihoods: AHIs’ experience. Currents 40/41: 30–37. Uppsala, Sweden:
SLU.
Participatory farm-level innovation 81
Assefa, A. and T. Fenta (2006) Harnessing local and outsiders’ knowledge: Experiences
of multi-stakeholder partnership to promote farmer innovation in Ethiopia. Prolinnova
Working Paper No. 12.
German, L., J.G. Mowo, and M. Kingamkono (2006a) A methodology for tracking the
“fate2 of technological innovations in agriculture. Agriculture and Human Values 23:
353–369.
German, L., J. Mowo, M. Kingamkono and J. Nuñez (2006b) Technology spillover: A
methodology for understanding patterns and limits to adoption of farm-level innovations.
AHI Methods Guide A1. Kampala, Uganda: AHI.
Kelly, V., B. Diagana, T. Reardon, M. Gaye, and E. Crawford (1996) Cash crop and
food grain productivity in Senegal: Historical view, new survey evidence and policy
implications. MSU International Development Paper No. 20.
Lyamchai, C.J., M.N. Kingamkono, J.G. Mowo, and L. German (2006) Farmers innovations
in natural resource management: Lessons and challenges from Lushoto, Tanzania. In:
T. Amede, L. German, S. Rao, C. Opondo and A. Stroud (eds.), Integrated Natural
Resource Management in Practice: Enabling Communities to Improve Mountain Livelihoods and
Landscapes. Kampala, Uganda: AHI.
Morrison, K.D. (1994) The intensification of production: Archeological approaches. Journal
of Archaeological Methods and Theory 1(2): 111–159.
Mowo, J.G., S.T. Mwihomeke, J.B. Mzoo, and T.H. Msangi (2002) Managing natural
resources in the West Usambara Mountains: A glimmer of hope in the Horizon. Mountains
High Summit Conference for Africa, Nairobi, Kenya, May 6–10, 2002. Available at:
http://www.mtnforum.org/sites/default/files/pub/213.pdf (accessed May 29, 2009).
O’Neil, R.J. (1995) Farmer Innovation and Biological Control. Midwest Biological control
Newsletter 2(3): 1–2.
Pontius, J.C., R. Dilts and A. Bartlett (2002) From farmer field school to community IPM:
Ten years of IPM training in Asia. RAP/2002/15, FAO Regional Office for Asia and
the Pacific, Bangkok.
Reardon, T., C. Barrett, V. Kelly, and K. Svadog (1999) Policy reforms and sustainable
agricultural intensification in Africa. Development Policy Review 17(4): 375–86.
Smaling, E.M.A. (1993) Soil nutrient depletion in Sub-Saharan Africa. In: H. Van Reuler
and W.H. Prins (eds.), The Role of Plant Nutrients for Sustainable Food Production in Sub-
Saharan Africa. Leidschendam: Dutch Association of Fertilizer Producers. Leidschendam,
pp. 53–67.
Stroud, A. (1993) Conducting On-farm Experimentation—A Guide Book. Cali, Colombia:
CIAT.
Stroud, A. (2003) Linked technologies for increasing adoption and impact. AHI Brief A3.
Kampala: AHI.
Tarawali, S., J.D.H. Keatings, J.M. Powel, P. Hiernaux, O. Lyasse, and N. Sanginga (2004)
Integrated natural resources in West African crop–livestock systems. In: T.O. Williams,
S.S. Tarawali, P. Hiernaux and S. Fernandez-Rivera (eds.), Proceeding of the International
Conference on Sustainable Crop–livestock Production for Improved Livelihoods and Natural
Resource Management in West Africa. Ibadan, Nigeria: IITA, pp. 349–370.
Tiffen, M. (2003) Transition in sub-Saharan Africa. World Development 31(8): 1343–1366.
Thornton, P.K, R.L. Kruska, N. Henninger, P.M. Kristanson, R.S. Reed, F. Ateno, A.
Odero, and T. Ndegwa (2002) Mapping Poverty and Livestock in the Developing World.
Nairobi, Kenya: International Livestock Research Institute.
82 Tilahun Amede et al.
Van Keulen, H. and J.B. Schiere (2004) Crop–livestock systems: Old wine in new bottles. In:
New Directions for a Diverse Planet: Proceedings of the 4th International Crop Science Congress.
Brisbane, Australia, September 26–October 1, 2004. Available at: www.cropscience.
org.au (accessed May 29, 2009). Waters-Bayer, A. and W. Bayer (2009) Enhancing
local innovation to improve water productivity in crop–livestock systems. The Rangeland
Journal 31: 231–35.
Wickama, J. M. and J.G. Mowo (2001) Using Local resources to improve soil fertility in
Tanzania. Managing African Soils No. 21. London: IIED.
3
PARTICIPATORY INTEGRATED
WATERSHED MANAGEMENT
Laura German, Waga Mazengia, Simon Nyangas,
Joel Meliyo, Zenebe Adimassu, Berhanu Bekele, and
Wilberforce Tirwomwe
Context and rationale
Most NRM interventions in the eastern Africa region tend to focus on
farm-level innovations and facilitate change through individualized decision
processes. This has left many NRM problems unresolved, including natural
resource conflicts, negative transboundary interactions among neighboring
farms and villages, absence of collective action (CA) in addressing common
concerns, and the degradation of common property resources. AHI sought
to address these challenges through methodological innovation at landscape
scale. This work was conducted under the conceptual umbrella of partici-
patory integrated watershed management (PIWM). Conceptual evolution of
this approach has gone hand in hand with methodological innovations and
research findings at site level. An introduction to the conceptual grounding
of the approach as interpreted within AHI will clarify reasons for the specific
methodological innovations which follow.
Interest in the watershed management approach has increased in recent years
in response to water deficits in urban and lower catchment areas (Constantz,
2000; van Horen, 2001), and as a framework for enhancing livelihoods through
more efficient and sustainable use of water and other natural resources in rain-
fed areas and upper catchments (De and Singh, 1999; Shah, 1998; Turton and
Farrington, 1998). In recognition of the causal linkage between NRM and
poverty reduction and between water and other natural resources (CGIAR,
2002), watershed approaches are gaining in popularity in a host of countries in
Africa, Asia and Latin America. The government of India has chosen to invest
in rural development through the provision of public finance to community-
based watershed management (Shah, 1998; Turton and Farrington, 1998).
Several eastern African governments are considering similar approaches.
84 Laura German et al.
Despite this upsurge in interest in watershed management, the large range
of projects and approaches falling under this umbrella has led to confusion in
goals, lack of consistency in approaches, and limited success in putting the
concept into practice (Bellamy et al., 1998; Rhoades, 2000; Shah, 1998).
Current practice in the eastern Africa region is biased toward soil and water
management for agriculture despite a wide range of NRM concerns among
local actors. Approaches for operationalizing watershed management in ways
responsive to local NRM concerns and attentive to trade-offs among system
components and user groups are therefore sorely needed.
Time–space interactions between plots and common-pool resources, lateral
flows of materials (water, nutrients, pests), and interdependence between users
in terms of resource access and management, require decision-making and
intervention strategies beyond the farm level (Johnson et al., 2001; Knox et al.,
2001; Ravnborg and Ashby, 1996). The latter requires effective mechanisms
to ensure participation of diverse interest groups and stakeholders, as well as inte-
grated decision-making that acknowledges system linkages (among water, soils,
crops, trees, and livestock) and multiple spin-offs from any given intervention.
“Participation” and “integration” are two concepts that have helped to ground
the conceptual evolution and methodological innovation of watershed man-
agement in AHI.
Participatory watershed management may be defined as a process whereby
users define problems and priorities, set criteria for sustainable management,
evaluate possible solutions, implement programs, and monitor and evaluate
impacts (Johnson et al., 2001). Participation implies that broad-based liveli-
hood concerns will guide the watershed management agenda, where water
and soil are likely to be only two of many important components. Watershed
development is known to work best when there is a perceived deficiency in a
vital resource, when integrated with other means of enhancing livelihoods, and
when benefits of NRM are localized (Bellamy et al., 1998; Datta and Virgo,
1998; Turton and Farrington, 1998). AHI therefore decided to ground meth-
odological innovations at landscape scale in a systematic assessment of local
priorities beyond the farm level, and in mechanisms to unblock pathways from
motivation (local concern) to action (solutions) in addressing felt needs. Enabling
such processes has meant crafting and testing methodological innovations for
ensuring effective representation in decision-making at watershed level; fos-
tering collective contributions to common NRM problems; supporting the
negotiation of solutions among groups with divergent interests to minimize the
social and environmental costs of current and alternative land uses; equitably
monitoring benefits capture; and reformulating by-laws to align the behav-
ior of individuals with collective decisions. While such social and institutional
dimensions are part and parcel of participatory integrated watershed manage-
ment, many of these dimensions are captured in Chapter 4 (“Participatory
Landscape Governance”) owing to the depth at which these issues were
explored and the scope of lessons learned.
Participatory integrated watershed management 85
As with the participation concept, integrated watershed management
may be understood in a number of ways (German, 2006). As presented
in Chapter 1, “component integration” emphasizes the interrelatedness of
components and acknowledges the impacts of changes within any given
component on other parts of the system. Within the agricultural research
paradigm, “system components” are understood to roughly correspond to
the boundaries of biophysical disciplines: crops, livestock, trees, and soil.
While these components capture much of the “structure” of single plots or
farms, they are inadequate for capturing structures and processes at land-
scape level. While water is present at farm level as a resource for agricultural
production, its non-productive function (water for domestic rather than
agricultural use) only becomes visible at landscape level. It is at this level
where the sum total of management practices on individual plots and farms
becomes apparent in terms of the effects on the quality and quantity of
water in springs and waterways. Yet the social function of water remains
invisible within agricultural research and development institutions, whose
institutional mandates are restricted to agricultural production. At landscape
level, public and common property resources such as forests, waterways,
and communal grazing areas become visible, requiring one to think about
more collective decision-making processes. In short, component integration
implies moving beyond component-specific objectives (i.e., maximizing the
yield of edible plant products) to broader systems goals whereby the rela-
tionship between components—as opposed to the individual components
alone—becomes a foundation of professional practice. This might include
optimizing returns to diverse system components (tree, crop, and livestock)
or increasing the yield of any of these components without depleting sys-
tem nutrients or water. Similarly, the sectoral and constructivist integration
concepts featured in watershed-level work in the synergies fostered between
social, biophysical and policy innovations on the one hand, and in efforts to
systematically identify and integrate diverse interest groups in the innova-
tion process on the other.
The concepts of participation and integration were instrumental to meth-
odological innovation in AHI, and form a conceptual thread that is intricately
woven throughout the thinking and methodological interventions presented
in the text that follows. Key methodological innovations to be covered in this
chapter include methods for landscape-level diagnosis (watershed delineation
and characterization, participatory diagnosis and prioritization), planning (at
“community” and R&D team levels), participatory management of change,
and approaches for putting empirical research at the service of farmers and
policy makers to support decision-making. Key knowledge gaps and remain-
ing challenges in methodological innovation for participatory landscape-level
innovation are also highlighted.
86 Laura German et al.
Watershed delineation
Watershed delineation is the process of defining, identifying, and marking
biophysical boundaries to be used for subsequent interventions. Watershed
delineation in each site was needed to inscribe both the collection of baseline
data on social and biophysical characteristics of the watershed and the even-
tual innovations to be tested. It was also needed to define stakeholders and to
enable future impact assessment of interventions to follow.
While the standard approach is to delineate watersheds on the basis of strict
hydrological boundaries, many landscape-level NRM problems involve spa-
tial and temporal processes that have no bearing on hydrology or hydrological
boundaries per se. Therefore, the watershed concept employed within AHI has
been a flexible one, with a provisional boundary set to guide baseline studies and
participatory diagnosis but subsequent flexibility in boundary delineation based
on the spatial characteristics of specific challenges to be addressed and the social
dynamics therein. Context also matters in the way in which specific landscape-
level NRM problems, such as free grazing, are manifested in the different sites.
Therefore, ways in which watersheds were defined vary across AHI benchmark
sites. This section describes and discusses the methods and approaches used for
watershed delineation, and the relative strengths and weaknesses of each.
Approach development
Approach 1—Hydrological delineation
The approach to delineation employed in Gununo watershed followed most closely
the standard approach using strict hydrological boundaries. The output, in the form
of a digital elevation model, is presented in Figure 3.1. The potential benefit of the
approach is its effectiveness in encompassing the biophysical processes involved in
effective soil and water management. Employing hydrological units for watershed
delineation can enable soil conservation structures and drainage ways throughout
the catchment area to be interconnected, thus minimizing the potential nega-
tive effects of isolated conservation structures on neighboring cropland (through
their effect in shifting drainage patterns). Furthermore, by taking the catchment
as the implementation unit, if all households were to conserve their fields, struc-
tures lower on the landscape would be protected from excess run-off from upslope
practices. It also facilitates the identification of areas to be targeted for soil and water
conservation for optimum returns (in terms of both quality and quantity) to water
resources affected by these interventions. Finally, the aggregate effect of structures
on water resource recharge can be enhanced. However, this approach also had its
weaknesses. Watersheds are not meaningful units for mobilizing collective action,
for example. Furthermore, the process of “dissecting” social units (villages, kin,
leadership domains) falling within and outside watershed boundaries, can cause
resentment among those who were excluded and undermine collective action in
addressing common watershed problems.
Participatory integrated watershed management 87
FIGURE 3.1 Digital elevation model illustrating hydrological boundaries and features of
Gununo watershed, Ethiopia
Examples of watershed issues that conform and do not conform to hydrological
boundaries are provided in Box 3.1.
Digital elevation model of Gununo
A
Offa
C
B
DOGE
HANUCHO
GegechoGegecho
Lay Busha
Lay Busha
Tach Busha
GUNUNO
DEMBA
ZAMINE
Outlet
W
e
t
e
r
e
R
i
v
e
r
Elevation ranges (m)
1937–1948
1949–1959
1960–1971
1972–1982
1983–1994
1995–2005
2006–2017
2018–2028
2029–2040
River
Watershed boundary A
Watershed boundary B
Watershed boundary C
Legend
BOX 3.1 WATERSHED ISSUES THAT DO AND DO NOT
CONFORM TO HYDROLOGICAL BOUNDARIES
“Watershed” issues conforming to hydrological boundaries:
1. Soil erosion and excess run-off. Flows of soil and water across the landscape
follow topographical variations within hydrological units, and require col-
lective action within hydrological units to manage upslope–downslope
interactions and achieve “aggregate” benefits from enhanced infiltration.
2. Spring degradation. Several causal processes leading to spring degrada-
tion conform to hydrological units, including siltation and the effects of
tree species selection and forest cover on water quantity and quality, and
88 Laura German et al.
Approach 2—Administrative delineation
The second approach, employed by the Lushoto site team, utilized political–
administrative boundaries to demarcate the target area. Although the project
used the term “watershed” to refer to the area, a hydrological approach to
demarcation was not adopted because of the difficulties that would be expe-
rienced in community mobilization. Political–administrative boundaries of
individual villages were instead considered, with the entire (micro-)watershed
encompassing six villages (Figure 3.2).
The use of administrative boundaries in watershed delineation had the impor-
tant advantage of facilitating the mobilization of watershed residents around
issues of collective concern. While the presence of areas within the watershed
but falling outside hydrological boundaries may complicate efforts to coordinate
soil and water management at landscape level (Box 3.2), this was found to be of
minor concern. Other watershed problems having a landscape dimension but
not conforming to hydrological boundaries (i.e., free grazing, trees incompat-
ible with crops on farm boundaries, people–park interactions, and pest control)
will be less negatively affected by taking administrative boundaries as the basis
for “watershed” delineation, provided flexibility is used when determining how
many administrative units to involve in addressing the issue. Controlling pests
and free grazing at landscape level, for example, requires collective action over
a larger area than solving boundary conflicts between adjacent landowners and
flexibility is therefore required not only in how boundaries are defined but in the
spatial scale over which watershed innovations are organized.
require collective solutions to manage interlinked landscape processes.
The latter include the influence of land use on springs, and consequences
of spring protection on lower slopes.
“Watershed” issues that do not conform to
hydrological boundaries:
1. Crop and livestock pests. Vertebrate and invertebrate pests wander freely
irrespective of hydrological boundaries, with crop pests such as porcupine
roaming up to 14 km in a single night.
2. Conflicts over resources in protected areas. While isolation of protected area
resources from certain land uses has a direct influence on hydrology through
its effects on land use, related conflicts and co-management efforts conform
to the spatial dimensions of the protected areas themselves, not watersheds.
3. Free grazing. Conflicts resulting (or opportunities lost) from free grazing
have spatial dimensions related to the distribution of grasslands and the
administrative units from which grazing households emanate.
Participatory integrated watershed management 89
Approach 3—“Hybrid” delineation: Hydrological and
village boundaries
The major criterion used for the third delineation approach was the hydro-
logical boundary. However, a flexible approach to boundaries was taken to
include villages that were dissected by the hydrological boundary, so as to
include parts of villages falling outside hydrological boundaries in the deline-
ated watershed. The advantage of this approach is that it accommodates both
biophysical and administrative boundaries, which are important for soil and
water management, community mobilization, and addressing landscape-level
problems whose spatial dimensions extend beyond the hydrological boundaries
of the watershed. The disadvantage of this approach is that delineation of the
target area tends to be subjective, lacking strict criteria to include or exclude
different areas. Ultimately, delineation becomes an art rather than a science,
which must be flexibly adapted to emerging challenges and the spatial scale
over which these are manifest both socially and physically (Box 3.3).
Approaches used for watershed delineation in AHI benchmark sites are
summarized in Table 3.1.
FIGURE 3.2 Baga watershed demarcated using (village) administrative boundaries
Mbelei
Kwekitui
Kwadoe
Kwehangala
Dule
Kwalei
2 0 2 4 6
Kilometres
N
90 Laura German et al.
BOX 3.2 THE IMPORTANCE OF A FLEXIBLE CONCEPT
OF WATERSHED BOUNDARIES
Limited coverage of areas lying outside the hydrological boundary of the
watershed can hinder implementation for either social or biophysical reasons.
Figure 3.3 below illustrates two adjacent watersheds (A and C). B is an area
hydrologically part of watershed C, but included as part of watershed A dur-
ing watershed delineation. This is because the support of local institutions and
local government residing in area B are crucial for the effective implementation
of watershed innovations in area A. At the same time, construction of soil ero-
sion and run-off controlling measures in area B will not be effective unless the
upstream part of watershed C is treated. Depending on topography, run-off
generated from the upper part of watershed C could also destroy soil conser-
vation structures in area B unless also treated. There may therefore be a need
to expand certain watershed interventions among landowners in watershed C
so as to improve the effectiveness of soil conservation interventions in area B.
AC
B
Watershed A
Area B
Watershed C
Key
FIGURE 3.3 Relationships between adjacent watershed units and the need for a
flexible interpretation of watershed boundaries
TABLE 3.1 Delineation approaches used by different benchmark sites
Approach used to delineate
watershed boundaries
Benchmark Site
Lushoto Ginchi Areka Kapchorwa Kabale
Hydrological 9
Administrative 999
Hybrid 9
Participatory integrated watershed management 91
BOX 3.3 MANAGING HYDROLOGICAL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE BOUNDARIES: BIOPHYSICAL
AND SOCIAL “BALANCING ACTS”
Case 1—Biophysical balancing acts
Watershed boundaries are generally set according to hydrological pro-
cesses and units, with a focus on soil and water conservation. When taking
a participatory approach to watershed management, however, other types
of biophysical issues emerge that are not readily inscribed by hydrological
boundaries. Negative effects of free grazing such as crop destruction and con-
straints to agricultural intensification are examples. Multiple tenure systems
that overlap in time and space define the movement of livestock in Galessa
watershed. While all land is publicly owned in Ethiopia, in practice all cropland
is allocated to individual households. During the cropping season, a house-
hold’s livestock may only graze in “private” outfields owned by them and a
small group of adjacent households which lie fallow (restricted access graz-
ing). During the dry season, however, after all crops are harvested, outfields
are managed as open-access resources and any given household can graze
their livestock anywhere inside or outside of the watershed. No rules govern
livestock movement on one’s own fields, and freely roaming livestock come
from villages inside and outside the watershed. Efforts to intensify outfields
through integrated interventions (soil conservation structures, high-value
multi-purpose trees, or perennial crops) must involve decisions by all outfield
users to restrict livestock movement, which would otherwise destroy tech-
nological innovations. Outfield intensification and free grazing are therefore
“watershed” or “landscape” issues whose boundaries and solutions extend far
beyond the arbitrary confines of the watershed.
Case 2—Social balancing acts
Another form of balancing act relating to watershed boundaries involves
human motivations to participate or “opt out” of any innovation. Two cases
help to illustrate this dynamic. In Ginchi, spring development and value addi-
tion through a shift from ware to seed potato were very popular interventions
among watershed residents. The watershed falls inside larger administrative
units (Peasant Associations—PAs) which were not fully covered by these activi-
ties. When watershed meetings were called, PA leaders residing outside the
watershed held mandatory meetings on the same days to “sabotage” water-
shed activities as a form of protest for their non-inclusion. The team therefore
had to expand membership in some activities to adjacent villages as a means
of managing the social challenges faced.
92 Laura German et al.
The second case comes from Kapchorwa, where four villages were involved in
watershed management activities. Free grazing came up as an issue of con-
cern to them. However, managing this problem required curtailing access to
communal areas for their own livestock as well as for non-participating villages.
Non-participant households were in effect asked to participate in an activity with
detrimental effects to their livelihood without otherwise benefiting from other
watershed activities bringing concrete benefits, and therefore had no incen-
tive to engage in collective action. The team was therefore challenged to come
up with innovative ways to include them in a broader set of activities, so as to
foster a stronger collaborative spirit among watershed villages. A two-pronged
strategy was adopted: to seek technological alternatives (i.e., alternative feed)
to minimize the costs of cutailing free grazing, and to invite these households
into other watershed management activities bringing more concrete benefits.
Lessons learned
The following lessons may be distilled from the application of different
approaches and their consequences for subsequent stages of implementation:
● Delineation together with local leaders enabled both parties to take cogni-
zance of the landscape dimensions of NRM problems and the magnitude
of degradation experienced in watershed villages, and heightened local
ownership in the activities to come.
● It is difficult to strictly follow hydrological boundaries in delineating
watersheds. Delineation may be carried out on the basis of social dynam-
ics, administrative boundaries, hydrological boundaries, boundaries of
landscape-level NRM problems that do not conform to hydrological
boundaries, or a combination of factors. When employing combined cri-
teria, it is possible for delineation to accommodate both biophysical and
social processes, thus facilitating implementation.
● It is important to let the context—in terms of the specific dimensions
of landscape-level NRM problems found within each particular site or
niche—determine how flexibility in boundary definition will be defined.
This implies keeping a flexible definition of boundaries during planning
and implementation stages to ensure that the spatial dimensions of identi-
fied problems are considered in the intervention area.
● Regardless of whether the “watershed” is delineated according to admin-
istrative or biophysical criteria (or both), the boundaries of any given
intervention should be kept flexible to accommodate social or biophysical
influences from outside the pilot area and to enable them to be adapted to
the spatial configurations of issues subsequently identified during planning
and implementation.
Participatory integrated watershed management 93
Watershed characterization
During watershed characterization, biophysical and socio-economic baseline
data is collected prior to intervention to enable R&D teams and communities
to measure progress during implementation, and to identify socio-economic
and environmental “hotspots” and opportunities for intervention. Collection
of baseline data is crucial for organizations specializing in methodological
innovation such as AHI, as it facilitates subsequent assessment of impacts from
diverse innovations.
Approach development
Socio-economic aspects of watershed characterization
Household surveys using pre-tested questionnaires were carried out with a rep-
resentative number of households in AHI watersheds to gather basic information
on the five capital assets (human, social, natural, physical, and financial capital),
and on household livelihood portfolios and related constraints. Households
were selected using purposive sampling techniques based on household wealth
status, as determined through standard participatory wealth ranking methods
(Rietbergen-McCracken and Narayan, 1998). For a summary of data col-
lected, see Box 3.4.
BOX 3.4 DATA COLLECTED IN HOUSEHOLD SURVEYS
IN AHI BENCHMARK SITES
Human capital
● Household demographics (family size, gender, age, education, labor force,
disability)
● Awareness of soil erosion and other NRM challenges
Social capital
● Conflict resolution mechanisms
● Perceived importance, levels of enforcement and effectiveness of differ-
ent by-laws in solving identified watershed problems; awareness of by-law
formulation processes
● Significance of and access to resources through kin relations
● Membership and role within local institutions, and benefits derived from
the same
94 Laura German et al.
● Importance of different local institutions, and degree to which they help
meet livelihood objectives
● Barriers to, and willingness to invest in, diverse collective action institutions
and activities
● Coping strategies (sources of assistance) and assistance given to others
during financial crises
Natural capital
● Distance to seasonal and year-round potable water sources
● Source of potable water, and observed changes in springs/rivers over time
● Landholdings (size, number of plots, soil quality, landscape location, con-
served land) and perceived tenure security
● Access to irrigation water
● Livestock holdings (number, type, and breed)
● Trees and woodlots (species and area), and changes in tree diversity/cover
over time
● Common property resource access (grazing land, forest products)
● Changes in farming system, yields, and productivity over time
● Energy access/use
Financial capital
● Income from different sources (crops, livestock, trees, and off-farm)
● Household investments in order of importance
● Changes in income sources and investments over time
● Loans received and sources
Physical capital
● Levels of adoption of different introduced technologies
● Housing, sanitation
● Tools, equipment, livestock structures
● Transportation and communication
Participatory integrated watershed management 95
TABLE 3.2 Local institutions in Areka, Ginchi and Lushoto benchmark sites
Type of institution Lushoto site Ginchi site Areka site
Faith-based Church groups,
Mosque groups,
traditional healers
Mahiber and Senbete
(Orthodox followers),
Jabir / Jarssuma
Mahiber and Senbete
(Orthodox followers)
Financial Rotational credit
associations
Edir, Ek’ub Edir, Ek’ub, Meskel
Banking
Agricultural Rotational livestock
associations
Ribi, Sharecropping,
Contracting
Hara, Kota,
Sharecropping,
Contracting
Collective action
for heavy tasks
Ngemo Debo Debo, Zaye
Other Quallu
Livelihood portfolios and constraints
● Major constraints to improved livelihoods and agricultural production
● Most important crops/on-farm activities in household livelihood portfolios
● Crop/livestock pests and diseases most affecting livelihoods
Wealth- and gender-disaggregated analysis facilitated the identification of
enterprises and constraints common to different groups. In most sites, R&D
teams also identified and characterized local institutions that either currently
influence NRM or might play a role in NRM in the future. Local institu-
tions were given an important consideration during characterization of the
watershed because they were assumed to be important for community mobi-
lization and technology dissemination. The characterization also involved
an identification of diverse types of institutions, from formal groups to local
norms and by-laws, traditional beliefs influencing NRM and influential lead-
ers. The description of each institution included its function, its influence
on community well-being, how respected it is by different social groups (by
gender, wealth, and age), and its possible role in NRM. Identified institu-
tions, classified according to their functions, are summarized in Table 3.2 (see
also Mowo et al., 2006 for details).
96 Laura German et al.
To understand which institutions were most valued for their social or economic
functions, and therefore most likely to be effective in mobilizing collective action,
interviewees were asked during household surveys which institutions “are most
valued” or “contribute most to livelihood goals.” From our experience, answers
to the two questions were very different so they provided complementary infor-
mation. Outputs for the second question are summarized in Table 3.3 for two
Ethiopian sites. Results show the fundamental importance of shareholding to
livelihoods, particularly for low-income households.
Biophysical aspects of watershed characterization
The biophysical characterization involved land resources assessment, including
soil, water, vegetation, and types of crops grown. Local soil classes were identi-
fied using local knowledge and indicators across sites. To complement the local
soil classification system, the FAO soil classification system (FAO-UNESCO,
1987) was used for one village in Lushoto and results extrapolated to other
villages with similar soils. Water resources were characterized according to
location and degradation status through the use of global positioning systems
(GPS), ethno-historical accounts and physical observation. Participatory map-
ping techniques were employed to identify key land uses and the location of
environmental “hot spots” or highly degraded areas. Aerial photos, topograph-
ical maps and satellite images were used to develop preliminary land-use maps
and/or digital elevation models (DEMs). Outputs of these techniques included
geo-referenced watershed maps (Figures 3.1 and 3.2, shown earlier), land-use
types and their spatial extent, water resources location and status, slope classes
TABLE 3.3 Local institutions most linked to livelihood goals by wealth category (German
et al., 2008)
Type of Institution Areka
(% respondents listing institution)
Ginchi
(% respondents listing institution)
Low Medium High Low Medium High
Labor sharing (debo/zaye) 27.3 0.0 0.0 19.4 33.3 28.6
Livestock sharing (hara/ribi) 27.3 0.0 0.0 12.9 6.7 14.3
Revolving fund (equb) 9.1 0.0 0.0 9.7 6.7 7.1
Contracting 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.2 0.0 7.1
Sharecropping 72.2 50.0 6.5 48.4 40.0 42.9
Idir 27.3 5.6 9.7 0.0 0.0 0.0
Meskel banking 0.0 0.0 0.0 – – –
Kota 27.3 5.6 6.5 – – –
Participatory integrated watershed management 97
(where DEMs were generated), and the location of highly degraded areas.
Table 3.4 summarizes the methods used for watershed characterization in dif-
ferent sites. While water source characterization was not carried out during the
watershed characterization phase in Ginchi and Areka, it was later included
following the participatory diagnosis of watershed problems given the high
priority of water quantity and quality to watershed residents in all sites. Soil
classification was only carried out in Lushoto given the presence of a PhD
student hosted by AHI and the expense associated with doing so in other sites.
It is important to consider how data are to be utilized once collected, so
that watershed characterization does not remain a purely academic exercise.
One such use is to gather baseline data for subsequent impact assessments.
In this case, data should explicitly focus on variables or parameters expected
to change—whether biophysical (productivity, biodiversity, hydrology), social
(prevalence of conflict and cooperation), institutional (attitudes and practices
of researchers and extension agents) or economic (household income and
investments). Another use is for the effective targeting of interventions. This
targeting may also cut across diverse areas of impact. Economic data may help
to target interventions to address the production strategies of different house-
holds. Table 3.5, for example, provides an indication of the crop preferences
of households from different wealth categories across the Baga watershed. This
TABLE 3.4 Watershed characterization and baseline methods used in different sites
Scope and methods of watershed characterization Benchmark Sitea
Lushoto Ginchi Areka
Social:
● Semi-structured questionnaires
● Participatory evaluation of local institutions
9
9
9
9
9
9
Biophysical:
● GPS readings
● Aerial photos and satellite images
● Digital Elevation Model
● Water resource characterization
● Soil classification using FAO system
● Assessment of land use types
● Participatory mapping
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
(9)b
9
9
9
9
(9)
Notes:
a These characterization methods were not conducted in Kabale or Kapchorwa owing to the diversity
in approaches being tested, donor funding and related commitments, and the stronger development
orientation of partners.
b Parentheses are used where the method was applied but with less detail (i.e., percentage coverage of
each land use type was not assessed).
98 Laura German et al.
table suggests that support for the production and marketing of tomato, pep-
per, and potato are likely to have implications for a broad cross-section of the
population. However, to improve the status of lower income groups, a focus
on cabbage and banana (a crop with lower investment costs) may be warranted.
Looking solely at income averages may, however, be deceptive in assessing
whether all villages and the poorest households will benefit from technologies
that are highly dependent on access to prime cropland, such as valley bot-
toms. In the case of the highest value crops (tea, tomato, cabbage, pepper),
standard deviations are significant—illustrating the high variability in income
sources among households within any wealth category (Table 3.6). Targeting
interventions to different households may therefore require understanding not
only the most important income earners in the aggregate, but also key income
earners for the poorest households.
Priority areas of intervention may also be derived from data on environ-
mental “hot spots” or areas of extreme degradation. A participatory mapping
exercise combined with detailed field observations helped to identify priority
areas for intervention at watershed and village levels (see Plates 3 and 4).
Lessons learned
The diversity of approaches utilized and the extent to which collected infor-
mation was utilized in subsequent stages enabled lessons to be learned on the
characterization process, including the extent to which AHI approaches have
TABLE 3.5 Average income from selected crops by wealth category in Baga watershed,
Tanzania (Tsh)
Wealth
category
Tea Tomato Cabbage Sweet
pepper
Beans Irish
potato
Maize Banana
High 176,784 260,000 72,000 110,000 83,856 20,267 68,033 59,240
Medium 46,099 187,248 53,400 144,340 59,410 111,870 53,096 86,936
Low 22,684 113,643 95,180 38,907 66,124 112,840 28,163 86,085
TABLE 3.6 Standard deviation (SD) in household income from selected crops in Baga
watershed
Wealth
category
Tea Tomato Cabbage Sweet
pepper
Beans Irish
potato
Maize Banana
High 218,392 364,623 144,810 124,499 50,650 22,521 30,024 54,543
Medium 50,433 105,790 53,712 145,051 17,515 102,893 9,462 69,851
Low 50,724 90,951 125,677 39,354 40,353 104,617 30,181 81,968
Participatory integrated watershed management 99
added value to standard methods and procedures used in watershed characteri-
zation. These include the following:
● The need to balance costs and benefits of watershed characterization. While
the integration of diverse methods has the potential to generate important
data on the integrated nature of problems and their solutions, and to facilitate
proper targeting of technological, social, and policy interventions, compre-
hensive characterization work requires time and resources and may generate
fatigue within watershed communities. Therefore, characterization work
must be justified by program requirements (e.g., baseline data for subsequent
impact assessments), additionality (e.g., inability to solicit the same information
through participatory techniques) and balanced by the need to effectively cap-
ture farmer enthusiasm at early stages of any watershed management initiative.
● The importance of an iterative approach to watershed characterization.
Collection of voluminous data on the watershed prior to participatory
diagnosis of problems of concern to local residents may represent an ineffi-
cient use of resources. A basic understanding of watershed boundaries and
features is often sufficient at this phase, provided this is followed up with a
more in-depth characterization of problems prioritized by watershed resi-
dents for intervention.
● The importance of considering social variables in watershed characterization.
Research on variables such as local institutions, traditional beliefs and norms in
NRM, and how residents rank local leadership (traditional, political, religious,
and opinion leaders) may provide important information on the best means to
mobilize the community for different types of activities. Including questions
such as willingness to participate in collective action for different watershed
activities, perceived land tenure security for different ecological niches, per-
ceptions on the status of common property resources (e.g., rangelands, forests),
and forms of social capital most essential to the livelihoods of different groups
also provide important insights into watershed problems and solutions.
● The value of farmer participation in social and biophysical characteriza-
tion, which can enhance understanding by the research team of important
problems and opportunities to be captured within intervention strategies.
Participatory watershed diagnosis and planning
When agricultural research organizations have taken an interest in watershed
management, the approaches used often place undue emphasis on soil and water
conservation without integrating livelihood concerns and other priority landscape-
level NRM challenges (e.g., crop destruction from free grazing, competition of
fast-growing trees with springs and crops, or water resource degradation). Other
NRM investments seek to maximize returns from specific components (trees,
crops, livestock, or water) rather than from integrated interventions designed to
bring multiple returns and synergies, and disseminate technologies in isolation from
100 Laura German et al.
complementary social and policy interventions. Furthermore, research organizations
tend to plan in isolation from local government, community-based organizations
(CBOs), and NGOs. While some development agencies have evolved much more
integrated approaches to NRM, common deficiencies remain in ensuring that
diverse local ‘voices’ are effectively captured during planning processes.
Approaches used in AHI have attempted to overcome these limitations in
a number of ways. First, collective and negotiated decision-making became
part and parcel of watershed planning. Disaggregated watershed diagnosis and
prioritization strategies were also tested in some sites as a means to identify
approaches effective in capturing diverse or divergent perspectives. While there
is still much to learn, we also strove to develop more integrated approaches to
planning to address a wider range of issues through collective action and iden-
tify opportunities for fostering synergies between different system components
(trees, crops, water, soil, livestock) and strategies (social, technological, policy,
and marketing). Some planning strategies were also unique in fostering part-
nerships among complementary institutions—and in bridging institutional gaps
between research and development agencies, different sectors (i.e., agriculture
and water), and among agencies with livelihood and conservation mandates.
Approach development
Four different strategies for participatory watershed diagnosis and prioritization
were tested in AHI benchmark sites. These are described in detail below along
with their relative strengths and weaknesses.
Approach 1—Demand-driven approach to diagnosis and
stakeholder engagement
This approach focused on enabling community members residing in a watershed
area to articulate their concerns and to demand broader stakeholder engagement
in support of subsequent actions. The approach consisted of the following steps:
1. Identify emerging leaders concerned about landscape or “watershed”-level
NRM problems.
2. Carry out village-level meetings in all watershed villages to identify prob-
lems affecting farmers and their livelihoods in the watershed and prioritize
the most urgent issues to be addressed.
3. Task villages with the formation of Village Watershed Committees (VWC)
(see Plate 5).
4. Task villages with the selection of members from VWCs to serve on
higher-level Parish Watershed Committees.
5. Task the Parish Watershed Committees to call a meeting with all VWCs;
Local Councilors from village, parish and sub-county levels; the Local
Council Chairperson from sub-county level; local opinion leaders; and
Participatory integrated watershed management 101
staff from relevant line ministries to map the watershed and assist the com-
munity in articulating demand for support from relevant actors.
6. Carry out a field visit with technical staff from district line ministries and
Watershed Committees to the areas most affected by urgent NRM prob-
lems (i.e., excess run-off, landslides).
7. Hold meetings with Village Watershed Committees and technical staff to
develop provisional work plans.
8. Conduct technical assessments of the areas most affected in each village
with Village Watershed Committees to map the watershed and identify
hotspots associated with key NRM problems.
9. Hold meetings at watershed level involving all stakeholders (including all
watershed residents) to give feedback on the draft work plans and techni-
cal recommendations on ways to address priority problems, and harmonize
the two work plans.
This approach enabled the community to own and fully participate in the
process of planning and implementation, while also consolidating the commit-
ment of other development agencies to support communities in collectively
addressing their priority concerns.
Approach 2—Watershed entry through local leadership and local
NRM structures
The second approach entailed working through established leadership struc-
tures and existing local NRM institutions with a history of involvement with
development agencies to inculcate responsibility on their behalf for mobilizing
communities for improved NRM. The steps in this approach included the
following:
1. Hold district-level meeting with representatives of targeted sub-coun-
ties (in this case, Sub-County Chiefs, Secretaries for Production, Farmer
Fora Chairpersons, National Agricultural Advisory Services (NAADS)
Coordinators, and concerned farmers from villages in each sub-county) to
build commitment, empower them with facilitation skills and generate a
general strategy for supporting participatory NRM in their sub-counties.
2. Hold meetings at sub-county level to consolidate NRM institutions and
initiatives in the sub-county through:
a) Election of members of sub-county NRM committees by sub-county
representatives participating in the above meeting, Local Council
representatives from village level, and farmers with an active commit-
ment to NRM.1
b) Selection of priority areas for project intervention based on villages
experiencing severe degradation or demonstrating the most commit-
ment to NRM.
102 Laura German et al.
c) Establishment of a schedule for monthly review and planning meet-
ings by these newly constituted committees to evaluate progress on
NRM strategies.
d) Appointment of core teams from the sub-county committees to spearhead
sensitization and the formation of other committees in each target village.
3. Task the core teams to mobilize village meetings for the purpose of sen-
sitizing all village members on NRM and encouraging them to elect
members of village-level NRM committees. During these meetings, each
village identifies the major NRM challenges that have caused widespread
misunderstanding or conflict at village level, and prioritizes the most press-
ing challenges that the project can help them address collectively.
4. Hold a series of meetings in each village to orient newly constituted vil-
lage committees on their roles and responsibilities in NRM. This is done
through joint reflection on what is required from them (their envisaged
roles) to support their respective villages in mobilizing collective action to
address previously identified priorities. Identified responsibilities may include
awareness creation, mobilizing local residents to formulate NRM by-laws,
the selection of demonstration sites within identified environmental hotspots,
and conducting training needs assessments. These are then integrated into
Natural Resource Management Planning Committee (NRMPC) work plans
in support of village-level collective action.2
5. Hold joint meetings between village NRM committees and local govern-
ment structures to enable a participatory process of by-law formulation to
address identified watershed problems (Box 3.5), and to aid in compliance
and enforcement of agreed responsibilities.
This approach builds the capacity of local government in supporting communi-
ties and ably fulfilling their responsibilities toward their constituents. It also builds
the capacity of local institutions in articulating and addressing local concerns.
BOX 3.5 REFORMULATED AND HARMONIZED
BY-LAWS IN RUBAYA SUB-COUNTYa
Soil and water conservation:
● Everyone shall dig water trenches (soil erosion structures) especially on hill-
sides in their own land prior to any cultivation. Anyone who violates the above
by-law will be liable to a fine, which will be decided by the sub-county (LC3)
council, in collaboration with representatives of policy task forces (PTFs).
● Napier/Elephant grass and other grasses (and/or trees) shall be planted in
landscapes where water trenches are not feasible, such as in very rocky or
rugged terrain.
Participatory integrated watershed management 103
● Every farmer should consult neighboring landowners prior to breaking
down the terrace or contour bund along the common land demarcations
or borders.
● No one shall cultivate his/her land without digging water trenches and
planting trees and grasses, to conserve soil and water in their own land.
● Prior to cultivating, everyone should excavate trenches and construct steps
and “A” frames.
Those who violate these by-laws shall be fined Sh. 5,000; or else they will be for-
warded to the LC3 council authorities for punishment.
Grazing:
● No one shall graze in the valley bottoms, irrespective of whether or not the
land is one’s own.
● Everyone shall graze in his/her own land, and if not, seek permission to
graze in others’ land. Any abandoned land—including hill tops—should
be utilized for growing agroforestry trees.
● No one is allowed to come from another country and graze in Uganda.
[Ref: Rwanda].
Those who violate these by-laws will be fined Sh. 10,000.
Water:
● Everyone who draws water from a communal water source or well shall
cooperate with others in its cleaning or maintenance.
● Anyone utilizing land near a communal well, road, foot path or water
trench, should reserve a stretch of 1–2 meters of uncultivated land between
their land and the said communal structures.
● No one is allowed to graze or cultivate near water sources/wells, or wash
clothes from them.
Those who violate this by-law will be fined Sh. 5,000.
Other:
● Burning of grasses, hillsides, weeds and trees is strictly prohibited (Those
who violate this by-law will be fined Sh. 10,000).
● When cultivating, leave some reserve narrow strips of land along
104 Laura German et al.
Approach 3—Socially-optimal watershed diagnosis to capture
diverse “voices”
The third approach consisted of systematically capturing the perspectives of
diverse social groups within the watershed, first through socially disaggregated
focus group discussions and next through household surveys in which repre-
sentatives of these different groups were purposively targeted. The approach
consisted of the following key steps:
1. Contact local leaders to inform them of the project mandate and interest
in supporting livelihoods and NRM in their areas of jurisdiction.
2. Conduct focus group discussions in each watershed village according to
social categories likely to influence people’s priorities in NRM, namely
by gender, age, wealth, and landscape location (farmers with households
and plots upslope and downslope, where relevant).3 The following set of
questions can be used as a guide for eliciting watershed problems:
a) How have changes in the landscape and land use over time influenced
your livelihood?
b) Do your neighbors’ on-farm management practices have any influ-
ence on your livelihood? How about the management of resources by
neighboring communities?
c) Are there any NRM problems that could benefit from collective
action?
d) Are there any problems associated with communal resources?
e) Are there any conflicts associated with land or natural resource man-
agement (within or between villages)?
Local leaders are singled out during this process and their views obtained
through key informant interviews.
boundaries, roadsides, livestock tracks, etc. (Those who violate this by-law
will be fined Sh. 5,000).
● Whoever cuts down trees shall plant replacement trees (Those who violate
this by-law will be fined Sh. 5,000).
● Every household shall cultivate fruits, such as avocados (Those who violate
this by-law will be fined Sh. 5,000).
● Anyone who owns or rents land in another village should abide by the
NRM by-laws obtaining in that village.
Note:
Village policy task forces (PTFs) should have representatives at LC3 (sub-county)
level.
Participatory integrated watershed management 105
3. Generate a single list of identified watershed issues for the whole watershed.
4. Conduct participatory ranking of these issues according to disaggregated
social categories (again, by gender, age, wealth, and landscape location),
either in focus groups or through interviewing key informants from each
village—ensuring that views are captured equally across all social categories.4
5. Analyze data in the office to generate average ranks by village, gender, age,
wealth and—where relevant—landscape location, and highlight watershed
issues of high priority across all social categories (Table 3.7).
6. Identify entry points based on Step 5, with attention to those key priorities that
can bring the most immediate benefits to a majority of watershed residents to
heighten their enthusiasm for future watershed innovations (Box 3.6).
7. Conduct a one-week planning session for research and development teams
to explore the causal interactions among identified watershed themes and
generate clusters of issues to be addressed through integrated solutions.5
If research is to be conducted together with development interventions,
research topics and protocols are also generated at this time.
8. Conduct participatory watershed planning involving all watershed resi-
dents. The process involves the following steps:
a) Feedback of issues identified by the community, how they were prior-
itized differently by different social groups, which issues are ranked highly
by all watershed residents.
b) Presentation and discussion of constituted watershed “clusters,” and
the logic underpinning these groups.
Note: In some sites, the teams subjected these ranks to community
scrutiny and priorities emerging from socially disaggregated rank-
ing caused issues of high priority by some groups to be subsumed in
importance to issues considered more important by outspoken com-
munity members. We therefore recommend excluding corrections to
identified priorities during these watershed planning fora.
c) Solicitation of additional feedback, clarifications and inputs without
letting the new feedback take precedence over the socially differenti-
ated views captured beforehand.6
d) Group work based on identified R&D clusters and related sub-themes
to plan in detail for how to address the issues in an integrated manner.
e) Group feedback in plenary.
When the watershed is large and it is therefore impractical to include all resi-
dents in planning, mechanisms for effective representation must be put into
place. In Lushoto, for example, local school teachers and leaders, and male and
female farmer representatives from all watershed villages, were called together
to plan on behalf of others (see Plate 6).
Ensuring effective representation, however, goes far beyond simple selec-
tion of individuals to represent a particular interest group. Those individuals
must be sensitized on the need to plan not for their own individual interests,
TABLE 3.7 Sample database illustrating socially disaggregated ranks at watershed level (Ginichi BMS)a
No. Watershed issue Watershed priorities of each social group
Men Women Elders Youth High wealth Low wealth
1 Loss of seed, fertilizer, soil from excess run-off 6 6 3b967
2 Water shortage for livestock and humans 11 9 11874
3 Poor water quality 2 52311
4 Conflict from lack of common drainage 15 12 15 15 16 16
5 Crop failure owing to drought 12 10 9 14 38
6 Soil fertility decline 345743
7 Feed shortage 7 13 4 10 11 15
8 Shortage of oxen 13 3 10 5 8 10
9 Land shortage owing to high population pressure 526255
10 Lack of improved crop varieties 9 15 13 11 10 13
11 Wood shortage 488496
12 Loss of indigenous tree species 111122
13 Effects of eucalyptus on soils and water 14 11 14 13 14 14
14 Theft of agricultural products 18 18 18 18 17 18
15 Conflict over paths and farm boundaries 17 17 16 16 18 17
16 Low productivity of animals 10 16 12 12 12 11
17 Lack of access to improved seeds 8776139
18 Conflict among villagers over watering points 16 14 17 17 15 12
Notes:
a These ranks were derived from averaging responses of all members of that social category across all watershed villages.
b Bold fonts denote the top three priorities of each social category. Rows with many bolded numbers represent issues of high priority to most watershed residents.
Participatory integrated watershed management 107
but on behalf of the group they are representing. Furthermore, decisions taken
by this small group must be fed back to their villages or identified constituen-
cies to solicit reactions and input from a broader group, and to foster broader
buy-in to the work plan.
This approach helps to ensure that the priorities and perspectives of diverse
community members are captured and adequately reflected in the prioritiza-
tion and planning process. However, it has the disadvantage of minimizing
direct participation by affected households, thus limiting the capacity to utilize
the planning process as a critical step in community mobilization.
BOX 3.6 SELECTION OF ENTRY POINTS IN GALESSA
While loss of indigenous tree species ranked highest among most watershed
residents at Ginchi BMS (Table 3.7), benefits to afforestation with indigenous
tree species would only be derived in the medium term. The team therefore
looked to the second and third priorities, and highlighted water quality as
a problem that could be addressed in a period of several months through
construction of concrete collection chambers around springs. Spring con-
struction, with contributions of labor, materials, and money from watershed
residents, was therefore selected as the entry point. At the same time, activi-
ties designed to address the loss of indigenous tree species were also initiated
through negotiation support and nursery development.
Approach 4—Stakeholder-based planning
This approach to planning, while unique in its approach, is nevertheless
embedded in one of the above planning processes to enable more intractable
issues to be addressed. In this approach, specific landscape issues requiring col-
lective solutions are analyzed with respect to the local interest groups who
either affect or are affected by the issue. Planning is based around the integra-
tion of the views and interests of these different local stakeholders or interest
groups, as follows:
1. Identification of landscape niches where the specific watershed problem is
manifest.
2. Identification of local stakeholders to be involved in problem-solving,
focusing on one of the following:
a) Parties affected negatively, but in different ways, by the issue at hand;
b) Those most and least affected by the problem, who have different
levels of motivation for investing in NRM solutions; or
c) Those affected and those perceived to be causing the problem (see
Box 3.7 and Chapter 4 for a more detailed treatment of problem and
stakeholder characteristics).
108 Laura German et al.
BOX 3.7 COMMON SCENARIOS REQUIRING THE
NEEDS OF MULTIPLE STAKEHOLDERS TO BE MET
Scenario 1—Both parties are negatively affected by
current practice
This can be illustrated by the case of Mt. Elgon National Park. Park rang-
ers complained of illegal extraction of forest products, livestock grazing, and
encroachment, while the indigenous Benet community complained of land-
lessness, loss of their traditional livelihoods following park establishment, and
physical abuse by park officials. This had created a breakdown in communication
between protected area officials and the communities surrounding the park.
Scenario 2—Collective solutions are required but
one party has more to gain from the intervention
than the other
This scenario is exemplified by the control of porcupine in Areka, where some
farmers are much more affected than others owing to the particular nature
of their landholdings and crops—yet collective action is required to solve the
problem. It is also exhibited in some sites by upslope farmers who feel they
have less to gain from labor-intensive run-off control measures on their fields,
yet are being asked to allocate valuable land for these structures for the sake
of negatively affected farmers residing downslope.
Scenario 3—One party is negatively affected by the
actions of another party
This scenario is represented by landowners in all sites who were found to be
using destructive land-use practices up to the edge of springs (grazing, cultiva-
tion, pesticide use, cultivation of “thirsty” trees), causing harm to spring users.
It is also represented by farmers planting fast-growing trees on farm bounda-
ries so as to minimize the trees’ competition with their own cropland—thus
intensifying competition between these trees and neighbors’ cropland.
3. Consultation of individual stakeholder groups to identify their perceptions
on the causes and consequences of the issue, possible opportunities for ‘win–
win’ solutions, and the approaches they are comfortable with for entering
into dialogue with the other stakeholder group(s)—including the selection
of facilitators seen to be impartial and respected by each party. These con-
sultations also help to demonstrate their external party’s concern for their
‘stakes’ in the issue, and to reduce their fear of engagement (Box 3.8).
Participatory integrated watershed management 109
BOX 3.8 THE ROLE OF PRIOR STAKEHOLDER
CONSULTATIONS IN MULTI-STAKEHOLDER
ENGAGEMENT: THE CASE OF THE SAKHARANI
BOUNDARY, LUSHOTO, TANZANIA
During the participatory watershed diagnosis in Lushoto, farmers identified neg-
ative effects of fast-growing boundary trees, particularly eucalypts, as a priority
problem. One of the key stakeholders identified by farmers for improved bound-
ary tree management was the Sakharani Mission. In 1946, the mission bought
land and established high-value trees and crops. Eucalypts were planted in 1970
to secure the farm boundary from encroachment, and neighboring farmers had
experienced negative effects of these trees on their cropland and low season
spring flow. This was the main reason that multi-stakeholder negotiations were
pursued between Sakharani and three neighboring villages.
The first step following participatory watershed diagnosis consisted of visiting the
Mission to convey the concerns of farmers to the Mission’s farm manager. This
visit was instrumental in moving multi-stakeholder negotiations forward in several
ways. First, watershed problems had only been diagnosed in the minds of small-
holder farmers, failing to capture the views of other land users such as Sakharani.
This preliminary meeting was therefore instrumental in highlighting concerns that
the Mission had with regard to land-use practices of neighboring villages. These
included the destruction of tree seedlings by freely grazing livestock and decline in
the Mission’s water supply from upstream land-use practices (see Plate 7). Owing
to the impartiality demonstrated by the facilitators for the concerns of the Mission
in addition to those already expressed by neighboring farmers, the farm manager
began to view the dialogue as an opportunity rather than a threat.
A second outcome of this preliminary stakeholder consultation was to enable
the farm manager to make suggestions on how the multi-stakeholder engage-
ment itself would be facilitated. The farm manager was asked to contribute
his suggestions on the date and venue for the meeting and the agenda.
Contributions to the meeting’s agenda included the inclusion of local lead-
ers from neighboring villages and efforts to depolarize the concerns of each
party. The latter led us to develop facilitation materials that emphasized the
commonalities rather than the differences in the interests of each stakeholder,
as illustrated in Table 3.8.
While the first two concerns were the main reasons for farmers to approach
the Mission, the new concerns raised by the Mission were also included as
farmers’ concerns. This was justified by the fact that they were identified in the
watershed exploration and therefore of concern to both parties. Furthermore,
by emphasizing shared concerns rather than polarized interests, this helped
set the stage for collaborative dialogue.
110 Laura German et al.
TABLE 3.8 Identification of concerns common to each stakeholder in the
Sakharani boundary case
Problem Problem faced by:
Farmers Sakharani
Competition between boundary trees and neighboring crops 9
Eucalyptus depleting water in springs 99
Decline of rainfall 99
Depletion of water sources by catchment deforestation 99
Damage caused to crops and trees from free grazing 99
By accommodating the concerns and interests of the Mission, the proposed
meeting for multi-stakeholder engagement was now seen as an opportunity
by the farm manager to dialogue with his neighbors toward more optimal
natural resource management for the benefit of both parties.
4. Facilitation of multi-stakeholder dialogue between the two parties, through
the following steps:
a) Provide feedback to participants on steps taken so far and their
outcomes
b) Jointly establish ground rules for dialogue, such as being respectful in
listening fully to others and focusing on needs and interests rather than
specific solutions when each stakeholder presents their perspective on
the issue
c) Ask each interest group to express their views using the ground rules
d) Support the negotiation of socially-optimal solutions that meet the
needs of each stakeholder group and which do not overly burden
households who have little to benefit from the outcome
e) Develop a detailed implementation plan with responsibilities and
timeline (Box 3.9).
This approach makes divergent interests around any given issue explicit, and
fosters “middle ground” solutions in which each party makes amicable conces-
sions for the sake of harmony and the collective good.
In addition to using one of these four approaches, most sites used comple-
mentary diagnostic tools from the Participatory Rapid Appraisal methodology
(Chambers, 1994; Rietbergen-McCracken and Narayan, 1998). For example,
participatory resource mapping enabled the spatial identification of environmental
Participatory integrated watershed management 111
hotspots in the watershed (see Plate 3); current, seasonal, and extinct springs
and waterways; and harmful tree lines and woodlots. Historical trends analysis
with local elders also enabled the identification of causal factors behind major
NRM degradation processes, and the magnitude of changes observed over
time through matrix ranking of the degree of expression of identified vari-
ables (cover of indigenous and exotic trees, water flow, extinction of medicinal
plants, etc.) during different time periods. Transect walks further comple-
mented R&D teams’ understanding of how watershed issues are manifest on
the ground and raised awareness among community members about issues oth-
erwise taken for granted.
BOX 3.9 THE IMPORTANCE OF DETAILED ACTION
PLANNING DURING MULTI-STAKEHOLDER
NEGOTIATIONS: THE CASE OF AMEYA SPRING
Management of the Ameya spring had been the subject of ongoing con-
flict in Galessa watershed between the landowner and spring users. While
the landowner was benefiting from the cultivation of Eucalypts near springs
(growth rates being higher when water is more abundant), the spring users
complained about the reduced water discharge and absence of alternative
water sources to meet their basic needs.
During the first multi-stakeholder meeting, a heated discussion ensued focus-
ing on each stakeholder’s views: the spring users on problems resulting from
Eucalypts, and the landowner on the need to protect his woodlot investment.
The landowner eventually proposed a solution: if each spring user raises and
plants a tree somewhere else on his farm, he would remove the Eucalypts from
the spring. After some hesitation, one spring user stood up and said he would
comply—with others eventually following suit. However, the meeting was
closed with no detailed action plan (the “when,” the “how” and the “who”)
on how the agreement was to be implemented.
The landowner ended up cutting down a small section of the woodlot as a ges-
ture of cooperation. Yet Eucalypts coppice, requiring the trees to be uprooted.
This is a very laborious exercise for the landowner who has no incentive to
uproot. Furthermore, no plan for how replacement seedlings would be grown,
or how the newly fenced woodlot would be established, was put in place. In
a follow-up meeting, the landowner came with a host of additional demands
which the community was unwilling to meet. These included financial com-
pensation for trees uprooted, and community labor investment in uprooting
trees and establishing a new woodlot. Had a detailed action plan been devel-
oped during the first meeting, many of these problems would have been
avoided by moving directly into roles and responsibilities for implementation.
112 Laura German et al.
Lessons learned
A cross-method comparison is useful in distilling the strengths and weakness
of each approach based on a set of parameters of potential interest to project
planners (Table 3.9). Interestingly, different approaches may be best suited to
different purposes. The strengths of the first approach lie in efforts for widespread
mobilization, articulation of farmer demands for support from development
agencies, and being locally led. The merits of the second approach lie in the
strong inclusion of local government agencies with ultimate responsibility for
service provision and natural resource governance. The third approach, on
the other hand, is beneficial for its efforts to explicitly capture the views or
“voices” of diverse social categories, and the scientific validity of methods used
to diagnose problems. The approach employing stakeholder-based planning is
time-consuming, but is perhaps the only method for surfacing latent conflicts
of interest and unlocking the potential for socially optimal (and thus politically
and economically feasible) solutions.
General lessons learned from the development, testing and use of these
methods in the field include:
● The selection of participatory planning processes effective in sensitizing
and mobilizing the community at the planning stage can go a long way in
setting the foundations for effective implementation.
● Local government and opinion leaders can play an instrumental role in
mobilization, coordination, and strengthening buy-in at all levels.
● The need to ensure that outspoken community members, leaders or tech-
nical agents do not suppress the voice of less empowered actors at local
level—either through socially disaggregated diagnostic activities or the use
of skilled facilitators and disaggregated planning processes (such as by gen-
der and ethnicity) in the context of large community planning fora.
● Opportunities to identify strategies for integrated and “win–win” solutions
to complex landscape problems are often lost in the absence of multi-
stakeholder processes and due to the emphasis on disciplinary planning.
● Participatory watershed diagnosis and planning should not be done with
research teams alone; ideally, researchers should work in partnership with
development agents experienced in community mobilization to bring
complementary skills and mandates to the table.
● Communities are not homogeneous entities, but are often polarized by
divergent interests or “stakes.” Divergent interests should be understood,
made explicit and cautiously but proactively reconciled if equitable solu-
tions to watershed problems are to be identified.
● No single approach is “best.” All approaches have unique strengths as well
as shortcomings, and integration of their respective strengths into “hybrid”
approaches is strongly encouraged.
TABLE 3.9 Relative strengths and weaknesses of approaches for participatory watershed diagnosis and planning
Aspect of Approach Approach 1 Approach 2 Approach 3 Approach 4
Duration Approx. 6½ wks Approx. 4 months Approx. 6 wks Approx. 2 wks
Mobilization Very Strong (emerging
leaders, watershed committees
leading the process,
stakeholder engagement
based on expressed demand)
Strong among leadership;
medium among community
members
Weakest in initial stages Not ideal for mobilizing large
numbers of people, but can
unlock entrenched problems
Ability to capture
diverse local
perspectives
Strong among leadership;
weak in ensuring socially
differentiated views are
effectively captured
Very strong among
leadership; weak in ensuring
socially differentiated views
are effectively captured
Good in capturing the
interests and priorities of
diverse local groups and
leaders
Very strong in reconciling
divergent “political” interests
on NRM
Topical coverage Elicits most salient landscape
and livelihood issues
Focused on conflict and areas
of marked environmental
degradation
Very broad (all system
components; salient landscape
and livelihood issues)
Applicable to many NRM
issues, but used for specific
niches or causes of conflict
Emphasis on
integrated solutions
to watershed issues
Medium (landscape approach
helps to integrate)
Medium (landscape approach
helps to integrate)
High (explicit effort to
articulate linkages and plan
by “cluster”)
High (most issues involve
landscape-level processes or
boundary issues)
Involvement of
support agencies
Strong and in response to
local demand
Strong with local government,
less strong for NGOs
Medium (agencies not
directly involved in diagnosis
are brought in only after plans
have been developed)
Low (involvement can
compromise the negotiation
process if outside agencies
are biased or lack conflict
resolution skills)
Territorial coverage Full coverage of few villages,
but may be scaled up
Targeted to degradation
“hotspots” and areas with
high local initiative
Full coverage of a few
villages, but may be scaled up
Targeted to specific landscape
niches
114 Laura German et al.
Research and development team planning for
landscape integration
Given that AHI’s mandate included an explicit objective to develop research
methods for participatory integrated watershed management, a lot of effort
went into operationalizing the research component (questions, methods, ulti-
mate application) within a participatory and integrated approach to solving real
problems with farmers. To differentiate these approaches from the farm-level
approaches described in Chapter 2 and to capture watershed issues that extend
beyond the hydrological realm, we employ the term “landscape integration.”
While research inputs were needed at diverse stages of the participatory
watershed management process, this step of the watershed planning process
was unique in involving primarily R&D teams. Iterative steps of planning and
implementation in different benchmark sites were used to consolidate a single
methodology for R&D team planning. This section is devoted to describing
this unified approach.
Approach development
Following participatory identification of watershed problems by local resi-
dents, a lot of effort was devoted to answering the following two questions:
(i) how to move from a “laundry list” of discrete problems to integrated solu-
tions at landscape level; and (ii) how to operationalize the research component
of participatory integrated watershed management or participatory landscape
integration. A draft methodology was generated by the regional team, and a
series of follow-up planning events was held at site level to test and improve
upon the methodology. The methodology presented herein was a result of
this iterative process of planning, application and lessons learning at site and
regional levels (see also Stroud, 2003; German and Stroud, 2004).
Step 1—Creation of functional R&D clusters
The first step consisted of moving from a discrete list of concerns of water-
shed residents to functional “clusters” defined by strong causal relationships.
The rationale for this was both to focus interventions on a few integrated
objectives and interventions to facilitate implementation by addressing mul-
tiple problems simultaneously, and to structure interventions likely to foster
positive synergies among diverse problems or components. Two criteria
were utilized to develop an integrated intervention strategy from the list of
identified watershed problems, one grounded in social principles and the
other on ecological principles.
Participatory integrated watershed management 115
Principle 1: Focusing on watershed issues with high ranks from
most social groups can enhance the likelihood of success
By focusing on the issues of greatest concern to most watershed residents,
future R&D efforts are likely to have greater pay-offs as a function of the
broad social support they receive within watershed communities. In each AHI
benchmark site, a list of watershed issues was generated through systematic
consultations with diverse social groups. Issues were solicited from various
groups according to gender, wealth categories, physiographic location of plots
or homesteads, and age. Once the issues were identified, the groups ranked
them and identified the functional/causal linkages between diverse issues. By
looking at the rankings given to these issues by different social groups, it is pos-
sible to prioritize those that have broad social support.
Principle 2: Focusing on watershed issues with strong functional
relationships can enhance returns from any given investment
The second principle is to identify watershed issues that are functionally
linked. The rationale behind this is twofold. First, it helps to identify issues
that should be managed in an integrated manner to enable greater pay-offs
from investments. Second, it makes the causal interactions and spin-offs
(both positive and negative, at present and following alternative interven-
tions) characterizing interactions between these issues explicit, enabling their
management.
An example from the Ginchi site helps to illustrate how these principles
are applied in practice. Thirty-nine watershed issues were identified by local
residents in the Ginchi site and combined on the basis of their similarity into
18, namely:
1. Loss of water, soil, seeds, and fertilizers owing to excess run-off
2. Water shortage for livestock and human beings
3. Poor water quality
4. Problems associated with lack of common drainage
5. Crop failure from shortage of rains
6. Soil fertility decline and limited access to fertilizer
7. Feed shortage
8. Shortage of oxen
9. Land shortage owing to population pressure
10. Lack of improved crop varieties
11. Wood and fuel shortage
12. Loss of indigenous tree species
13. Effects of eucalyptus on soils, crops, and water
14. Theft of agricultural produce
15. Conflict over paths and farm boundaries
116 Laura German et al.
16. Low productivity of animals
17. Limited sharing of seed
18. Conflict between villages over watering points
These 18 issues were then ranked by different social groups in the watershed.
The resulting ranks of the priority issues are presented in Table 3.10.
Several issues were considered either beyond the means of the R&D teams
to address, or could only be addressed indirectly through other activities, for
example addressing land shortages by intensifying crop and livestock systems
or addressing drought through soil and water conservation. While the site
teams decided to leave these issues out of subsequent clustering activities, this
is something that should be reconsidered by others applying the methodology
as opportunities for addressing more intractable problems might be lost by
eliminating the issues from further discussion and analysis.
After applying the first principle—identification of watershed issues prior-
itized highly by most social groups, it was then necessary to apply the second
principle; namely, identifying clusters of watershed issues with strong functional
TABLE 3.10 Rankings of watershed issues by social group, Ginchi benchmark site,
Ethiopia
Watershed issues WS rankaSocial categories
Men Women Elder Youth High
wealth
Low
wealth
Loss of indigenous tree
species
1 (1.3) 111122
Poor water quality 2 (2.3) 252311
Land shortageb3 (4.2) 526255
Soil fertility decline 4 (4.3) 345743
Loss of fertilizer and seed
from run-off
5 (6.2) 663967
Wood and fuel shortage 6 (6.2) 4 8 4 9 6
Limited access to improved
seed
8 (7.8) 8776109
Shortage of oxen 7 (8.0) 12 3 10 5 8 10
Water shortage for livestock
and humans
9 (8.3) 11 9 11874
Crop failure from drought 10 (9.3) 12.5 10 9 14 3 8
Feed shortage 11 (10.0) 7 13 4 10 11 15
Notes:
a Watershed ranks were computed by taking the average of ranks given by each social group.
b Issues in italics are those the R&D team considered could only be addressed indirectly, through other
activities.
Participatory integrated watershed management 117
relationships. This involved looking at the short list of issues emanating from the
participatory ranking exercise, and trying to lump them into smaller clusters based
on their functional relationships—as defined by a biophysical (nutrients, water),
social (conflict and cooperation), economic (competition among components or
users for scarce resources), or other logic. When the Ginchi site did this, they
ended up with the following clusters based on what they knew about the system:
Cluster 1:
● Poor water quality and quantity (for humans and livestock)
● Loss of seed, fertilizer, and soil from excess run-off
● Loss of indigenous tree species
● (Crop failure owing to drought)6
The rationale for this clustering is based on the recognition that: (i) water quality
is being affected by seed, fertilizer, and soil run-off from fields; (ii) substitution
of indigenous trees with eucalyptus has caused the depletion of groundwater and
the drying of springs; (iii) integration of appropriate trees and soil conservation
structures on the landscape could enhance spring recharge (water quantity) and
reduce the loss of seed, fertilizer, and soil from the landscape; and (iv) crop fail-
ure owing to drought could be ameliorated by reducing water loss from run-off
through water harvesting. The common logic behind the perceived relationships
caused the team to name it the “Soil and Water Management” cluster.
Cluster 2:
● Soil fertility decline
● Wood and fuel shortage
● Loss of indigenous tree species
● Limited access to improved seed
● Feed shortage
● (Land shortage owing to population pressure)
This clustering of issues was based on the following observations: (i) loss of indig-
enous tree species and fuel wood availability has exacerbated soil fertility decline
through the increased use of dung and crop residues for fuel (and the former
must be dealt with to ameliorate soil fertility decline); (ii) intensification of the
system to reduce land pressure will require a balancing act so that increased
agricultural production (crop, livestock, trees) does not further compromise the
already ailing nutrient status of the system; (iii) “improved” seed often requires
high soil fertility, and places demand on already limited nutrient resources; and
(iv) the traditional practice of rotating between cropland and fallow (for grazing)
between seasons and years means that interventions in the livestock system will
have a direct impact on the cropping system, and vice versa. The common logic
118 Laura German et al.
behind these perceived relationships caused the team to name this the “Integrated
Production and Nutrient Management Cluster.”7
These clusters are depicted graphically to illustrate the relationship between
discrete problems and the integrated solution (Figures 3.4 and 3.5). The left-
hand arrows in Figure 3.4 illustrate how solutions (middle of the diagram)
do not address a single problem, but multiple problems simultaneously. In
the same way, the three intermediate solutions can be further clustered into
a single process of integrated (micro-) catchment management in which the
whole is greater than the sum of its parts. For example, agroforestry practices
should be able to add value to soil and water conservation objectives and
water resource protection if the appropriate trees are selected for their func-
tional role in addressing other watershed problems, as well as for the direct
economic benefits they may bring. Alternatively, by addressing spring devel-
opment as a high priority entry point, farmers may be more enthusiastic about
trying out soil and water conservation measures or investing in the longer-
term returns associated with the cultivation of tree species compatible with
soil bunds, springs, and outfields.
In Figure 3.5, all issues identified in the cluster are represented with the
exception of land shortage. As mentioned above, the R&D team decided that
the land constraint would be addressed only indirectly, through the intensifica-
tion of the crop, livestock, and tree components of the system. Our intention
was not to suggest that such seemingly intractable issues should be marginalized
up front; rather, we would encourage that such issues be fully explored to iden-
tify whether there are dimensions of the problem that can be taken on board
by communities, the R&D team, or other actors. Limited availability of oxen
was another issue identified by farmers but left out of the planning process by
the team. One possibility put forward was to foster labor-saving technologies
in other spheres to address the labor constraint implied by this concern, yet we
found such linkage to be tenuous at best and instead constructed the diagram
around the biophysical synergies we hoped to achieve. As farmers could very
FIGURE 3.4 Soil and water management cluster
Spring
development
Soil and water
conservation
Niche-compatible
afforestation
Water
degradation
High
run-off
Integrated
catchment
management
Deforestation
Participatory integrated watershed management 119
well have prioritized labor saving over productivity gains, this decision repre-
sents a value judgment and should be duly questioned together with farmers
before proceeding into participatory planning and implementation.
Step 2—Integrated planning
Once clusters have been identified, integrated research and community action
protocols must be developed to articulate both a vision and an operational plan
for bringing change within each cluster. The overall objective of the cluster
is first articulated, followed by the objectives of each integrated solution (the
middle or right-hand circles in Figures 3.4 and 3.5, respectively). The objec-
tives must express “higher-level” goals that go beyond any given discipline
or system component to an integrated target that involves optimizing returns
to different system goals (i.e., crop production, livestock production, nutri-
ent conservation) or understanding trade-offs that emerge when giving greater
emphasis to one system goal over others (i.e., production over water conserva-
tion). Through this approach, interventions within each sub-cluster are aimed
at addressing problems within that area as well as within other sub-clusters with
which functional linkages are strongest.
The following sample objectives from the Ginchi site help to illustrate what
higher-level targets look like:
Objective 1 (Soil and water management cluster): To enhance the positive
synergies between water, soil, and tree management in micro-catchments.
FIGURE 3.5 Integrated production and nutrient management cluster
Crop germplasm,
husbandry,markets and
integrated nutrient
management
Energy sources
and efficiency
Feed, genotypes
and income
Seed
Soil fertility
Fuel
Feed
Income
120 Laura German et al.
Specific objectives corresponding to each sub-cluster are:
● To improve the quantity and quality of water for both human and livestock
use and enhance community enthusiasm for future watershed activities.
● To reduce run-off (loss of soil, seed, fertilizer, water), improve produc-
tivity (of crops, trees, fodder), and enhance infiltration and groundwater
recharge.
● To increase the prevalence of trees in their appropriate niches to minimize
run-off while increasing the availability of tree resources (fodder, fuel,
income, timber).
Objective 2 (Integrated production and nutrient management cluster): To
improve farmer incomes and system productivity (including crops, live-
stock and trees) while ensuring sustainable nutrient management in the
system.
Specific objectives corresponding to each sub-cluster are:
● To improve farmer incomes from crops through improved crop husbandry
(including varieties and management), integrated nutrient management,
and marketing (while ensuring sustainable nutrient management in the
system).
● To improve the availability and quality of feed resources (while ensuring
sustainable nutrient management in the system).
● To enhance the availability of fuel and tree income (while contributing to
the restoration of system nutrients).
As originally stated (without the phrases in brackets), these specific objec-
tives are phrased in such a way that the integrated approach to managing
the resource base for multiple outcomes could be easily lost. For example,
sub-teams managing each specific objective began to focus on conventional
research topics—namely, component-specific goals (livestock productivity,
crop productivity, etc.) rather than on their integration or optimization. When
testing new barley varieties, for example, it is important to monitor not only
grain yield—illustrating a bias toward the crop component, but also biomass
yield for feed, and the resulting impact on soil nutrient stocks. When exploring
alternatives for improving the productivity of fallows, it is important not only
to consider the yield of feed, but also the yield of subsequent crops in the same
area and the quality of dung which will be recycled in the cropping system.
It is for this reason that it is important to manage the entire cluster as a whole
rather than according to its sub-components. It is also critical to ensure that
farmers—natural systems thinkers seeking to optimize diverse benefits from
any given innovation—have strong decision-making and oversight powers to
determine what options or innovations are to be tested and the key parameters
to be observed or measured for each.
Participatory integrated watershed management 121
At this point, integrated research and development work plans are devel-
oped around specified R&D targets or objectives. To assist in developing action
plans toward the achievement of these targets, it is important to define two
types of activities and their respective contributions to learning and change:
1. Community-led learning and change processes; and
2. Research contributions (social, biophysical, economic, policy) that can
assist watershed residents or support institutions to make well-informed
decisions.
Detailed planning for each is required at both community and R&D team
levels. Yet planning also evolves as the learning process evolves—with new
community-led change and research priorities emerging as critical knowledge
gaps hindering informed decision-making emerge. Planning at the level of
R&D teams at this stage requires: (i) articulation of the facilitation process to
be used to help communities meet their own objectives; and (ii) articulation
of research questions and methods, and how research results will feed back
into decision-making processes at community or higher levels. A protocol was
developed for the purpose of helping R&D teams to structure the planning of
integrated research and development interventions (Box 3.10). Table 3.11 illus-
trates the relationship between cluster-level objectives and research questions
and specific sub-components of these protocols (community facilitation, action
research, and empirical research). As mentioned in Chapter 1, action research
is different from empirical research in both the questions asked and the meth-
ods used—with action research emphasizing the “how” questions (to answer
the question, “what works where and why?”) and empirical research placing
emphasis on the “what” questions (system characterization). Applications of
empirical research in watershed management within AHI are summarized later
in this chapter.
BOX 3.10 FORMAT FOR INTEGRATED R&D
PROTOCOLS FOR EACH CLUSTER
1. Title
2. Background and justification
●
Problems in the cluster and why they are functionally linked
●
Why the problem persists despite community concern and the rationale
for new types of interventions (including facilitation and research)
3. Cluster objective and primary research question (see Table 3.11)
122 Laura German et al.
4. Community facilitation process
●
How the overall change process will be facilitated for reaching the clus-
ter objective (key steps, who to be involved and why, facilitators and
facilitation process)
●
How action research and empirical research are sequenced in time with
the facilitation process (i.e., how new knowledge will be used to inform
decision-making)
5. Action research
●
Research question 1 (research methodology; research outputs and how
they will be used)
●
Research question 2 (research methodology; research outputs and how
they will be used)
6. Empirical research
●
Research question 1 (research methodology; research outputs and how
they will be used)
●
Research question 2 (research methodology; research outputs and how
they will be used)
7. Roles and responsibilities
●
Who will be responsible for leading each cluster, and for each research
question and output?
Lessons learned
The following lessons were learned in efforts to apply and improve upon
the methodology for research and development team planning for landscape
integration:
● Planning for integrated research and development interventions at R&D
team level was instrumental in reaching a common understanding of the
complexity of management challenges facing farmers, and of how to
organize the team to assist in navigating amidst this complexity.
● Planning at R&D team level must be iteratively validated and informed by
watershed residents themselves, both as inputs to the planning process and
as a means to raise awareness among farmers of the functional relationships
being targeted by integrated interventions.
● Integrated planning is challenging, but staying integrated in practice is
much more challenging. Researchers and practitioners trained within sin-
gle disciplines or sectors will tend to sway toward conventional views and
biases, forgetting to look at the system as a whole. For research, planning at
TABLE 3.11 Planning framework for integrating diverse learning approaches in research and development
Major activity/
step
Objective Facilitating participatory
action learning and action research
Action research questions Empirical research questions
Watershed
diagnosis
To identify major
watershed problems from
the perspective of local
residents.
Primary Research Question: What are effective, equitable processes for participatory diagnosis and planning
for watershed management?
1. Consultations with diverse social
groups to identify key watershed
problems, and opportunities and
barriers to their resolution.
2. Development of participatory
watershed action plans.
3. Program-level planning for integrated
R&D interventions.
1. What is an effective
approach for planning at
local and program levels?
2. How can problem
diagnosis be balanced
with the need for
immediate impact, so
as to keep community
interest high?
1. What are watershed priorities
by gender, age, wealth, and
landscape position?
2. What are key opportunities and
barriers to addressing identified
watershed problems?
3. How effective are current
by-laws and natural resource
governance?
Soil and
water
conservation
(SWC) and
management
To enhance the positive
synergies between water,
soil, and tree management
in micro-catchments.
Primary Research Question: How can natural resource management innovations enhance agricultural
productivity through decreased run-off (reduced loss of soil, seed, fertilizer, water) while enhancing spring
recharge in the long term?
1. Spring development with spring
management plans (responsibilities,
rules, sanctions).
2. Negotiation support and local by-law
reforms for spring maintenance,
common drainage ways, investments
in spring recharge, and greater niche
compatibility in agroforestry.
3. Adaptive research on SWC structures
and niche-compatible afforestation
to control erosion, enhance water
recharge and minimize loss of inputs.
1. If a high-priority
entry point (spring
development) is used, will
outcomes of future R&D
investments be greater?
2. What are the necessary
conditions for people
to invest in a shared
resource?
3. What are effective
approaches for reaching
the overall cluster
objective?
1. What is the impact of chosen
SWC measures on run-off, soil
and nutrient loss, and infiltration?
2. What are farmers’ key indicators
for SWC, and how do these
change over time?
3. Which trees are compatible
with different niches? How do
prioritized tree species perform in
different niches?
4. Who are the stakeholders for
each issue, and how do they view
the cause and solution?
Continued
Major activity/
step
Objective Facilitating participatory
action learning and action research
Action research questions Empirical research questions
Integrated
production
and nutrient
management
To improve farmer
incomes and system
productivity (crops,
livestock, trees) while
enabling sustainable
nutrient management.
Primary Research Question: How can income be improved through increased agricultural productivity (of
crops, livestock, and trees) and marketing while maintaining or enhancing system nutrient stocks?
1. Test alternative crop, feed and
livestock husbandry practices and
monitor effects on the system.
2. Raise awareness on fuel-nutrient
dynamics; negotiate and test viable
alternatives (fuel-efficient stoves,
afforestation, regulations on dung
collection from outfields).
3. Negotiation support for benefits
sharing and collective investments
in outfields (nutrient management,
alternative fuel source).
1. What is an effective and
sustainable approach
for scaling out tested
varieties and integrated
nutrient management
technologies?
2. What are effective
approaches for
improving livestock
and feed production,
minimizing system
nutrient loss, and
catalyzing collective
investments in a
sustainable fuel supply?
1. What is the effect of different
varietal-nutrient management
combinations on yield, income,
plot fertility and system nutrient
dynamics?
2. What is the effect of different
feed and management
innovations on income, livestock
productivity, and system nutrient
dynamics?
3. How much energy/fuel wood is
needed to substitute unsustainable
fuel sources? What is the
“absorption capacity” of trees in
different types of households and
landscape niches?
TABLE 3.11 Continued
Participatory integrated watershed management 125
the level of variables to be measured (for empirical research) or indicators
to be monitored (for action research) helps to ensure multiple perspec-
tives are considered. For further details on this methodology, see German
(2006). For community facilitation, having cluster leaders within R&D
teams to keep individual members focused on the bigger cluster goal and
their activities aligned with this goal, and fostering integrated planning and
monitoring at community level, are both instrumental.
Selecting entry points
The basic characteristics of good entry points were highlighted in Chapter 2.
In AHI, two different types of entry points were used to bring early benefits
within new watershed villages. A description of each approach and its underly-
ing principles is provided below.
Approach development
Approach 1—Use of farm-level entry points
The first set of entry points builds upon prior work in the participatory farm-
level innovation theme, because at the farm level is where new technologies
are validated on farmers’ fields before more widespread dissemination. The
properties of these entry points should be in accordance with known princi-
ples specified in Chapter 2, namely: is of high priority (addresses felt needs of
intended beneficiaries); able to bring quick benefits (often economic in nature);
and has been previously tested (thus carrying low risk). A few case studies help
to illustrate how farm-level entry points have been applied at early stages of
watershed management within AHI benchmark sites (Box 3.11).
BOX 3.11 FARM-LEVEL ENTRY POINTS
Taro in Areka—Farmers in Gununo watershed quickly gained confidence in AHI
interventions during watershed entry owing to the multiple benefits derived from
the dissemination of a new taro variety called Boloso-I. The variety gives higher
yield, requires less time and wood fuel to cook, has a good texture and lower con-
centration of oxalic acid, and generates more income compared to local varieties.
This early success increased rates of repayment of in-kind loans (in the form of
planting material) and increased community participation in subsequent meet-
ings following the intervention. Therefore, technologies that bring quick benefits
in the form of increased food security and income can serve as excellent entry
points and improve the likelihood of community investment in future activities.
Tomato in Lushoto—During the PRA in Phase 2, farmers complained of low income
from their enterprises. While exploring options for improving income, they
126 Laura German et al.
Approach 2—Use of watershed-level entry points
Landscape-level entry points have similar properties to farm-level entry points,
but bring benefits at community rather than household level. Two cases from
AHI help to illustrate this, and the importance of jointly considering diverse
criteria (high priority, quick benefits) when selecting entry points (Box 3.12).
In Ginchi, for example, spring development was chosen over the highest prior-
ity watershed issue (loss of indigenous tree species) owing to its ability to bring
quick returns to the community.
BOX 3.12 LANDSCAPE-LEVEL ENTRY POINTS
Spring development in Ginchi—In Ginchi, the participatory ranking process
identified in the participatory watershed planning session highlighted loss
of indigenous tree species as the highest priority across most social groups
(Table 3.12). However, as this entry point would defy a key principle of entry
points (that it yields quick returns), the second priority across many social
groups was selected. The community was mobilized to contribute labor, mate-
rial (rocks, sand) and small sums of money for constructing cement structures
around springs to protect water quality. Farmers were highly enthusiastic,
with one individual exclaiming, “I had no idea the kind of water you buy in
bottles can come from this spring.”
TABLE 3.12 Final ranks of the top two watershed issues in Ginchi site
Watershed Issue Men Women Elder Youth High
wealth
Low
wealth
Loss of indigenous
tree species
111122
Poor water quality 252311
This entry point was also selected to create an incentive for community invest-
ment in ensuring long-term water supplies (a benefit with more delayed
mentioned the need for tomatoes that can withstand long-distance transport to
distant markets in Dar es Salaam and Arusha without being damaged. New varie-
ties were tested, and two were found to be much better performing in this regard,
and therefore in great demand by intermediaries. The great success of this crop
in bringing income quickly (within 4 months) at low risk (most households have
access to valley bottom land and some irrigation water) made it a very successful
entry point when expanding activities beyond Phase II villages to the watershed.
Participatory integrated watershed management 127
returns) through soil conservation structures designed to enhance infiltration
and spring recharges as well as increase land productivity.
Controlling run-off in Kabale and Kapchorwa—For a long time, people in high-
land areas of eastern Africa have struggled with the challenge of effectively
controlling excess run-off and landslides that destroy crops, fields, property,
infrastructure and even lives. In the process of trying to overcome these chal-
lenges, different innovations have been tried with limited success. One of
the most effective strategies in Kabale was the use of check dams together
with local by-laws (an innovation of Africare). Cross-site visits to Igomanda
Watershed by farmers from Rubaya and other sub-counties exposed farmers
to these successful innovations and aroused their keen interest in working col-
lectively toward adopting these best practices. The entry point, in this case,
included several complementary elements: a cross-site visit, the technology,
the by-laws and a few tools required for heavy digging. This led to overwhelm-
ing levels of community enthusiasm and collective action, as evidenced by
100 percent household participation.
In Kapchorwa, recent landslides led villages in the Tuikat Watershed to high-
light this as their top priority. Cross-site visits were also used to learn from
other farmers in Kaseko Parish who had been supported earlier on by the
Kapchorwa District Landcare Chapter, mobilizing the community’s com-
mitment to apply these innovations to landscape areas most affected by
landslides and excess run-off. Within two weeks, 50 percent of households in
the watershed had adopted the innovation, banning free grazing to further
control land degradation and ensure survival of tree seedlings planted on
the contours.
Lessons learned
The following lessons were learned through our experience in testing diverse
types of entry points for watershed management:
● The same principles apply for watershed entry points as for farm-level
entry points (high priority, quick returns, previously tested), yet previous
testing does not have to be from the same institution or project—as illus-
trated by the use of spring development as an entry point for stimulating
innovations in agriculture and NRM.
● The scale of intervention (farm vs. landscape) does not have to be a deter-
mining factor in selecting entry points; proven farm-level entry points
can mobilize community enthusiasm for future landscape-level innova-
tions. Some watershed-level entry points may have an added biophysical
128 Laura German et al.
advantage over and above the social advantage conferred by ensuring
quick benefits to communities. For example, it was hypothesized that
spring development—an entry point that brings immediate improvements
to water quality—might catalyze community interest in building soil and
water conservation structures above the springs to help ensure a long-term
water supply through groundwater replenishment.
● The success of entry points does not depend only on immediate livelihood
improvements. Entry points can also be evaluated on the basis of the social
capital built among community members and the effect this has on their
confidence to engage in other collective endeavors in the future.
Empirical research inputs into decision-making
Action research is not a substitute for empirical research. The latter can be
instrumental to decision-making for individual farmers as well as R&D teams
and policy makers.
Approach development
Approach 1—Scientific data as inputs to decision-making
Scientific data can be instrumental in bolstering political commitment to a new
approach (for example, impact assessments to illustrate the relative merits and
demerits of new approaches for agricultural research and extension) or to new
policies. The latter may be shown in research conducted in Lushoto to help
legislators make tough decisions about whether and how to regulate eucalyptus
cultivation in the district (Box 3.13). Scientific research can also make new
indicators visible to farmers, raising awareness and mobilizing their interest in
finding solutions. This is best illustrated by a case study from Ginchi, where soil
erosion experiments helped to make visible the benefits of soil erosion con-
trol (Box 3.14). It has also been shown to empower communities to question
the actions of more powerful actors, as illustrated by a case in Lushoto where
scientific experiments were used to bolster support from external agencies in
enforcing new boundary management practices less detrimental to farmers’
livelihoods (Box 3.13). Finally, scientific data from watershed exploration and
diagnostic work can help to ground interventions by identifying problems
important to local residents, environmental hot spots (where these problems are
most extreme), social conflicts, opportunities (i.e., local institutions respected
by most parties) or other important guiding parameters.
PLATE 3 Participatory map showing locations of year-round (blue dots), seasonal (circled
blue dots), and extinct (red dots) springs in Dule village, Lushoto, Tanzania
PLATE 1 Farmers in Kwalei village, Lushoto,
load up their tomatoes for transport
to Dar es Salaam
PLATE 2 Metallic hook used to trap mole
rats in Areka
PLATE 4 Spring in Kwekitui Village,
Lushoto, which yields much less
water today than in the past
PLATE 5 Tolil Watershed Committee in
Kapchorwa, Uganda
PLATE 6 Village representatives involved in
participatory watershed planning
in Lushoto, Tanzania
PLATE 7 Progressive clearing of forest
and absence of soil and water
conservation activities in the
catchment and riparian zone just
upstream of the Sakharani Mission
are believed to have caused sharp
declines in the Mission’s water
supply in recent years
PLATE 8 Introduction to the watershed
approach to farmers in Rwanda
PLATE 9 Seeing is believing: water and sediment collection chambers in Ginchi BMS
make the extent of soil loss visible to farmers
PLATE 10 Ginchi landscape prior to soil
conservation interventions
PLATE 11 Ginchi farmers exploring terraced
landscape at Konso
PLATE 14 Landscape with (bottom) and without
(top) natural resource governance
PLATE 13 Cultivation up to the edge of
a spring in the Baga watershed,
Lushoto
PLATE 12 Farmers in Lushoto complain that
eucalypts, such as those lining this
tea estate boundary, lead to the
drying of nearby springs
Participatory integrated watershed management 129
BOX 3.13 SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH CAN HELP INFORM
POLICY MAKERS AND LEGITIMIZE LOCAL STAKES
VIS-À-VIS MORE POWERFUL ACTORS
During the participatory watershed diagnosis, farmers mentioned the incom-
patibility of eucalyptus with adjacent farmland as a multi-stakeholder problem
among neighboring landowners. Since this problem can be partially addressed
through policies regulating the location and density of eucalyptus on or near
farm boundaries, empirical research was undertaken to assess soil chemistry,
soil moisture, and maize yields near boundaries of eucalyptus and other spe-
cies perceived by farmers to be harmful to crops. Identification of significant
negative impacts on crop yields or thresholds (specific distance from tree lines
at which negative effects rapidly decline), as illustrated in Figure 3.6(b), would
both be useful for guiding policy. While the former would provide a justifica-
tion for a policy intervention in the form of restrictions on species or planting
locations, the latter would provide a clear design principle for such interven-
tions (i.e., species X not to be planted within Y meters of farm boundaries).
Distance from tree line Distance from tree line
FIGURE 3.6 Hypothetical impact of boundary trees on the yield of adjacent crops
in cases with (b) and without (a) thresholds
While this was the motive for conducting this research, one farmer living next
to the Sakharani Mission and “hosting” an empirical research experiment used
the clear visual evidence of reduced yields near the Sakharani boundary to
support his interests. He requested the District Forest Officer to visit his field,
see the outcomes of the experiment, and demand for land-use change by the
Mission in the form of substitute species compatible with adjacent cropland.
Clearly, such experiments can have both intended and unintended outcomes
for livelihoods, learning, and social justice.
BOX 3.14 SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH CAN MAKE VISIBLE
PROCESSES OTHERWISE DIFFICULT FOR FARMERS TO SEE
While gulley and rill erosion are highly visible to farmers, sheet erosion is less
visible. Furthermore, farmers tend to focus on immediate economic needs over
130 Laura German et al.
Approach 2—Local knowledge as an input to decision-making
Systematic studies of local knowledge using social scientific methods can also
help to make highly specialized or localized knowledge available to a broader
community, creating opportunities for collective solutions to a shared problem.
The “formalization” of local knowledge can be useful for a number of reasons.
The first is the specialized nature of local knowledge, in which some members
of a community may know much more about a topic than others owing to nat-
ural variations in individuals’ interests and experience or incentives that keep
that knowledge from being shared (Box 3.15). Formally documenting local
knowledge can also help in multi-stakeholder negotiations, either by identify-
ing inconsistencies in the knowledge systems of different stakeholders (and the
need to reconcile these differences), or by feeding common local understand-
ings on cause and effect into decision-making processes (Box 3.16). Finally,
studies of local knowledge can help to target intervention strategies that are
most strategic and to identify traditional practices already proven in addressing
local social or environmental concerns (Box 3.17).
long-term sustainability, making them focus more on the damage caused by
excess run-off over soil loss per se. Field demonstrations linked to scientific
research proved to be instrumental in Ginchi for raising awareness by mak-
ing new processes that are otherwise difficult to observe visible to farmers. An
experiment in the Ginchi site was conducted using run-off plots and three treat-
ments: (i) plots without conservation measures planted with barley; (ii) plots
with soil bunds planted with barley; and (iii) fallowed plots. Water and sediment
were collected at the bottom of each plot, with water color and the amount of
sediment now visible indicators of soil loss in each of the three treatments (see
Plate 9). Since the experiment was located near the main road, several farmers
inside and outside the watershed were observing these indicators and became
convinced of the importance of soil bunds in reducing both run-off and soil loss.
During a farmers’ field day conducted in October 2006, one farmer stated that,
“seeing is believing.”
BOX 3.15 LOCAL KNOWLEDGE ON VERTEBRATE
PESTS: SPECIALIZED KNOWLEDGE AND BARRIERS TO
SPONTANEOUS SHARING
Research into local knowledge of porcupine and mole rat control in Areka was
instrumental in finding a way to address the damage they cause to crops. The
content of local knowledge included both control methods and the landscape
Participatory integrated watershed management 131
BOX 3.16 SOCIAL SCIENCE RESEARCH ON LOCAL
KNOWLEDGE AS INPUTS TO MULTI-STAKEHOLDER
NEGOTIATIONS
In Ginchi and Lushoto, local knowledge on the properties of different tree
species and their suitability to different landscape niches was used as a first
step in addressing problems related to incompatible trees on farm boundaries
(competing with cropland), near springs (drying up springs and changing
the taste of water), and on state land (where trees planted along roads and
boundaries of protected areas compete with crops and cause the drying of
springs). This knowledge was used for: (i) identification of niches where trees
are or could be grown; (ii) identification of culturally important, harmful, and
niche compatible (and incompatible) trees; and (iii) identification of the prop-
erties that make species compatible and incompatible with different niches.
Participatory ranking was done to assess the degree to which different species
exhibit different properties or “niche compatibility criteria” (German et al.,
2006b). These data were then fed back to stakeholders during negotiation
support processes to identify tree species exhibiting properties important to
each stakeholder group, and species to be avoided in particular landscape
niches (German et al., 2006a).
locations where these are effective (Table 3.13). Yet this knowledge had not
been effectively mobilized by the community to control the pests because they
lacked institutions of collective action for doing this, and some of the more
effective local control practices were not understood by the majority of com-
munity members. Some of the knowledge proved to be highly specialized and
coveted, as the few farmers familiar with them earned income from control-
ling porcupines and mole rats on others’ fields and benefited through secrecy.
Making this knowledge more available to the broader community and using it
to mobilize all residents to assist in control efforts were fundamental to address-
ing the problem.
TABLE 3.13 Characteristics of local control methods for porcupine
Control method Niches where applied No. of knowledgeable
farmers
Wire body traps Grassland; graveyards; forest;
under eucalypts and bamboo
One
Deep digging at outlet
of porcupine hole
Grassland; river beds and banks;
under eucalypts and bamboo
Many
Circular ditch Graveyards Many
132 Laura German et al.
Lessons learned
The following lessons have been learned in AHI attempts to integrate scientific
research into development and natural resource management processes:
● Scientific knowledge is most useful when employed to make the (otherwise
hard-to-see) consequences of local natural resource management practices
visible to local actors and used to inform ongoing change processes.
● Value added from integration of scientific research into participatory
watershed management may derive from a number of different things: its
role in awareness creation (making visible previously invisible processes
and unthinkable opportunities); its ability to help shed new light on cause-
and-effect relations that need to be understood in the context of negotiated
decision-making or policy design; supporting community advocacy vis-à-
vis government agencies and more powerful actors; and for mobilizing the
potential of local knowledge in local problem-solving.
● Local knowledge may be more effectively applied if combined with other
forms of external support, including social science research to legitimate,
systematize, or publicize it.
● Symbolic explanations for biophysical processes, often disrespectfully called
“superstitions,” should not be discredited because they are not explained
BOX 3.17 LOCAL KNOWLEDGE ON SPRINGS:
IDENTIFICATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL “HOTSPOTS”
AND TESTED SOLUTIONS
In Lushoto, social research on local knowledge of the causes and consequences
of spring degradation helped to target appropriate solutions to this priority
problem. First, identification of historical trends in spring degradation helped
to identify springs for priority intervention based on: (i) the perceived threat
to the resource (status of vegetation, historical changes in spring discharge);
and (ii) the “social importance” of the spring (its importance as a function
of distance to households, volume and seasonality of water, and number of
users). Studies of local knowledge also helped to identify tree and grass spe-
cies with conservation functions that researchers were unaware of, which were
subsequently utilized to rehabilitate degraded springs. Finally, such research
can help to validate traditional knowledge on environmental conservation that
is coming under threat from changing belief systems. A traditional taboo for-
bidding the collection of crabs in springs, for example, may very well have an
important conservation function as many crab species are known to manipu-
late water quality by removing detritus and circulating and oxygenating the
water (Schubert et al., 1998).
Participatory integrated watershed management 133
through scientific rationales. Not only do these explanatory frameworks
often explain underlying biophysical processes in ways consistent with sci-
entific explanations, but discrediting them may have negative effects on
sustainability by eroding the natural resource management practices they
help to sustain and encode.
Participatory monitoring and evaluation
Monitoring and evaluation is perhaps the most fundamental step to participatory
integrated watershed management because without active monitoring at com-
munity and project levels, other investments of time and energy are likely to
yield few returns. Monitoring helps to capture challenges early on so that they
may be addressed before they lead to failure. It also enables opportunities to be
effectively captured by identifying them and fostering agreement on how they
can best be seized. By monitoring, participants can share their views on the chal-
lenges faced, generate “best bet” solutions, and agree on how these solutions will
be put into practice through revised work plans and division of responsibilities.
Approach development
AHI has experimented with approaches to participatory M&E at both commu-
nity and R&D team levels. This section profiles three distinctive approaches.
The first two approaches emphasize participatory M&E at community level, the
first drawing on local concerns or indicators alone, and the second employing
exogenous indicators and/or scientific methods. The last approach illustrates
participatory M&E at the level of research and development teams.
Approach 1—Participatory monitoring and evaluation (PM&E)
with communities
Within AHI, approaches to participatory monitoring at community level, based
on observations of local residents themselves, have included both informal and
formal approaches. Case studies help to illustrate how feedback elicited from
farmers during implementation helped to change the approach being used for
improved impact, as lessons were learned through implementation.
(i) Informal PM&E at community level
The first strategy has been simply to ensure a continuous presence in the
watershed, and to continuously ask watershed residents (both active and less
active ones) how they view or perceive the effectiveness of ongoing activities.
This can occur through active questioning or through sharing time together
informally over a cup of tea or through other forms of socializing. It is often
through such informal interactions that the most honest reflections are shared.
134 Laura German et al.
Case 1—Monitoring the “mood” of the community during watershed
exploration to sustain community enthusiasm
Although watershed delineation and characterization were seen as a necessary
step by the Lushoto team—providing baseline information and helping to iden-
tify constraints to livelihoods and improved natural resources management, these
processes took time. Participatory diagnosis and prioritization of watershed issues
and participatory watershed planning, while more engaging, also took time. Once
planning was finalized, diverse sub-teams engaged farmers in more detailed plan-
ning meetings and training workshops on select themes. All of these activities
placed demands on farmers’ limited time, and diverted them from other impor-
tant activities. While farmers were getting fatigued, frequent visits by the R&D
team, together with open communication and good rapport between team mem-
bers and farmers, enabled farmers’ concerns to be expressed openly. Researchers
were therefore in a position to respond and to brainstorm on ways to keep farmer
enthusiasm high. Issues of highest concern by farmers, identified during early
phases of characterization and diagnosis, became the subject of discussions on
how to bring immediate impact and sustain farmers’ trust and enthusiasm. It was
planned that some efforts and resources should be invested in the rehabilitation of
degraded water sources. Local residents were asked to identify water sources to
be rehabilitated using jointly agreed upon criteria, including level of degradation
and number of households depending on the water source. Several water sources
were chosen and communally rehabilitated through contributions from local
residents (stones, sand, labor) and the project (technical, cement, and financial).
Water source sanitation and water levels were observed to immediately improve,
restoring confidence of the community in the program as a whole.
(ii) Formal PM&E using local indicators
The most notable difference between informal and formal PM&E is the latter’s
explicit use of local indicators to monitor performance. Rather than following
a complex typology of principles, criteria and indicators, here ‘indicators’ were
loosely interpreted to include quantitative or qualitative statements that can be
used unambiguously to describe desired situations and measure changes or trends
over a period of time. Use of locally formulated indicators helps to foster a shared
understanding of the objectives being sought, and what a successful change pro-
cess should look like. It is important to note that the indicators of “success”
for one individual or group may not be the same as for others. It is therefore
necessary to either: (i) seek broad consensus on the indicators chosen, and to
ensure that diverse views are captured; or (ii) carry out stakeholder-based M&E
to ensure that the interests and concerns of diverse interest groups are adequately
captured and monitored among groups sharing common interests.
Steps to formal PM&E using local indicators are summarized in Box 3.18. For
stakeholder-based monitoring, stakeholder analysis would come as a first step,
and different stakeholder groups would be encouraged to formulate their own
views when monitoring the performance of local indicators (in Steps 4 and 5).
Participatory integrated watershed management 135
The following case studies help to illustrate what the use of local indica-
tors and stakeholder-based monitoring looks like in practice. The first case
study also demonstrates how monitoring of local indicators may be used to
monitor successive stages of a single approach or different approaches tested
over time.
Case 2—By-law reforms in Kabale
Two waves of participatory by-law reforms were carried out in Rubaya Sub-
County over the course of several years. Formal participatory monitoring was
done using a combination of indicators proposed by local communities and
project facilitators to observe how these two approaches, implemented sequen-
tially, compared to one another and relative to the pre-intervention period.
Table 3.14 illustrates the nature of outputs from this type of monitoring.
These findings clearly show the incremental nature of local governance
improvements, where villages with prior experience implementing NRM
by-laws were more effective in utilizing by-law reform processes to catalyze
collective action.
Case 3—Equitable technology dissemination in Areka
A case from Areka also helps to illustrate how participatory monitoring
using local indicators may be done. Following the approach to equitable
BOX 3.18 BASIC STEPS IN PARTICIPATORY M&E
1. Identify objectives of the activity to be carried out. This can be defined at
the cluster level, or at the level of specific problems being addressed.
2. Identify local indicators. This can be done by asking the following ques-
tions: “If [activity X] is successful, what will be different in [6, 12, 24
months’] time? What changes will you see?”
3. Set a schedule for follow-up meetings to monitor progress.
4. Monitor progress according to established indicators. This can be done by
asking the following questions: “You mentioned that if you are successful,
you will see [e.g., more water discharge from springs]. Have you observed
any changes yet in [spring discharge]?”
5. Revised work plans as needed to adjust activities so that the ultimate
objectives are more likely to be achieved. This can be done indicator by
indicator, for example by asking the question, “Is the observed change
in [indicator X] enough, or does more need to be done to see [e.g., more
water discharge from springs]?”
TABLE 3.14 Performance of identified indicators by phase of intervention
Local indicator Prior to intervention Phase I intervention Phase II intervention
Muguli and Kagyera (villages participating in Phase I and II interventions)
Number of soil
conservation structures
Limited use of natural resource
management technologies (few
trenches, no tree nurseries, only
5 farmers used bench terraces)
– 226 trenches
– 3 check dams
– 6 tree nursery beds
– 31 bench terraces
– terraces 5,500 Calliandra, Grevillea, and
Alunus spp. planted
– 85 additional trenches
– 19 additional bench terraces
– 1 additional check dam
Number of NRM
conflicts reported per
month and mode of
resolution (fines vs.
consensus)
– No committee to resolve conflict
– 15 cases of free grazing reported
per month
– Cases resolved with fines
– Policy Task Force resolves conflicts (16
cases from 2003-04 reported to LC1 Court
referred back to PTF for resolution)
– Prevalence of conflict reduced
– Resolution of 8 cases of free grazing
through consensus and without fines
– Further reduction in
prevalence of conflict
– No fines applied
– Resolution of conflicts
through the sub-county
Committee
Local leadership support
to by-laws
No support from political leaders,
for fear of losing votes
Increased support from local leaders as
a result of sensitization and committee
membership
More extensive support by
local leaders to the extent of
participating in reviewing,
monitoring and implementing
by-laws
Local indicator Prior to intervention Phase I intervention Phase II intervention
Change in behavior/
social relations
– Conflicts resolved in LC courts
with fine
– Increase in hatred and selfishness
among conflicting parties
– Conflict resolution by consensus and not
in courts
– Collective action every Thursday to help
those negatively affected by by-laws
– Spirit of sharing (tree seedlings) and
trusting one another while in meetings
– Collective action in input supply (tools,
seedlings)
– Conflict resolution by
consensus and not in courts
enhanced
– Spirit of sharing and trusting
one another further enhanced
Katambara and Mushanje Villages (villages participating in Phase II only)
Number of soil
conservation structures
None
N/A
– 70 new trenches in
Kantambara
– 56 new trenches in Mushanje
– Collective action for trench
digging every Thursday
Number of NRM
conflicts reported per
month and mode of
resolution
– More than 20 cases reported on
monthly basis
– No committee to resolve conflicts
or enforce by-laws
N/A
– Formed a committee of 9
people who monitor the
performance of by-laws and
resolve conflicts without fines
– About 5 cases per month
reported in Katambara and 7
in Mushanje, but resolved in
harmony
Local leadership support
to by-laws
No local leadership support
N/A
By-laws are working, but
limited support from local
leaders could undermine
sustainability
138 Laura German et al.
technology dissemination described in Chapter 2, mixed groups of farmers
from each village were called together to assess how different local indica-
tors were performing. Groups were asked to do matrix ranking to compare
the approach used by the formal extension service with the AHI approach.
Participants were asked to discuss the relative performance of the two
approaches for each indicator, and to use seeds to rank the two approaches
based on their perceived performance (with more seeds meaning better per-
formance). Results are presented by approach, with “before” representing
formal government extension and “after” the AHI innovation, in Figure 3.7.
While this approach to evaluation does not explicitly capture views of dif-
ferent stakeholders (e.g., by gender and wealth), participants were asked to
jointly reflect on the effects of different approaches on women and poorer
households. While this evaluation method has the benefit of generating a
collective awareness of the performance of different extension approaches for
different stakeholders, it may not be effective in ensuring the voice of those
same groups are adequately captured. Subdividing the group of farmers by
gender or assets (e.g., landholdings) for matrix ranking and then comparing
the outcomes would ensure diverse perspectives are captured. The presen-
tation of these gender- or wealth-disaggregated results would involve the
generation of two figures (one for each group), or the inclusion of additional
columns (to represent how different groups evaluated each approach).
Relative rank
Equitable
access by
women
farmers
Equitable
access by
poor
farmers
Form of
credit
Awareness of
technology
prior to wider
dissemination
Quality and
frequency
of technical
support
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Before
After
FIGURE 3.7 Farmers’ perceptions of the relative equitability and benefits of the AHI/
HARC approach as an alternative to that employed by the Government
Extension Service, Areka, Ethiopia
Note: The AHI/HARC approach (“After”) included negotiation support to agree on mechanisms and
rules for equitable access; participatory by-law reforms to support local agreements; and in-kind
credit.
Participatory integrated watershed management 139
Approach 2—Formal M&E using scientific indicators or methods
Formal M&E can draw on scientific principles or methods of data collection in
a number of ways. One way is for local communities to identify indicators and
for scientific methods to be used to gather data and monitor performance of the
indicator. This approach consists of the following basic steps:
1. Identify objectives of an innovation process together with farmers repre-
senting different social or interest groups.
2. With each group, identify local indicators that will be used to monitor
progress toward agreed objectives. This may be done by asking partic-
ipants, “If you are successful in [achieving objective X], what changes
will you see? What will be different in [2 months’ time, 6 months’ time,
2 years’] time?”
3. Researchers may also suggest indicators they think are important for mon-
itoring, and explain the reasons why (e.g., they are complementary to
farmers’ indicators, help to capture outcomes of importance to the pro-
ject—such as equity or sustainability, etc.).
4. Researchers and farmers agree which indicators will be monitored by
whom, and how.
5. Researchers and farmers jointly develop an action plan to articulate the
activities to be undertaken, who is responsible for each, the timeframe and
plans for feedback of findings to the wider group (including for researchers
to share any findings from the scientific or local indicators they are charged
with monitoring).
This approach is again illustrated by the porcupine case from Areka, where sci-
entific methods were used for unbiased sampling and systematic data collection
in the monitoring of local indicators through formal household surveys, and
the results shared back with farmers to enable them to take appropriate actions.
Farmers were asked to identify local indicators for assessing performance of
the activity. These included levels of crop loss for crops that are economically
important and susceptible to attack, time spent and number of family members
involved in guarding fields at night, and incidence of weather-related illness
resulting from high levels of exposure to the elements when keeping watch of
fields by night. These were measured by research across a representative num-
ber of households, and results compiled (Figure 3.8).
The most marked livelihood benefits were found to result from reduced
crop damage, improved health, and labor savings. Levels of crop damage were
reduced by 80 percent following intervention, while frequency of visits to
health clinics as a result of weather-related illness also declined. Yet one of the
most important successes in the minds of farmers was the reduction in efforts
required to guard fields at night. Such an indicator could have been easily over-
looked had scientists been the only ones to identify indicators to be monitored,
yet it was the most critical success in the minds of farmers.
140 Laura German et al.
Another example of formal monitoring, using a combination of local and sci-
entific indicators to track spontaneous farmer-to-farmer spread of technologies,
was presented in Chapter 2.
Approach 3—Participatory M&E at R&D team level
“Participatory” M&E or self-reflection at the level of R&D teams is also
necessary for a number of reasons. First, it helps to align activities with speci-
fied objectives, community facilitation processes, and research protocols.
Implementation is always easier in theory (during planning) than in practice;
therefore, self-reflection among R&D teams is an important component to
backstopping community-led efforts. It also helps to monitor contributions
from different organizations and team members, to ensure that all team mem-
bers are fulfilling their roles and responsibilities. Finally, and perhaps most
important for AHI, it has served as a platform for team learning and innovation
by fostering group reflection, cross-checking of assumptions, and fine-tuning
how different disciplinary perspectives are articulated within community facili-
tation and research practice.
In AHI, “participatory” or self-monitoring was conducted largely through
periodic meetings among R&D teams. These meetings consisted of reflections
on progress made since the last meeting, discussions on how to improve team
performance and innovate in line with program objectives and community
priorities, and to adjust work plans accordingly. The content of reflections
included both the technical content of watershed work (for example, to col-
lectively assess the extent to which behaviors reflect principles of participation
and integration) and the approach to teamwork itself. The latter might include,
for example, joint reflection on the extent to which the team is simply plan-
ning together as opposed to learning together in the field. For reflections on
Changes observed
Sweet
potato
damage
(kg)
Yam
damage
(kg)
Time spent
policing
(hrs/night)
Number of
family
members
involved/night
Number of
visits to health
center/night
25
20
15
10
5
0
Before
After
Indicator
FIGURE 3.8 Observed impacts from collective action in porcupine control
Participatory integrated watershed management 141
how the team as a whole is interfacing with watershed communities to foster
change, a process documentation methodology was used to facilitate systematic
reflection on the same. This methodology is illustrated in Box 3.19.
BOX 3.19 FORMAT FOR PROCESS DOCUMENTATION
I. Prior to any activity or step (planning stage):
Objective: What are you trying to achieve in the particular community inter-
vention being planned for?
Approach: What is it that you will do to achieve the objective? (What steps will
be taken? Why did you choose these steps? Who will you involve, and why?)
II. Following any activity or step (reflection stage):
Approach: What did you actually do to achieve the objective? [The planning
process for such community events is rarely complete, as there are always unfore-
seeable circumstances that affect the facilitation process. How was the approach
modified during the event itself to accommodate these changes, and why?]
Successes and challenges: What went well? What did not go well? [This should
include reflections of the successes and stumbling blocks faced by the com-
munities or stakeholders since the last meeting, as well those faced in the
facilitation process itself. It should also include observation of why these suc-
cesses and challenges occurred, providing lessons for others wishing to learn
from your experience.]
Findings: What did you learn that you did not know before? [These findings
are generally derived from statements about reality made by farmers or other
participants, which were new to the facilitators.]
Resolutions: What decisions were taken by participants? [These should include
agreements reached by the participants about the principles behind the work,
and about the way forward.]
Lessons: What lessons or insights can be derived from these experiences to
share with others trying to carry out similar activities? [These should include
things you were surprised to find out, both about the approach that was used
to engage with communities and about the findings.]
Recommendations: Replanning. [Here the team should reflect on what they would
do the same and differently next time to build upon successes and overcome
challenges faced during implementation. This can be for the benefit of the team
itself in terms of approving outcomes from similar activities to be conducted in
other locales, or for purposes of sharing experiences with a wider audience.]
142 Laura German et al.
The following case studies help to illustrate the importance of frequent moni-
toring at the R&D team level. The first illustrates use of R&D team monitoring
to learn lessons in the field, and the second the importance of continuous
monitoring of team performance to achieve greater integration of disciplines,
perspectives, and system components.
Case 1—Use of process documentation tool to reflect on methods for multi-
stakeholder negotiation
The process documentation tool presented in Box 3.19 has proven to be
an important tool for fostering learning at the level of R&D teams on
approaches under development. It has been used as a means to operation-
alize action research—namely, to learn lessons “what works, where, and
why.” Such a tool can assist in advancing iterative, cumulative learning
over time on any given case, or to learn lessons across cases on a particular
set of approaches, such as the facilitation of multi-stakeholder negotiation
processes. For the latter, cross-case comparison could contrast a set of facili-
tation approaches when applied in different landscape niches (springs, farm
boundaries, and waterways), different topics (niche-compatible agroforestry,
free grazing, soil and water conservation) or different contexts (districts,
countries, agro-ecological zones). Ultimately, it assists R&D teams to reflect
on learning and to decipher emerging patterns. These patterns might be
seen through iteration—a sequential approach to learning in which differ-
ent approaches are tested over time, evaluated and modified as needed to
address weaknesses. In this approach, outcomes obtained at different stages
of the innovation process are observed to distil key points in time—and
elements of the approach being applied at that point in time—that brought
the most profound change. They may also be deciphered through compari-
son—namely, trying a similar approach across different cases and observing
how theme, stakeholder characteristics, or context influence the outcomes
in each case.
An example of a process documentation output helps to illustrate how the
methodology is used in practice (Box 3.20). This case documents a single
meeting in which two stakeholders—the Sakharani Mission and neighboring
farmers—were brought together to negotiate more socially optimal land-use
practices to address latent conflict. The event followed preliminary activities
to diagnose watershed problems from farmers’ perspectives, ethnoscientific
research to document local knowledge on the properties of different tree
species and their positive and negative effects within different niches, and
preliminary stakeholder consultations.
Participatory integrated watershed management 143
BOX 3.20 PROCESS DOCUMENTATION OF MULTI-
STAKEHOLDER NEGOTIATIONS FOR THE SAKHARANI
BOUNDARY CASE
I. Prior to activity/step
Objective: To advance multi-stakeholder dialogue and planning for improved
management of the Sakarani boundary.
Approach (as planned):
1. Call together stakeholders (Sakharani farm manager, affected farm-
ers, and local leaders from neighboring villages) for multi-stakeholder
negotiations.
2. Share steps carried out so far (and findings): (i) Participatory watershed
diagnosis (competition of eucalyptus planted on farm boundaries with
crops and water); (ii) Research on local knowledge (niches needing
improved management, species causing problems, niche compatibility
criteria of farmers); (iii) Stakeholder consultations with Sakharani and
neighboring villages.
3. Solicit reactions and clarification from participants.
4. Negotiate “binding” criteria for tree species selection by prioritizing the
most important in the list of niche compatibility criteria mentioned by each
stakeholder (farmers: improves soil fertility, produces few seeds, crop-com-
patible, small shade, does not dry soil; Sakharani: secures boundary, fast
growing, coppices, few branches, good for fuel, lumber, and income).
5. Identify tree species that fit combined criteria.
6. Develop work plan with activities (what?), responsibilities (who?) and
timeline (when?).
II. Following activity/step
Approach (as actually carried out):
● Rather than negotiate “binding” criteria, we went directly to the nego-
tiation of tree species acceptable to both parties, as it was conceptually
easier for both parties.
● We did not plan the “when” in work plans, owing to time limitations and
the need to consult more people before making specific work plans.
144 Laura German et al.
Successes and challenges:
● [S]: The event successfully overcame the communication impasse and led
to agreements to address the latent conflict.
● [S]: The outcome was favorable to both parties, as it addressed concerns
of both.
● [C]: Representation of different hamlets was not good; the meeting
dragged on for long.
Findings:
● Sakarani rejected peach as a boundary tree (because fruits would attract
villagers), resulting in the addition of a new “binding” criterion to the list.
● Mtalawanda (Markhamia obustifolia) has drawbacks for both stakeholders
(slow growing, produces many seeds), but advantages outweighed disad-
vantages (height, limited branching, and shade, compatibility, life span).
● Agrocarpus is not a good boundary tree because its roots invade farmland
and compete with crops.
Resolutions:
● To replace eucalyptus with Mtalawanda.
● To hold a second meeting with all farmers bordering Sakharani to discuss
a detailed plan for the felling of eucalyptus and managing tree seedlings,
to be called by the Village Executive Officer.
● A host of technical and policy solutions for rehabilitation of springs and
waterways (buffer zones, water-conserving vegetation, by-law reforms
and enforcement).
Lessons/Insights:
● Terminology matters, either polarizing the issues (e.g., “stakeholder”) or
minimizing conflict (“party”).
● Use of language to manage power dynamics is essential, for example
acknowledging the property rights of the landowner by asking him
whether he can accommodate the concerns of the other party.
● Crucial role of a third party to bring dialogue in situations of latent con-
flict, and the power of simple dialogue in unlocking deadlock.
● It is easier to discuss niche-compatible species than niche compatibility
criteria.
Participatory integrated watershed management 145
By observing and documenting these experiences through iteration (sequential
phases of innovation and learning on the same case), we learned a number of
important lessons. The first is that it is essential to involve the right authorities
in decision-making. Failure to involve Fathers higher up in the Benedictine
order caused difficulties for the farm manager when it came to implementing
agreements. A second lesson is the need for detailed planning, for example
going beyond criteria to guide the sequence of tree felling (i.e., where trees
posed a risk to households, followed by areas where trees posed a risk to crop-
land) to specific locations. Early efforts by the Mission to fell trees did little to
address the safety concerns of one particular farmer whose house continues to
be at risk from boundary trees. Finally, close follow-up monitoring by a neutral
party or local authority is required to ensure agreements are implemented and
operationalized. In addition to the aforementioned complaints about the loca-
tion of felled trees, local residents and leaders experienced difficulty in holding
the Mission accountable, given how they benefited from a host of services
(schools, worship, etc.) provided by the Mission.
By observing and documenting these experiences through comparison with
other cases (multi-stakeholder negotiations for managing other niches, topics,
and contexts), some of the above lessons were confirmed and other new les-
sons learned. Lessons that were confirmed include the need for detailed plans
of action and systems for follow-up monitoring. Other lessons consolidated
through comparison are the fundamental importance of a respected neutral
party to convene and facilitate multi-stakeholder events; the need to develop
formal by-laws to back up resolutions involving high “stakes” (for example,
in the case of lost income); and the importance of legal texts in supporting or
undermining negotiations. Formal laws may support the inalienable rights of
landowners, thus undermining any concessions agreed to by the landowner
once he or she learns of these rights. Alternatively, formal laws on environ-
mental protection can render illegal those land-use practices that undermine
the provision of environmental services, thus bolstering the claims of parties
negatively affected by these practices (as in the case of spring degradation).
Recommendations:
● Move directly from sharing the niche compatibility criteria of each stake-
holder to negotiating species acceptable to both parties. Return to specific
criteria only if solutions are not forthcoming.
● Divide approach into several steps: a) preliminary dialogue with tenta-
tive solutions, b) broader consultations (follow-up meetings with affected
farmers), and c) development of final work plans.
146 Laura German et al.
Case 2—The importance of R&D Team monitoring and evaluation to
strengthen integrated research
Multidisciplinary teamwork where different professionals from different insti-
tutions and personal backgrounds come together to address common issues
is one of the new ways of working that has been adopted by AHI. This
was necessitated by the reality that NRM issues confronting highland farm-
ers in eastern Africa require holistic solutions that go beyond specific system
components (crops, soil, trees, livestock) to integrated ecological processes,
and beyond technologies to encompass collective action, marketing, policy
reforms, and new forms of institutional behavior and cooperation. However,
multidisciplinary team leaders faced many challenges when trying to foster
collaborative efforts, including team members who were reluctant to learn or
value other team members’ disciplines, the tendency of scientists to pursue
questions of interest within the confines of their own disciplines, and limited
institutional support (Mowo et al., 2006; see also Pirrie et al., 1998). Other
institutional bottlenecks included the lack of an incentive scheme that recog-
nizes and rewards team work and team products. The imbalance in skills and
experience among team members was also a challenge in efforts to foster col-
lective understanding. In extreme cases, some individuals never believed in the
potential of multidisciplinary research and pulled out of the team altogether to
pursue more conventional forms of research.
With experience gained through time, and with the use of outcome map-
ping techniques (see www.idrc.ca) and facilitated M&E sessions at team level,
changes were observed in a number of areas. Reduced antagonism among
disciplines, increased leadership competence and willingness to explore more
holistic research questions and methods were among the most notable changes
observed. Therefore, project-level M&E to reflect on team performance in
addition to the end goal (e.g., community engagement and related outcomes)
is a crucial dimension of monitoring.
Lessons learned
The following lessons were derived from AHI experiences with participatory
M&E:
● Participatory M&E at multiple levels (community, R&D team) is instru-
mental in ensuring any change process is successful, given the need to
proactively reflect on challenges faced and the approaches being used to
address these challenges or reach the agreed end goal.
● Stakeholder-based processes for participatory M&E at community level
can be useful in capturing diverse perspectives on the effectiveness of
approaches, and on the winners and losers of any intervention.
Participatory integrated watershed management 147
● The frequency of community-level participatory M&E events must be
adapted to the activity at hand (frequent for tree nurseries, for example,
because poor group performance can within days lead to death of seed-
lings), the stage of implementation (more frequent at early stages, for
example, when farmers and team members are beginning to learn how to
work together) and the complexity of the challenge (Box 3.21).
● Regular monitoring of the performance of R&D teams with respect to the
use of integrated and participatory approaches is essential for ensuring their
continued use in practice, given high levels of specialization of disciplines,
institutional mandates and mindsets.
BOX 3.21 “DON’T GIVE UP!”: THE IMPORTANCE OF
SUSTAINED MONITORING TO ADDRESS CHALLENGES
Perhaps the most challenging watershed activity in all AHI benchmark sites
has been to facilitate outfield intensification in the Ginchi benchmark site.
The reasons behind this relatively intractable challenge, as described in prior
case studies, include low tenure security from histories of land reform and
limitations on private property rights, seasons of restricted and open access
to private farmland, and limited options for livestock feed. For such a chal-
lenging task, R&D teams must work closely with watershed communities to
design and redesign innovation strategies, and to monitor their effectiveness
in practice. Participatory planning and monitoring highlighted a host of chal-
lenges farmers face when struggling to innovate and intensify their outfields.
If farmers were to fence outfield plots owned by the household, they would
face an insurmountable barrier of sourcing alternative feed, since they would
be restricted from accessing the fallowed plots of other farmers and the cul-
tivation of fodder crops would compete with food crops. Collective action
in reducing free grazing was also seen as inviable given that many livestock
come from distant villages and fostering collective action at that scale is nearly
impossible. Farmers finally agreed to construct soil bunds, plant soil stabilizers
along them and manually protect them from livestock damage by guarding
the fields and fencing seedlings. This was tested in the 2005 growing sea-
son, but since this approach was labor intensive, most of the seedlings were
destroyed from grazing livestock (Table 3.15). In the 2006 season, follow-
up monitoring and negotiations led farmers to agree to test local by-laws to
restrict free grazing in selected sub-catchment areas until conservation bunds
and trees were established, and then shift these areas to gradually cover the
entire watershed. The agreement also included the testing of new tree spe-
cies along bunds. While the approach worked during the rainy season (when
outfield areas are under cropland or restricted access grazing), it broke down
during the dry season when open access grazing is practiced. Follow-up
148 Laura German et al.
Under such extreme challenges, what options remain? One could simply give
up, in which case a problem affecting huge portions of Ethiopia where some of
the poorest in the world live would remain largely unresolved. Alternatively, one
could utilize empirical data showing the linkage between tenure security and lev-
els of farmer investments in sustainable NRM to advocate for structural changes
such as improved property rights. While this was something to be considered, it
also posed major challenges and would require complementary innovations in
the free grazing system in order to bring about changes in land use. The team
therefore decided to make one more attempt to solve the problem locally, namely
through use of an economic “pull” that might induce outfield innovation. They
decided to introduce high-value trees (apple) as an incentive for outfield intensifi-
cation. The problem faced at the time of writing was that the team failed to make
technology delivery conditional on certain types of management (e.g., that they
be planted in outfields) and farmers have largely planted seedlings in infield plots.
So the question remains as to whether this will be a viable option for inducing
outfield innovation in the Ginchi site, or whether other options such as strong
enforcement of local resolutions might also work. The “take home” messages
from this case study are: (i) ensure and build on early successes so that farmer
engagement with tough challenges can be sustained; (ii) frequent monitoring of
local and scientific indicators can be useful for guiding new approaches; and (iii)
“don’t give up” when addressing tough watershed challenges!
Addressing implementation challenges
Timely monitoring at all levels can go a long way in increasing the chances of
success in watershed management. However, it is also useful to acknowledge
monitoring elucidated farmers’ concern about equity issues—namely, that
only those landowners falling within the protected sub-catchment benefiting
in the short term from restricted grazing, as well as a strong reluctance to fol-
low through with agreements.
TABLE 3.15 Seedling performance under diverse outfield intensification strategies
% seedling survival by species
Season Species End of rainy season End of dry season
Jun 05–May 06 Chamacytisus palmensis 83 2.3
Acacia decurrens 68 1.8
Jun 06–May 07 Chamacytisus palmensis 92 0.5
Vetiveria zizanioides 98 10
Pennisetum purpureum 89 0
Participatory integrated watershed management 149
that some challenges are likely to arise under the best of monitoring systems,
and to explore what AHI has learned in our efforts to address them. A few key
challenges stand out and merit specific attention here.
Approach development
In this section, approaches are presented according to the nature of key challenges
faced.
Challenge 1—Overcoming historical and “structural” constraints
A number of challenges faced in participatory landscape-level innovation emerge
from historical or higher-level “structural” constraints. Historical constraints have
included legacies from the colonial era in British East Africa, where conservation
methods were enforced from above through violent means. This entrenched
a very negative attitude in people’s minds towards soil conservation. In an act
of defiance, all structures were systematically destroyed at independence. In
Ethiopia, histories of land reform and shifting land tenure policies through feudal,
socialist, and contemporary eras have instilled a sense of tenure insecurity in the
minds of farmers, causing them to resist any conservation investments in the less
secure outfield areas. While the government promises no future land reforms, the
experience of shifting governance systems overrides any security farmers may feel
over land rights. Land insecurity resulting from de-gazettement of protected areas
for resettlement of prior indigenous residents has created similar problems of ten-
ure insecurity in the Kapchorwa site, undermining land investments. Approaches
to break through the cognitive and psychological barriers to innovation are often
needed to help overcome such entrenched, historically grounded attitudes pos-
ing barriers to innovation (Box 3.22).
BOX 3.22 SEEING IS BELIEVING: THE IMPORTANCE
OF CROSS-SITE VISITS IN EXPANDING FARMERS’
MENTAL MODELS ON “WHAT IS POSSIBLE”
At times, farmers’ understanding of “what could be” is largely constrained by
“what is.” The landscape in Ginchi and much of highland Ethiopia is almost devoid
of trees, and biomass and enterprise diversity is extremely low (see Plate 10). For
farmers to imagine a conserved landscape with controlled grazing and diverse
crop and tree enterprises requires a very big leap of the imagination. Field visits
to Konso, where terraced landscapes and a diversity of enterprises at plot and
farm level are the norm, opened farmers’ eyes to “what could be” (see Plate 11).
As stated by Atu Yirga Tafu, a Ginchi farmer, “If I had not been to this place I
would not have believed human beings can construct the whole district in such
an artistic manner.” Others expressed their surprise at the number of crops they
were unfamiliar with and the number of different crops growing in a single plot.
150 Laura German et al.
Other historical constraints have included failed development efforts from past
administrations or projects, making farmers reluctant to trust outside actors.
Hand-outs used by past or concurrent projects and histories of aid (food and
cash for work programs) have inculcated a “dependency syndrome” in some
sites (Areka, Kabale), undermining voluntary contributions by farmers and
causing farmers to focus on “quick fixes” rather than more comprehensive
development strategies. In some cases, traditional norms and beliefs hinder
effective solutions, as in the aforementioned case of communal grazing areas in
Areka or the case of male-dominated decision-making, land tenure and man-
agement of household finances in much of the region.
Structural constraints are those factors largely beyond the control of com-
munities which nevertheless influence the extent to which problems may
be readily solved. Such structural constraints included national policies (i.e.,
government land tenure in Ethiopia, which has a similar effect on farmers’ will-
ingness to invest in their land as prior government appropriation of land during
land reform programs), poor market opportunities and infrastructure which
make agriculture less profitable than other livelihood options, and institutional
practice which undermines equitable and effective development. Examples of
such institutional practices included a bias toward wealthy male farmers in
many agricultural extension programs, failure of research and development
organizations and different sectors to work in partnership, and the demoniza-
tion of indigenous knowledge, beliefs, and behaviors through modernization
and its institutions (religious, educational, agricultural, etc.). A final institu-
tional constraint emerged from efforts to step outside standard institutional
mandates to embrace broader dimensions of NRM based on the “integration”
concept, as observed by the Holetta Agricultural Research Centre (HARC)
when using spring development as a watershed entry point (Box 3.23).
BOX 3.23 ADMINISTRATIVE HURDLES FACED WHEN
STEPPING OUTSIDE SECTORAL MANDATES
The participatory approach to watershed diagnosis challenged AHI partners—
largely agricultural research and extension organizations—to step outside
their normal institutional mandates. The compartmentalized nature of institu-
tional mandates caused a host of bureaucratic challenges. When proposing to
use spring construction as an entry point for watershed interventions—to raise
farmer confidence in AHI and catalyze their interest in other water-conserving
catchment management practices—research center officials (administrators,
finance heads, and auditors) expressed concern. Their main reservation was
that HARC has no mandate to carry out such construction activities without
the knowledge and permission of the engineering department within their
umbrella organization, the Ethiopian Institute of Agricultural Research (EIAR).
Participatory integrated watershed management 151
Many of these constraints have not been overcome, making progress slow in
addressing certain locally felt NRM concerns. However, progress has been
made in some areas to either minimize the extent to which these problems
hinder solutions, or to address problems despite these hindrances. One promi-
nent example comes from the Ginchi site. Histories of land reforms and public
land ownership in the country and traditions of open access grazing in the site
have jointly undermined farmer investment in outfields. However, cross-site
visits to areas that have been intensified despite the odds have opened farmers’
eyes to what is possible, and increased their enthusiasm for working within
these broader constraints to improve their livelihoods by making better use
of existing resources. Following feedback meetings to share these discoveries
with other watershed residents, enthusiasm was much higher for developing
and testing collective solutions to the outfield dilemma. Another example
comes from efforts to counter the dependency and apathy resulting from a
prolonged history of hand-outs from development actors and top-down deci-
sion-making from government. Continuous efforts to facilitate farmers to think
Because of this, HARC requested EIAR for their endorsement of and support to
spring construction. Being the first time EIAR and its engineering department
had receive such a request, they were unsure how to respond. They raised
questions such as:
1. Do construction works for spring management fall within the mandate of
agricultural research?
2. Since the springs along with the construction materials will be handed
over to the community and Bureau of Water Resources, how will they be
registered? Will this create a problem for official transfer of property and
for internal audits?
These complexities forced the site coordinator to make frequent trips (about
10 in all) to Addis Ababa to convince officials of the need to support this activ-
ity, and to follow through with the diverse administrative procedures. Finally,
by presenting coherent arguments for the logic of spring construction in the
context of integrated watershed management, Deputy Director Generals for
Research and Administration approved the request.
While a more logical approach would be to reach out to ministries with a
relevant mandate, this was ineffective as the selected watershed site fell out-
side their priority areas of operation (largely urban). This case study therefore
shows that agricultural research and development agencies must be in a posi-
tion to reach out to district partners and expand their institutional mandates
when engaging in a holistic approach to landscape-level NRM.
152 Laura German et al.
for themselves and solve their own problems have changed farmers’ attitudes,
boosted their confidence in working collectively on their problems, increased
their willingness to experiment and, ultimately, improved their livelihoods.
Challenges remain, however, in finding a suitable institutional model for sus-
taining such heavy facilitation efforts. Closer partnerships between research
and development institutions and training of community facilitators at the local
level are promising options.
Challenge 2—Managing complexity
Managing landscape-level processes in an integrated and participatory manner
is a complex task. AHI’s approach went beyond soil and water management to
encompass agroforestry, crop and livestock production, water management for
domestic purposes (water harvesting, spring protection), energy, markets, and the
social and governance dimensions of each of these. Since farmers had an interest
in each of these areas, many activities were ongoing at any given time. Some
activities also had to be aligned with the seasons, requiring rigid implementa-
tion schedules. This was at times hindered by slow administrative procedures
within R&D organizations and limited availability of required materials (i.e.,
seedlings of certain tree species), among other factors. Social, economic, and
political life outside agriculture is also rich in rural communities, with many
activities competing for farmers’ time. Learning how to sequence, coordinate,
and harmonize activities in time and space given each of these factors is challeng-
ing. Very detailed and consultative planning at the outset, including activities to
be conducted, their timing and well-defined roles and responsibilities can assist in
this regard, as can frequent replanning to adjust actions with emerging realities.
One challenge which is difficult to overcome was the tendency for develop-
ment processes to be embedded within projects of short duration and overly
influenced by external institutional mandates. While landscape-level NRM takes
time, periods of donor funding were limited to a few years at a time. The impli-
cation is that it is important to set realistic plans with donors in terms of the time
required for any given change process to unfold and to bring significant impact.
Time horizons must be set on the basis of whether methods are to be adopted
from elsewhere and simply applied, or whether the project aims to engage in a
process of action research and methodological innovation—which takes con-
siderably longer. If the former, we estimate that 3 to 5 years may be sufficient if
facilitators are adequately experienced and thus able to quickly gain rapport with
farmers, and if they receive prior training in INRM approaches.
The participatory nature of the watershed management approach used by AHI
also required strategic balancing of attention to activities bringing short- and long-
term benefits to community members. First, in contexts characterized by high
levels of rural poverty, NRM strategies needed to be grounded in immediate
livelihood concerns such as food security. Thus, efforts to address NRM chal-
lenges bringing only medium- or long-term benefits required that interventions
Participatory integrated watershed management 153
be accompanied by strategies to address the immediate needs of farmers. Second,
no extended periods of time should pass without farmers seeing any benefit from
watershed management activities so as to sustain their interest. If approaches used
for watershed exploration took time, for example, it was necessary to identify
and apply entry points based on identified priorities of farmers to sustain commu-
nity interest and build trust. Since some activities take many years for benefits to
be seen (e.g., soil fertility improvements through reduced erosion, groundwater
recharge from conservation structures and niche-compatible trees), the concur-
rent implementation of activities with short-, medium- and long-term benefits
is required. In AHI sites, activities with short-term benefits (e.g., spring protec-
tion, dissemination of proven varieties) were conducted alongside activities with
benefits derived over the medium-term (e.g., technology and by-laws for niche-
compatible agroforestry) and long-term (e.g., soil and water conservation).
Another dimension of complexity emanated from efforts to work in teams
with people from different institutional, sectoral, and disciplinary backgrounds
through team work and partnerships. Different disciplines working in R&D
teams, for example, had different views on the meaning of watershed manage-
ment and strategies to be used. The tendency to “disintegrate” into areas of
disciplinary expertise was strong and had to be continuously reflected upon as
a team and addressed for teams to come together toward integrated solutions.
This extended down into the specific research questions and variables to be
tracked by researchers, who tended to focus on research questions, methods
and variables from within their own areas of expertise rather than integrated
research protocols. This problem extended to the participatory nature of
research, which should ensure farmers’ priority variables (which tend to cut
across disciplinary boundaries) are brought on board within formal and action
research. Strategies that helped to overcome these barriers to more effective
collaboration included regular review and planning meetings to reflect on the
approach being used, participatory monitoring with farmers, and an official
“policy” within AHI to work through partnerships and interdisciplinary teams.
Challenge 3—Social justice and equity
A final area that presented substantial challenges was in managing equitable
approaches to participatory landscape-level innovation. This challenges stems
from both the realities on the ground and the approaches used to bring change.
Highly polarized local interests in NRM make natural resource management
a political process in terms of who wins and who loses from current land-use
practices and related innovations. The challenge lies in bringing solutions that
benefit multiple parties at the same time, or maximize the benefits for most
land users while minimizing the cost to any given party. External institutions
often have a role in favoring some local land users over others owing to their
failure to consider equity and monitor effects on different local groups. These
issues will be discussed in greater detail in Chapter 4.
154 Laura German et al.
Lessons learned
The following lessons were distilled from efforts to address challenges that arise
through implementation:
● Constraints emanating from historical and “structural” influences at higher
levels may at times represent significant constraints to INRM.
● The dependency syndrome and negative attitudes stemming from past
experience can be overcome, but it requires continuous sensitization (most
notably, through cross-site visits, see Box 3.22), dialogue and observing
concrete improvements among early innovators.
● Multidisciplinary teams do not ensure interdisciplinary approaches. It is
easier for diverse research disciplines to work toward disciplinary aims
when on multidisciplinary teams than to work toward integrated solu-
tions. Sensitization and frequent reflection meetings at the level of R&D
teams are necessary (but not sufficient) to overcome disciplinary barriers
to interdisciplinary team work and integrated approaches. Political support
and performance review systems that reward multidisciplinary approaches
and results are also important.
● Agricultural research mandates focusing more on research than on devel-
opment concerns, and having a narrow productivity focus, hinder action
research and integrated approaches to addressing landscape-level problems.
● Achieving equitable solutions to landscape-level NRM requires foster-
ing synergies between governance and technological interventions. It also
requires behavioral change among external R&D actors in the way they
interface with rural communities (to proactively avoid elite capture and
foster equitable benefits capture) and monitor outcomes (so as to capture
socially differentiated effects). Additional details on the empirical basis for
this lesson may be found in Chapter 4.
● Frequent monitoring and replanning at local and R&D team levels is of
fundamental importance to adaptive learning in addressing complex NRM
challenges.
Missing links
Addressing landscape-level livelihood and natural resource management con-
cerns of farmers is a challenging task. Substantial progress has been made by
AHI in the eastern African highlands in identifying approaches to operational-
ize participatory landscape-level innovation, including methods for participatory
problem diagnosis and prioritization, participatory planning, and participatory
management of change (including monitoring and adjustment). Scientific meth-
ods to support these processes have also been articulated and refined, including
setting baselines for subsequent impact assessment, delineating and characterizing
watersheds (methods developed largely outside of AHI but refined internally),
Participatory integrated watershed management 155
embedding scientific research in locally owned change processes, and supporting
local change through facilitation and support in addressing common imple-
mentation challenges. However, there are a number of methodological gaps for
coming full circle in our efforts to operationalize participatory landscape-level
innovation. These gaps highlight a number of priorities for future research and
methodological innovation in AHI and the region at large.
1. “Minimalist” approach to watershed characterization. While all of the data col-
lected during the watershed characterization was useful to researchers,
who may generate ample material for publications, not all of it is directly
relevant to planning, monitoring, or impact assessment. This approach can
be simplified so that the minimum data needed to identify opportunities,
develop strategies, and monitor performance is collected at this time. This
can minimize farmer “fatigue” and make more efficient use of financial
and human resources.
2. Hybrid approach to participatory watershed diagnosis and planning. Different
approaches employed for participatory watershed diagnosis, prioritization,
and planning each had their respective strengths and weaknesses. It is likely
that “hybrid” approaches building on the strengths of each will be better
than any of these approaches in isolation, and efforts should be dedicated
to testing such approaches in practice.
3. Sequencing of steps in R&D team planning for landscape integration. As inte-
grated R&D protocols are developed at the level of R&D teams, they need
to be continuously informed by participatory decision-making processes
involving the intended beneficiaries. This is done not only through par-
ticipatory planning around previously identified watershed problems, but
also by continuously cross-checking assumptions about the most relevant
causal processes to serve as the organizing logic for clustering, the most
appropriate approaches for community facilitation and the most critical
research questions. For example, while biophysical scientists and exten-
sion practitioners may emphasize a biophysical logic for clustering, farmers
may use different rationales for clustering focusing on social or economic
processes. Local residents may also perceive different research priorities
than researchers, based on what they know to be critical gaps in their
knowledge base. Beneficiary groups and communities should increasingly
assume decision authority as the range of possible meanings and uses of
“research” come to light and as local capacities to design and monitor
change processes are improved. More research is needed on how to effec-
tively sequence participatory, community-level planning with planning at
the level of R&D teams. Ultimately, the latter should build upon (during
the design phase) and support (during implementation and synthesis of les-
sons) community-level objectives and decision-making.
4. Participatory approach to generating functional R&D clusters. Another knowledge
gap in the planning stage is the extent to which the creation of functional
156 Laura German et al.
R&D clusters can be made a fully participatory activity with communities.
This would go a long way in addressing the aforementioned sequencing issues
in R&D team planning. To what extent can farmers develop, with minimal
external assistance from research and development actors, fully integrated
action plans at watershed levels that foster “win–wins” in livelihood and
environment, and optimal returns to different social actors (based on gender,
wealth, ethnicity, or specific sets of interests vis-à-vis what is being planned)?
What is the optimal distribution of planning responsibilities between com-
munities and R&D teams? These questions should form the basis of future
research and methodological innovation in this area.
5. Testing of integrated solutions to difficult landscape-level challenges. The means
to address the multiple challenges of intensification in Ethiopian out-
fields remains a challenge. Innovative or multifaceted solutions should
be explored, including the use of incentives (e.g., conditional delivery of
high-value crops and trees, payments for environmental services, among
others), regulations (e.g., policies to control livestock movement, sup-
port the implementation of local agreements, or link incentives to specific
problem niches), and institutional innovations (e.g., fostering collective
action at higher levels, privatization of tenure conditional on good land
management, innovations within support agencies). Multidisciplinary and
multi-institutional teams with a strong sense of dedication to the process
are an essential component, as are “systems thinkers” (from both the com-
munity and the facilitation team) who can help to think outside the box.
6. Adaptive testing of proven approaches in other highland sites and agro-ecological zones.
While methods already developed within AHI have only been field-tested
in the eastern African highlands, they are likely to be of wider applicabil-
ity as they were generated in multiple contexts and address challenges that
are widespread. This suggests that the methods are likely to be relevant to
other highland areas throughout the tropics and, for some issues, perhaps
also other eco-regions (e.g., densely settled lowlands). A missing link which
is likely to yield high returns with limited effort is therefore the adaptive
testing and modification of these methods in new settings. We welcome
opportunities to partner with other R&D actors within the region and else-
where to expand the learning process in this regard.
Conclusions
This chapter illustrates a sequential series of methodologies for facilitating a pro-
cess of participatory watershed entry, diagnosis, management, and governance.
While the process is complex and challenging, it also yields rich rewards for rural
livelihoods, sustainable natural resource management, and more harmonious
relationships within densely settled highland communities. While the approaches
presented here are ready for uptake by other organizations, there is need for more
experimentation with the various approaches presented—so that strategies may
Participatory integrated watershed management 157
be refined to meet the unique circumstances of different countries and localities.
And, as always with any sort of methodological or institutional innovation, pilot
first and scale up later!! Only with such experimentation can the necessary lessons
be learned that will enable programs to avoid propagating errors and instead dis-
seminate methods proven to work in a variety of settings.
Notes
1 These included farmers with prior involvement in NRM Task Forces supported through
prior efforts of CIAT and AHI in Rubaya Sub-County, Watershed Management
Committees who had worked with Africare in Hamurwa Sub-County, soil conservation
groups who had worked with NEMA in Bubaare and individuals from new villages with
severe environmental problems.
2 In two sub-counties where villages were closer to one another, the village-level NRMPCs
decided to form higher-level coalitions to work jointly on common NRM challenges,
electing smaller committees to coordinate work across several villages.
3 In some AHI benchmark sites, there is no such distinction between upslope and downslope
households, either because most farmers hold land in different parts of the landscape or
because the landholdings of different households are arranged in strips from the hilltop to
valley bottom. In villages where some farmers hold land in multiple landscape locations
while others hold land in only one locations (e.g., upslope or downslope), farmers whose
perspectives are likely to be most different from other households—in this case, with
plots restricted to single landscape locations—are called together for consultation.
4 Focus group discussions are less time consuming than household surveys for ranking water-
shed priorities. However, individual ranking ensures that diverse views are better captured,
as dominant individuals will always influence what final number is put on paper.
5 A key gap in AHI methods development is in the testing of such “clustering” methods
at community level to see to what extent fully integrated watershed action plans can be
generated with minimal outside assistance. This should constitute a priority for future
R&D interventions.
6 Issues denoted by parentheses are those that would be only partially addressed through
interventions focused on the cluster of issues, because they are partially the result of issues
beyond local control.
7 Clearly, the identification of such functional clusters requires a relatively intimate knowl-
edge of the system. It is important to note that this knowledge can be provided by either
farmers or researchers who have been working in the system in a participatory manner
for some time. We would encourage the exploration of both options when applying this
methodology in new sites.
References
Ashby, J.A., J.A. Sanz, E.B. Knapp and A. Imbach (1999) CIAT’s Research on Hillside
Environments in Central America. Mountain Research and Development 19(3): 2–18.
Bellamy, J.A., G.T. McDonald and G.J. Syme (1998) Evaluating Integrated Resource
Management. Society & Natural Resources 12: 337–53.
Chambers, R. (1994) Participatory rural appraisal: Analysis of experience. World Development
22(9): 1253–1268.
Constantz, G. (2000) Grassroots-based Watershed Conservation in Central Appalachia.
Mountain Research and Development 20(2):122–25.
158 Laura German et al.
Datta, S.K. and K.J. Virgo (1998) Towards Sustainable Watershed Development through
People’s Participation: Lessons from the Lesser Himalaya, Uttar Pradesh, India. Mountain
Research and Development 18(3): 213–33. FAO-UNESCO (1987) Soils of the World. Food
and Agriculture Organization and United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural
Organization, New York: Elsevier Science.
De, R. and S.P. Singh (1999) Watershed Development Imperatives for Boosting Rainfed Agricultural
Productivity – An Indian Experience. New Delhi: Indian Council of Agricultural Research.
German, L. (2006) Moving beyond component research in mountain regions: Operationalizing
systems integration at farm and landscape scale. Journal of Mountain Science 3(4): 287–304.
German, L. and A. Stroud (2004) Social learning in regional R&D programs. AHI Brief D2.
German, L., S. Charamila, and T. Tolera (2006a) Managing trade-offs in agroforestry: From
conflict to collaboration in natural resource management. AHI Working Papers No. 10.
German, L., B. Kidane, and R. Shemdoe (2006b) Social and environmental trade-offs in tree
species selection: A methodology for identifying niche incompatibilities in agroforestry.
Environment, Development and Sustainability 8: 535–552.
German, L., S. Ayele, W. Mazengia, M. Tsegaye, K. Abera, K. Bedane, E. Geta, T. Tolera,
and H. Taye (2008) Institutional Foundations of Agricultural Development in Ethiopia:
Drawing Lessons from Current Practice for Agricultural R&D. Quarterly Journal of
International Agriculture 47(3): 191–216.
Knox, A., B. Swallow and N. Johnson (2001) Conceptual and Methodological Lessons for
Improving Watershed Management and Research. CAPRi Policy Brief 3: 1–4.
Johnson, N., H.M. Ravnborg, O. Westermann and K. Probst (2001) User Participation in
Watershed Management and Research. CAPRi Working Paper 19: 1–25.
Mowo, J.G., L. German and T. Tolera (2006) Local institutions and their role in INRM:
A regional synthesis. In: T. Amede, L. German, C. Opondo, S. Rao and A. Stroud
(eds), Integrated Natural Resources Management in Practice. Enabling communities to improve
mountain livelihoods and landscapes. Proceedings of a conference held at ICRAF HQ,
Nairobi Kenya October 12–15 2004, African Highlands Initiative; Kampala Uganda.
Pirrie, A., V. Wilson, J. Elsegood, J. Hall, S. Hamilton, R. Harden, D. Lee and J. Stead
(1998) Evaluating Multidisciplinary Education in Health Care. Edinburgh: SCRE.
Ravnborg, H.M. and J.A. Ashby (1996) Organising for Local-Level Watershed Management:
Lessons from Rio Cabuyal Watershed, Colombia. AgREN Network Paper 65, 14.
Rhoades, R. (2000) The Participatory Multipurpose Watershed Project: Nature’s Salvation
or Schumacher’s Nightmare? In: L. Rattan (ed.) Integrated Watershed Management in the
Global Ecosystem. London: CRC Press, pp. 327–43.
Rietbergen-McCracken, J. and D. Narayan, comps. (1998) Participation and Social Assessment:
Tools and Techniques. Washington, D.C.: World Bank.
Schubert, W.D., Klukas, O., Saenger, W., Witt, H.T., Fromme, P., and Krauss, N. (1998)
A common ancestor for oxygenic and anoxygenic photosynthetic systems: a comparison
based on the structural model of photosystem I. J Mol Biol 280: 297–314.
Shah, A. (1998) Watershed Development Programmes in India: Emerging Issues for Environment-
Development Perspectives. Economic and Political Weekly, June 27, 1998, A66–A78.
Stroud, A. (2003) Combining science with participation: Learning locally and generalizing
regionally. AHI Brief B3.
Turton, C. and J. Farrington (1998) Enhancing Rural Livelihoods through Participatory
Watershed Development in India. ODI Natural Resource Perspectives 34: 1–4.
Van Horen, B. (2001) Developing Community-Based Watershed Management in Greater
São Paulo: The Case of Santo André. Environment & Urbanization 13(1): 209–22.
4
PARTICIPATORY LANDSCAPE
GOVERNANCE
Laura German, Waga Mazengia, Simon Nyangas,
Joel Meliyo, Zenebe Adimassu, Berhanu Bekele, and
Wilberforce Tirwomwe
Context and rationale
This chapter builds on AHI experiences in participatory watershed manage-
ment, but focuses on the social and institutional dimensions of natural resource
management challenges at landscape level. As mentioned in Chapter 3, time–
space interactions between plots and common-pool resources, lateral flows of
materials (water, nutrients, pests), and interdependence between users in terms
of resource access and management, require decision-making and interven-
tion strategies beyond the farm level (Johnson et al., 2001; Knox et al., 2001;
Ravnborg and Ashby, 1996). Therefore, in addition to emphasizing effective
participation and integrated decision-making to acknowledge linkages among
diverse system components and users, processes for governing biophysical pro-
cesses connecting different land users and interest groups are sorely needed. This
is particularly true where demographic, economic, and ecological dynamics have
outpaced the ability of customary systems of natural resource management to
cope with change. Efforts to foster collective action and govern natural resource
decision-making should therefore be considered a fundamental component of
any watershed management process—particularly where local motivations (e.g.,
issues that are of deep concern to at least some land users) do not translate into
effective solutions in the absence of intervention.
Social and political dimensions of NRM are very poorly addressed in NRM
research and development programs. These include a complex social fabric
within communities based on differences of gender, kinship, tribe, wealth
status, religion, and politico-administrative divisions. They also include inter-
nal polarization around “appropriate” land-use practices based on economic
or other interests. The divergent “stakes” that lend a political dimension to
landscape management generally go unrecognized. The intractability of many
160 Laura German et al.
natural resource management challenges—which manifest as inherently bio-
physical on the surface—may in fact result from underlying epistemological,
cultural, and political factors (German et al., 2010; Leach et al., 1999). These
include divergent interests associated with either a mismatch between efforts
required of individuals to implement an innovation and the benefits they antic-
ipate from them, or from land-use practices for which benefits accrue to some
land users and costs to others. At times, the prevalence of practices that carry
negative consequences for other land users may be owing to limited aware-
ness of the consequences of current behavior on others or on environmental
services of local importance (e.g., water). However, as this chapter shows, it
is often owing to the fact that important benefits accrue to those households
continuing practices viewed as detrimental by others. These divergent interests
often create latent conflict that leads to a breakdown in communication among
those who most need to plan collectively to address the problem.
Such divergent interests need to be taken into consideration in the
approaches used by NRM research and development organizations. The ten-
dency, however, is to focus on technological solutions to NRM problems and
on individual decision-making on which solutions to test. Who participates
and who benefits are questions that are largely left unaddressed, as are those
issues that require collective or negotiated decisions in order to be effectively
addressed. Such deficiencies may create further inequities, undermine the
effective resolution of landscape-level NRM problems, or result in lost syner-
gies between social capital development, technological innovation, and natural
resource governance.
As this chapter and the wider literature illustrates, collective action and partic-
ipatory governance processes are required to regulate rights and responsibilities
to common property resources and public goods such as water, communal
grazing lands, and community forests (Gaspart et al., 1998; Gebremedhin et al.,
2002; Munk Ravnborg and Ashby, 1996; Ostrom, 1990; Scott et al., 2001).
Collective solutions are also required to manage biophysical processes that do
not respect farm boundaries, such as control of pests and excess run-off, mini-
mizing damage caused from free grazing, or managing the effects of boundary
vegetation on adjacent farms (Munk Ravnborg et al., 2000). Collective action
is likewise necessary to negotiate joint investments and technological innova-
tions for enhanced productivity or income, for example to enable the sharing
of transaction costs of organizing or marketing, and to regulate benefits capture
from outside interventions (Meinzen-Dick et al., 2002).
When developing and testing social and institutional innovations to be
tested in this arena, it was necessary to ground the design of interventions on
established theoretical understandings of the foundational elements to effective
local governance of natural resources. For this, we drew heavily on the work
of Eleanor Ostrom (1990). Ostrom’s work was instrumental in countering the
theory laid out in Hardin’s The Tragedy of the Commons (1968), where it is
posited that open access and unrestricted demand for a finite good in common
Participatory landscape governance 161
pool resources will inevitably cause over-exploitation and resource degrada-
tion—thus requiring enclosure or privatization of the commons. The Ostrom
tradition has clarified how groups of users can create institutions to fulfill a set
of functions required for managing resources sustainably—namely, exclusion,
allocation among users, and establishing conditions of transfer. By studying a
large number of case studies from traditional common property regimes across
the world, they were able to distill a set of features common to institutions
that have proven effective in managing common pool resources sustainably
(Ostrom, 1990; see also Pandey and Yadama, 1990; Wittayapak and Dearden,
1999). These include:
1. A clearly defined community of resource users and clearly defined resource
(both of manageable size).
2. The presence of a set of clearly defined “collective choice rules” devel-
oped voluntarily by users to clarify the rules of the game (e.g., what is
permissible, what contributions are required in exchange for use rights,
and sanctions for non-compliance) and which help to balance the costs of
collective action with the benefits derived from it.
3. Sanctions that are “graduated” or matched to the level of the offense.
4. Systems for monitoring the status of the resource and for adaptive manage-
ment (to enable rules to be modified as need arises).
5. Conflict resolution systems.
Yet despite the rich body of research and accumulated wisdom on customary
systems of natural resource governance emanating from the Ostrom tradition,
efforts to apply these principles to contemporary natural resource manage-
ment challenges are hard to come by. To what extent can negotiation support
processes enable local interest groups to see the value of collective action or
to overcome the silences that characterize latent conflicts and thus contribute
to inaction? To what extent are the principles of Ostrom’s “self-governing
institutions” relevant to contemporary problems where institutions are insuf-
ficient for addressing natural resource management problems of local concern?
And are they effective in building solutions that lie beyond common pool
resources? To what extent can external research and development institu-
tions move beyond generic forms of support to undifferentiated communities
towards “more explicit partiality” (Leach et al., 1999)? These are the questions
that the body of work presented in this chapter attempted to address.
The following section presents a typology of natural resource manage-
ment issues, constructed based on experience in supporting local land users
to identify and address natural resource management issues requiring collec-
tive solutions. The three sections that follow describe different approaches
employed to strengthen local governance of these issues, and the closing sec-
tions synthesize lessons learned and remaining challenges.
162 Laura German et al.
Toward a typology of issues requiring improved landscape governance
In AHI watershed sites, two broad scenarios were found that require efforts to
foster collective decision-making among divergent local interest groups. The
first involves NRM issues that remain unresolved owing to inadequate collective
action among community members. The second and more intractable scenario
involves local interest groups with divergent views and interests around the issue.
The nature of these issues determines the type of strategies most effective for
improving equitable landscape governance. For a brief illustration of the two
scenarios as they apply to vertebrate pest control, see Box 4.1.
BOX 4.1 CONTROLLING PORCUPINE IN AREKA: TWO
DETERRENTS TO COLLECTIVE ACTION
Crested porcupine was the most important vertebrate pest identified dur-
ing the problem diagnosis stage of AHI in Gununo watershed. Porcupines
cause tremendous crop losses for Areka farmers. Porcupines eat primarily
maize cobs, followed by roots of sweet potato, leaves of cabbage, roots
and tubers of yams, potato, cassava, haricot bean, and seeds of field pea.
As mentioned in Chapter 3, farmers spend their nights keeping watch over
their fields against porcupines during the growing season, causing loss of
sleep and frequent visits to the health center for weather-induced disease.
The porcupine case is an interesting collective action challenge because it
applies to each of the two scenarios, as follows:
A. The problem remains unresolved owing to inadequate collective action
As porcupines travel up to 14 km at night in search of food, crossing many farm
boundaries, efforts to kill or trap them by individual farmers are largely ineffec-
tive. Its management must extend beyond farm and watershed boundaries,
even up to district level, to minimize the effect of re-infestation from adjacent
villages or Peasant Associations (PAs). The large areas over which re-infestation
may occur makes individualized efforts at porcupine control largely ineffective.
B. Divergent interests of local stakeholder groups hinder the quest for easy
solutions
There is a second challenge to catalyzing collective action for porcupine con-
trol, namely, the presence of local interest groups here defined by the level
at which different households are affected by porcupine. Farmers growing
crops vulnerable to porcupine damage are more eager to engage in collective
solutions than those growing crops less susceptible to attack (for example,
teff, wheat, barley, and enset). For this purpose, tools for awareness crea-
tion were used to encourage high levels of collective action across several
PAs. Community meetings were called to raise awareness of the fact that
households less affected today may be susceptible in the future if they shift to
Participatory landscape governance 163
We now delve into each of the two scenarios in greater detail as a means of
illustrating the diversity of issues that falls within each, as well as the sub-classes
into which each of these issues may be further differentiated.
Scenario 1: Issues remain unresolved owing to inadequate
collective action
In this scenario, either the solution is not fully effective when carried out by
individuals, or in the absence of collective action the issue simply cannot be
solved. The following types of NRM problems are less effective when done on
an individual basis:
● Control of many pest and weed species that easily spread across farm
boundaries (as in Box 4.1).
● Controlling run-off and soil erosion, for which greater levels of collec-
tive action imply more effective solutions, owing to “aggregate effects” of
many households implementing soil conservation structures (Box 4.2).
● Nursery management, where “free riders” (who fail to invest time accord-
ing to agreements) undermine incentives of others to engage in collective
action (Box 4.3).
crops eaten by porcupine. By-laws were also developed through participatory
dialogue among the different interest groups to hold individual households
accountable to collective interests.
In recognition of these barriers to collective action, combined strategies were
used both to mobilize the overall community (megaphones, local music, and
awareness creation) and to foster equitable solutions between the local inter-
est groups (negotiation support, participatory by-law reforms). When applied
concurrently, these strategies were instrumental in reducing crop losses, labor
burden, and illness resulting from long nights spent policing fields against the
pest among PA residents.
BOX 4.2 CONTROLLING RUN-OFF IN KAPCHORWA
DISTRICT, UGANDA: FROM “LONE RANGER” TO
COLLECTIVE ACTION
Mr. Akiti Alfred of Tolil village in the Benet Sub-County has, in recent years,
been constructing soil and water conservation structures in an attempt to con-
trol the run-off in his fields. However, his fields continued to be affected by the
ever-increasing run-off from his upslope neighbor’s fields. He approached one
164 Laura German et al.
BOX 4.3 NURSERY MANAGEMENT IN GINCHI:
LEARNING THROUGH ITERATIVE PHASES OF
IMPLEMENTATION AND ADJUSTMENT
Extensive forest clearing for cultivation and over-grazing, and unregulated
exploitation of forests for fuelwood and construction materials in the absence of
reforestation efforts at household or community level, has led to the depletion
of forest resources in the watershed. As an integral part of integrated watershed
management, introducing multi-purpose tree species in Galessa watershed was
seen as a priority of both farmers and the site team. An action research approach
was employed to develop, test, and improve upon the approach over time.
Testing of approaches
Approach 1—A meeting was organized and farmers were reminded about the
concern they ranked very highly during the participatory watershed diagno-
sis—namely, loss of indigenous tree species. Farmers were asked to identify the
most preferred tree species in their locality. One tree nursery was established
in the watershed for the whole watershed community in 2004/2005. The
nursery was to be managed collectively by the entire watershed community.
of his neighbors from the adjacent village, Mr. Kissa Peter, and told him about
the continued run-off affecting his fields. Mr. Kissa said that he was also experi-
encing similar problems of soil degradation and declining crop yields and that
his crop yields of maize had reduced by about 60 percent. Mr. Kissa further
explained that there were other farmers in other villages experiencing similar
problems, despite the fact that they had adopted soil conservation structures
in their fields. From this experience, Mr. Akiti approached two other neighbors
about the problem and discovered that they were equally concerned. Mr.
Kissa and these other neighbors advised him to call for an urgent village meet-
ing to share with other farmers ideas on how they could deal with the run-off
affecting livelihoods of the entire community. A meeting was convened in the
Tolil village to discuss strategies for controlling run-off.
In the village-level meeting, it was resolved that a broader meeting should be
held among four of the most heavily affected villages. In that meeting, residents of
the four villages resolved to form Village Watershed Committees to take responsi-
bility for common NRM problems. New by-laws governing common NRM issues
were then formulated, and soil and water conservation technologies used to
implement agreed by-laws. The Kapchorwa District Landcare Chapter continues
to serve as a multi-stakeholder platform to backstop and support communities in
their articulation and resolution of this and other common NRM concerns.
Participatory landscape governance 165
Examples of natural resource management problems that generally cannot be
solved in the absence of collective action include the following:
● Extensive use of outfields, in which free grazing traditions (including sea-
sons of restricted and/or open access grazing) will subject any innovation
to collective agreement.
● Extensive use of outfields, in which traditional beliefs governing the use of
the common property resource prohibit any innovation (Box 4.4).
● Controlling extreme run-off, which requires trenches across the entire
landscape and agreement on the location of common waterways which
must pass through farmers’ fields (to divert excess water from fields).
Outcome 1—The performance and survival rate of seedlings in the nursery was
poor (54.7 percent) owing to poor nursery management. This was in turn
owing to lack of agreements on communal work (e.g., how responsibilities
and benefits would be shared), lack of knowledge on raising seedlings, and
lack of nursery tools.
Approach 2—In 2005/2006, those farmers with an interest in raising seedlings
in each village were organized in groups and a single nursery was established
at Legbatebo village with subdivisions into blocks corresponding to different vil-
lages, to clarify ownership. Collective choice rules were developed to specify how
responsibilities for nursery maintenance would be shared and seedlings distrib-
uted. Trainings were given and continuous follow-up was made to reinforce local
agreements.
Outcome 2—While the number of participating farmers declined (from 86 to
36), the performance and survival rate of seedlings was very good (97 percent)
owing to the manageable size of the group and the local governance arrange-
ments put into place.
The lessons learned from this experience included: (i) the need to have a man-
ageable number of farmers to work together for nursery management; (ii) the
importance of developing collective choice rules through the full participa-
tion of all participants; and (iii) the importance of ensuring these rules are
enforced. Each of these is a key to sustaining collective action, as they assist in
clarifying both responsibilities and the distribution of benefits.
BOX 4.4 LOCAL BELIEFS GOVERNING THE USE OF
COMMUNAL GRAZING AREAS IN AREKA
The communal grazing area in Areka covers approximately 60 ha. Residents of
Gununo watershed say that the land was once privately owned but transferred
166 Laura German et al.
Scenario 2: Divergent interests of local interest groups hinder easy solutions
The issues that fall within this second category remain unresolved either because
collective action requires that some individuals contribute or sacrifice more than
they are likely to benefit from collective action, or because one party is benefit-
ing while another party(ies) is harmed by the status quo. Problems stemming
from the latter often involve latent or overt conflict and a resulting breakdown
in communication.
Local interest groups or stakeholders for Scenario 2 may be defined in much
the same way:
(i) Some households are more affected than others, and the motivation to par-
ticipate in collective action varies among most and least affected households.
Examples include the following:
● Controlling excess run-off, where upslope farmers benefit less from soil
conservation structures because they are less affected by the damage caused
by excess run-off from upslope.
● Crop destruction from porcupine, since some households grow crops that
lure this pest (e.g., sweet potato, maize, haricot and faba bean), while oth-
ers do not grow crops attractive to porcupine (please refer to Box 4.1).
● Loss of soil fertility from excess erosion under the following situations:
– When eroded soil is fertile: Upslope farmers are negatively affected by
loss of fertile topsoil, while downslope farmers benefit from the depo-
sition of this same soil on their land.
– When eroded soil is infertile: Downslope and valley bottoms are nega-
tively affected by deposition of infertile soil over their more fertile
to the community for grazing purposes. At that time, the landowner called a
community meeting for the purpose of handing over the land to the commu-
nity and about 100 cattle were slaughtered for the celebration. On this occasion,
the owner made the community promise not to utilize the land for any purpose
other than communal grazing. At that time, the land was productive owing to
the low livestock population. However, now the land is utilized unproductively,
scarcely supporting the large livestock population. When exploring options for
intensification, the community strongly resisted touching the grazing area. One
man whose farmland had encroached onto the communal grazing land in the
past died, making the community believe that they will be cursed if they do the
same. These beliefs may have an adaptive logic, such as ensuring access to pasture
irrespective of household landholdings and supporting social safety nets (through
the complex livestock sharing mechanisms mentioned in Chapter 3). However,
its productive value is strongly undermined through overgrazing – suggesting the
need for some form of collective action.
Participatory landscape governance 167
soil, while upslope farmers are losing only infertile soil and are less
affected compared to downslope farmers (Figure 4.1).
– Irrespective of the fertility of eroded soil: Households with steep slopes are more
affected by soil fertility lost to erosion than households with flatter land.
(ii) Land-use practices of some households (interest group 1) have a negative
effect on other households (interest group 2). Examples include the following,
which are common to most AHI sites:
● Fast-growing trees (most notably, eucalypts) planted on farm boundaries,
which have a negative effect on adjacent farmers’ fields owing to competi-
tion for nutrients, water and light, and to allelopathic effects.
● Spring degradation from land-use practices of landowners with springs on or
near their land, owing to the cultivation of “thirsty” trees (which tend to grow
better with improved water uptake), and to the loss of protective vegetation
and contamination associated with the cultivation of crops up to the edge of
springs (where land owners gain from bringing a larger land area under cultiva-
tion) (see Plates 12 and 13).
● Crop loss from free grazing, where households have very divergent live-
stock holdings and incentives to reduce free grazing only exist among
households with low livestock endowments or deriving significant benefits
from livestock sharing arrangements (Figure 4.2).
In the text that follows, AHI efforts to develop and test approaches for
improving landscape governance—with an aim of enhancing both equity and
sustainability—are described. The text is organized according to key meth-
odological innovations that were tested for this purpose, including approaches
Perceived trend
1930 1950 1980 2003
10.0
7.5
5.0
2.5
0
Soil fertility on
upper slopes
Soil fertility on
valley bottoms
Level of erosion
on hill slopes
Time period
FIGURE 4.1 Perceived causal linkage between soil erosion on the hillsides and soil
fertility in the valley bottoms, Lushoto, Tanzania
Note: Data collected through semi-formal interviews with elders (to identify key changes in liveli-
hoods and NRM), interpretation of reasons behind these trends (to identify causal processes and
relationships among variables), and participatory ranking of rates of change in variables selected
to represent observed trends.
168 Laura German et al.
for supporting negotiations among local stakeholders with particular interests
vis-à-vis the identified natural resource management challenges; methods for
catalyzing collective action; and methods for participatory by-law reforms.
Negotiation support was applied independently of the scenario under con-
sideration (inadequate collective action, or divergent interests). The last two
approaches, however, were explicitly targeted to consider the unique features
of the issues being addressed. Strategies to mobilize collective action were
applied largely to problems defined by Scenario 1, while participatory by-law
reforms were applied largely to problems defined by Scenario 2. The reason for
this differentiation is that formally endorsed by-laws are generally required to
ensure negotiated agreements are implemented in practice, given the divergent
interests characterizing the latter set of issues.
Negotiation support
The first strategy tested by AHI to address landscape governance challenges (insuf-
ficient collective action or divergent interests) was to support negotiations among
affected parties. This helped to raise awareness of the need to act collectively, to
reconcile latent conflicts among divergent local interest groups, and to devise
strategies to hold external agencies (i.e., local government, extension, conserva-
tion agencies) accountable to locally felt needs. In AHI, several broad negotiation
support strategies may be distilled, based both on the level at which negotiation
support was carried out and the extent to which stakeholder interests are aligned
or divergent. Strategies which may be defined by the level of intervention include
support to negotiations among local stakeholders within the watershed area itself
on the one hand, and support to negotiations between local communities and
external stakeholders on the other. The second set of strategies may be differ-
entiated according to whether the problem affects all stakeholders equally (and
thus requires simple resolution of differences of opinion on whether and how to
Heads cattle
Areka Ginchi Kabale Kapchorwa
30.0
22.5
15.0
7.5
0
High wealth
Low wealth
Site
FIGURE 4.2 Livestock holdings by wealth category in four AHI benchmark sites
Participatory landscape governance 169
address it), or involves divergent interests and “stakes” (and thus interests which
may be advanced or undermined through the negotiation process).
Approach development
Irrespective of the nature of the issue, the negotiation support strategy employed
started with the following two steps:
1. Identification of specific landscape niches where the watershed problem is
manifest.
2. Stakeholder identification, to explore which of the following scenarios the
problem may be best characterized by:
● Scenario 1—Different households are equally affected by the problem, but
the collective action required to effectively address the problem is lacking;
● Scenario 2—Different households are negatively affected by the prob-
lem but by different degrees—thereby causing them to have different
levels of motivation for investing in a collective solution; or
● Scenario 3—The issue may be characterized by two distinct interest
groups, those perceived to be causing the problem and those affected by it.
At this point, once it is clear whether the problem is characterized by stake-
holder groups with divergent interests, the approach diverges. If there is no
such differentiation, one proceeds with the “undifferentiated” approach; if
stakeholders with divergent interests are identified (Scenarios 2 and 3), one
proceeds with the second approach—negotiation support involving stakehold-
ers with divergent interests.
Approach 1—“Undifferentiated” negotiation support
If the problem is characterized by Scenario 1, the undifferentiated approach fol-
lows in which the following steps are followed with all involved parties present:
1. Provide feedback to participants on the steps taken so far and their out-
comes (e.g., problem diagnosis, niche and stakeholder identification), and
solicit reactions to the same.
2. Facilitate a discussion of the role of collective action in addressing the
identified issue—confirming whether it is needed and why, discussing
why it has been ineffective to date (or might have been more effective in
the past), and agreeing on implications for the way forward.
3. Negotiate solutions that are acceptable to all parties present and implicated
in one way or another by the proposed action.
4. Develop a detailed implementation plan with responsibilities and timeline.
5. Participatory monitoring and evaluation, and adjustment of work plans to
address problems that arise during implementation.
170 Laura German et al.
As collective action involves a trial-and-error process that may not be effec-
tive the first time around, regular participatory monitoring and evaluation are
required to identify deficiencies in collective action and solutions for overcom-
ing these. The monitoring may reduce in frequency as participants become
increasingly adept at working together towards a solution, but only stops once
the underlying problem is solved.
Approach 2—Negotiation support involving stakeholders with
divergent interests (“multi-stakeholder” negotiations)
If the problem is characterized by Scenarios 2 (households affected by differ-
ent degrees) or 3 (losers and winners), the second approach is followed—which
makes an explicit attempt to reconcile the interests and perspectives of differ-
ent stakeholders. This approach aligns with the “stakeholder-based planning”
approach described in the participatory diagnosis and planning section of
Chapter 3. Following the two initial steps described above, it proceeds as follows:
1. Identification of appropriate mediators. Prior to the negotiation, an appro-
priate mediator should be identified—particularly for the more entrenched
conflicts for which one or more parties are reluctant to enter into dialogue.
This person should be someone well known and respected by both parties,
knowledgeable about the technical and social aspects of the conflict, and neu-
tral with regard to the outcome and the interests of each party. If the issue is
not overly polarized, this facilitator could include project personnel, but more
often local elders and opinion leaders, local administrative leaders, or spiritual
leaders can be engaged as mediators, with support from project personnel.1
2. Consultation of individual stakeholder groups to identify their perceptions
on the causes and consequences of the issue, possible opportunities for “win–
win” solutions and approaches they are comfortable with for entering into
dialogue with the other stakeholder group. These consultations also help to
demonstrate the external party’s concern for their “stakes” in the issue, and
to reduce their fear of engagement (for fear of what they might lose). In cases
of entrenched conflict or highly divergent interests, this step is often essential
in bringing the two parties closer to dialogue and may involve a series of
meetings (Box 4.5).
BOX 4.5 CASE STUDY ON CONFLICT: THE ROLE OF
SEQUENTIAL NEGOTIATIONS
Farmers ranked spring degradation as the top watershed issue in Lushoto.
Springs are communally owned according to national laws, even when located
in people’s fields or plots. However, individuals refused to abide by by-laws
Participatory landscape governance 171
In the case of informal consultation of specific interest groups, it is also nec-
essary to show compassion or empathy for the interests and concerns of each
party. If the mediator is perceived at this time as being biased toward one party
or having an interest in a particular outcome, it will jeopardize their ability to
bring the two parties to the negotiating table. This should also include joint
formulation of the agenda to be followed during the first negotiation, which
will help diffuse tension and create a more comfortable and harmonious atmos-
phere for dialogue. Even the language that is used has a crucial role in either
further polarizing the two parties or bringing them closer to the negotiating
table at this time (Box 4.6).
BOX 4.6 PRINCIPLES OF MULTI-STAKEHOLDER
NEGOTIATION: THE CASE OF THE SAKHARANI MISSION
The Sakharani Mission boundary case study described above illustrates some addi-
tional principles in multi-stakeholder negotiation. These include the following:
● Showing empathy. Having diagnosed watershed problems through the
minds of farmers alone during the watershed exploration phase in effect
marginalized a host of issues faced by Sakharani in relation to neighbor-
ing villages. These issues—including deforestation and its perceived effect
aimed to conserve the resource. Dialogue between spring owners and users was
therefore necessary to avert conflict and address the problem. A series of multi-
stakeholder dialogues were convened by AHI, bringing the negatively affected
spring users and the landowners together to discuss how costs and benefits are
distributed among local interest groups. While losses were occurring to both
groups (through reduced access to water by spring users, and latent conflict
for spring owners), benefits were only accruing to spring owners (e.g., from
the expansion of cropping area or rapid growth of woodlots in the presence of
water). Solutions were needed that acknowledged the stakes involved for both
parties. In most such meetings, participants were able to agree and strike an
acceptable balance. However, certain spring owners were initially reluctant to
change, and often missed such meetings altogether. More targeted follow-up
negotiations between local leaders and land users were effective in encouraging
most of these landowners to protect the springs falling within their land. The
few individuals who continued to protest—and even destroy investments made
in spring protection by other community members—were eventually taken to
court. Informal negotiations should be seen as complementary to formal law
enforcement, given the ability of the former approach to avert longstanding
conflict between families. The latter is, however, needed in some cases.
172 Laura German et al.
3. Facilitation of multi-stakeholder dialogue between the two parties, through
the following steps:
● Provide feedback to participants on steps taken so far and their
outcomes.
● Jointly establish ground rules for dialogue, such as being respectful in
listening fully to others and focusing on needs and interests rather than
specific solutions when each stakeholder presents their perspective on
the issue.
● Ask each interest group to express their views using the ground rules.
● Support the negotiation of socially optimal solutions that meet the
needs of each stakeholder group and that do not overly burden house-
holds who have little to benefit from the outcome.
● Formulate by-laws to support the agreements reached by the negotiat-
ing parties (see below and Chapter 5 for additional details).
on rainfall and water supply, and damage caused to tree seedlings from
free grazing by neighboring farmers—were promptly brought to our
attention in the first meeting (stakeholder consultation). By expressing
empathy and concern for these problems in addition to those raised by
neighboring smallholders, the farm manager perceived AHI to be a neutral
and unbiased party and became more open to engaging in a negotiation
process—as it was seen as a potential opportunity for addressing long-
standing concerns of the Mission as well.
● Use of language. During our preliminary meeting with the Sakharani farm
manager, one of the team members introduced the problem voiced by
farmers—namely the negative impact of Sakharani boundary trees on
neighboring cropland and springs. Use of language that unnecessarily
polarized the interests of the two parties (“stakeholder”) and presup-
posed compromise on behalf of the landowner (“negotiation”) provoked
an understandably defensive reaction in the mind of the farm manager.
Careful choice of words to avoid further polarizing the issue is essential in
early stages of stakeholder consultation and negotiation support. Words
such as “party” and “dialogue,” for example, are less threatening than
words such as “stakeholder” and “negotiation.”
● Importance of balanced concessions. The last principle relates to the first, in
that deadlocks to constructive engagement can rarely be solved without
each party “giving up” something for the collective good. In this case, the
Sakharani farm manager agreed to change the boundary tree species from
eucalyptus spp. to Mtalawanda (Markhamia obtusifolia), provided neigh-
boring farmers kept their livestock from grazing within Mission boundaries
and they both agreed to work together to recuperate degraded waterways.
Participatory landscape governance 173
● Develop a detailed implementation plan stating what is to be done
(activities), who is to do it (responsibilities), when (timeline), where
(in which particular areas), and how (Box 4.7). Written agreements
with the signature of all participating parties bring greater legitimacy
to agreements and ensure accountability by each party.
4. Formal endorsement of by-laws.
5. Participatory monitoring and evaluation, and adjustment of work plans to
address problems that arise during implementation
BOX 4.7 THE IMPORTANCE OF DETAILED PLANNING
FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF AGREEMENTS
Two cases illustrate the fundamental importance of detailed planning during
multi-stakeholder negotiations.
Case 1—Sakharani boundary
Participants to the Sakharani boundary negotiations agreed on the criteria to
be used for selecting priority areas for replacing eucalyptus with Markhamia
species. However, the identification of specific boundary areas meeting those
criteria was not done, leaving the most urgent case (where a neighboring
farmer’s home was at greatest risk of being destroyed from tree fall) unad-
dressed. Furthermore, the schedule of eucalyptus tree replacement was not
specified, causing subsequent misunderstandings owing to divergent (unspo-
ken) expectations. Therefore, the early trees to be removed were removed in
areas of little consequence to adjacent landowners and subsequent actions
were slow to materialize, undermining the spirit of agreements reached.
Case 2—Ameya spring
In the case of Ameya spring (Ginchi benchmark site), the landowner agreed
during negotiations to remove eucalypts around the spring as long as other
households contribute seedlings for re-establishment of the woodlot in other
areas of his farm. Other details were left open. Thus the “who” was identified,
but not the when, where, and how. A section of the woodlot was subsequently
cut down as an expression of compliance on the part of the landowner, but
the trees were not uprooted (enabling them to coppice and re-grow) and
the other households did not contribute seedlings as agreed. While negotia-
tions were ongoing at the time of writing, it is therefore clear that important
opportunities are lost if concrete action plans are not developed in the first
multi-stakeholder dialogue.
It is worth taking some time to reflect on individual steps in this process in
greater depth. Before initiating negotiations, in addition to identifying different
stakeholder groups in their aggregate it is important to identify the appropriate
174 Laura German et al.
avenues and levels of decision-making for each stakeholder. These authority
figures can be brought directly into the negotiation process, or can be regularly
updated as the dialogue progresses so as to give their blessing to the resolutions
and to keep them informed. Whether or not local leaders are directly involved
in the particular conflict or niche in question, for example, they should gener-
ally be present at the negotiations or be kept informed to lend legitimacy to
the dialogue and help align their actions with the process and its aims. Formal
institutions involved as a party to negotiations may also have established hier-
archies. In Lushoto, for example, failure to involve authorities higher up in
the Benedictine Order undermined the ability of the Sakharani Mission farm
manager to follow through with some of his commitments on boundary man-
agement. Had the appropriate authorities been engaged in the first negotiation
process, this problem could have been avoided. In the case of co-management
of the Mount Elgon buffer zone (Kapchorwa site), efforts to circumvent stand-
ard communication pathways (solid lines in Figure 4.3) by taking community
concerns directly to the Sector Warden helped to move beyond conflict to
reconciliation, as corrupt local level officials (rangers) had more to lose from
reconciliation than higher level officials.
It is also important to acknowledge the legitimate rights and authorities of
each party under the law. For example, the landowner (with title or usufruct
rights) may have greater authority over the use of his/her land than the affected
party, as in the case of trees planted just inside farm boundaries. These rights
must be acknowledged in the way the dialogue is mediated. Language matters
here. For example, it is better to say to the landowner, “are there any alterna-
tive tree species that also meet your needs but minimize any negative effect
on your neighbors?” than to ask the neighbors what tree species should be
grown on another person’s property. Similarly, supporting negotiations among
Chief Warden
(National)
Sector Warden
(Regional)
Community
Conservation
Rangers Buffer zone
communities
FIGURE 4.3 UWA communication and decision-making channels on co-management
Participatory landscape governance 175
parties with unequal power and authority may require a complex balancing act
to acknowledge established hierarchies while also pursuing more balanced or
equitable outcomes (Box 4.8).
BOX 4.8 NEGOTIATION SUPPORT IN THE BAGA
FOREST BOUNDARY: MANAGING DELICATE POWER
DYNAMICS
Tanzania has had a co-management policy since the late 1990s. However, these
policies have yet to be operationalized in many parts of the country. In the
watershed site, farmers complained that the eucalyptus—planted by the forest
department to secure the forest boundary—was competing with cropland and
reducing yields and contributing to the drying of springs. The site team brought
the District Forestry Officer together with farmers to negotiate alternatives to cur-
rent boundary management practices under the co-management umbrella.
At one point in the negotiations, the forest officer became visibly uncom-
fortable with the process being led by the external facilitator, as it departed
from the standard approach used by the forestry department. Sensing we
were losing one stakeholder’s buy-in to the negotiation process, we quickly
decided to hand over the facilitation role to the officer. This quickly brought
him back to the table, but also tended to put much decision-making authority
in the hands of only one party. Fearing we might in turn lose the community’s
commitment to negotiation, the team continued to play a guiding role in the
negotiations, for example by pressuring the forest officer to commit to con-
crete deadlines for following through with agreed resolutions.
A number of additional observations may be made about the negotiation pro-
cess itself. First, it is important to give each party an opportunity to express their
respective views. Ground rules, such as “listening to the perspectives of others
before intervening,” can be either established openly through a facilitated dialogue
or integrated into the process implicitly through a skilled facilitator. For example,
if one party attacks the other when expressing his or her concerns and views, the
facilitator needs to intervene and impress upon people the need to fully hear out
the other party and acknowledge the legitimacy of one another’s concerns.
It is also important to identify solutions that can ensure the interests of both
parties are met. Such opportunities can be identified through detailed explora-
tion of the main interests of each party, to see how they might come together to
resolve the concerns not of one party but of both. While the benefit of reduced
conflict with one’s neighbors may in some cases serve as an important factor
motivating the acceptance of solutions that are otherwise undesirable, strong
economic rationales often underlie the more intractable problems—requiring a
solution that addresses these constraints. Effective strategies can therefore involve
176 Laura German et al.
efforts to minimize the cost or increase the benefits associated with alternatives
(German et al., 2009). And while some solutions may take the form of “win–
win” outcomes, the majority will involve balanced concessions from each party
(Box 4.6). Ideally in such situations, each party concedes something while also
securing certain benefits. Yet parties to a negotiation will seldom offer a conces-
sion for nothing; there is often need for reciprocity in such concessions to enable
a “middle ground” to be met. This is more easily done through an emphasis on
“bottom lines” than by trying to ensure that each and every concern of each
party is adequately met. “Bottom lines” emphasize the basic interests that must
be met for each party to continue participating in the dialogue (Box 4.9).
BOX 4.9 ENSURING THAT “BOTTOM LINES” ARE
MET TO SUSTAIN STAKEHOLDER COMMITMENT TO
A NEGOTIATION PROCESS
Case 1—Meeting the Uganda Wildlife Authority’s bottom line of biodiversity
conservation
The Mount Elgon co-management case study can help to illustrate how ensur-
ing the “bottom lines” of certain stakeholder groups can help to keep the
negotiating parties committed to dialogue. Co-management was undergoing
implementation in other parts of Mt. Elgon National Park, but had thus far
excluded the Benet owing to the history of conflict and the perception that
the Benet were fundamentally against biodiversity conservation. Identification
of this bottom line of UWA helped to keep them committed to dialogue and
to advance the reconciliation process. This went a long way in fostering dia-
logue and a commitment to shared custodianship of the Park’s resources.
Case 2—Meeting landowners’ bottom line of livelihood security in spring
negotiations
In the case of Ameya spring (Ginchi site), the landowner was strongly reluctant
to enter into dialogue owing to his fear that he would lose a substantial invest-
ment and “safety net” if forced to remove his eucalyptus woodlot from the
spring. Only when local elders expressed support for his interests did he agree
to come to the negotiation table. Once there, only when the community agreed
to meet his demand of bearing the costs of relocating his woodlot to another
part of his farm would he agree to remove any trees from the existing location.
Resolutions reached through multi-stakeholder dialogue will also require fre-
quent follow-up, particularly in early stages, to ensure effective implementation.
When this is not done, stakeholders often identify opportunities to further their
interests outside the scope of the agreement. This may be done either by failing to
implement resolutions perceived to be less than beneficial to their interests, or by
Participatory landscape governance 177
placing more conditionalities on their continuing cooperation than they earlier
articulated to exploit gaps in the implementation plan. For example, the Ameya
spring owner raised many new demands following failure of the initial agreement
to specify the details of implementation. While the initial demand included only
contributions of single seedlings per household, subsequent demands included
community contributions to land preparation, transplanting, and fencing of the
new woodlots. Furthermore, he specified that the uprooting of eucalyptus would
be gradual over time, in accordance with the rate of biomass accumulation in the
new woodlot. These new demands, if not covered in the original dialogue, can
further polarize the issue in the minds of the other party—who by now perceives
the relationship as one of exploitation rather than collaboration. Formulation of
by-laws to enforce resolutions reached in early negotiations is often necessary
to ensure that each party follows through with what is agreed. These proposed
by-laws must often be endorsed officially by the relevant local government
authorities to be effective, as described in the next section.
Finally, challenges often arise in implementing agreements owing to inter-
actions between watershed and non-watershed communities. Two scenarios
where this has occurred may be identified. In the first, parties not directly
involved in the negotiations may influence the ability to effectively imple-
ment agreements. For example, non-watershed residents whose livestock
freely graze in the Ginchi site during the dry season will create a burden on
the efforts to police conservation structures. This was found to be particularly
true in Tiro village, where the main road passes, thus concentrating livestock
movement in adjacent farmers’ fields. In the second scenario, farmers residing
outside pilot villages feel resentment from being excluded from highly benefi-
cial activities such as spring development or high-value enterprises. Such was
the Ginchi case highlighted in Chapter 3, where the PA leader residing outside
the watershed sabotaged village meetings by calling mandatory meetings at PA
level during days when watershed activities were planned. This problem was
addressed by involving him in his official capacity, thereby giving recognition
to his importance in addressing problems within the watershed. This has been
effective in dissipating the tension between watershed and non-watershed resi-
dents. It is therefore important to either ensure all relevant decision-makers
are brought on board, or—should the problems persist—to consider ways to
expand some of the benefits beyond watershed boundaries.
A strategy unique to Ethiopian sites has combined sensitization with persua-
sion to deal with certain problems that have persisted for long periods of time.
This strategy entailed regular meetings with the concerned parties at diverse
levels (Woreda, PA, sub-PA, watershed, village, and individual households)
to raise awareness on the issues emerging from the communities themselves
and to try to bolster commitments to collective efforts to solve a particular
problem. This strategy has been necessary in several specific cases, namely soil
and water conservation in Areka and Ginchi (to mobilize greater participa-
tion); eucalyptus management in Areka (to reconcile divergent interests); and
178 Laura German et al.
outfield intensification in Ginchi (to progressively engage wider sets of stake-
holders). In the case of soil and water conservation in Ginchi, this strategy has
also been necessary to enable landowners to agree to collective drainage canals
to pass through their farms, formerly resisted owing to the space it occupies
and the potential for crops to be destroyed from channeling greater volumes
of water through their fields. In some sites, by-laws were formulated to help
consolidate agreements reached through informal means, which has helped to
ensure individuals abide by established agreements.
The approach is, however, limited in addressing problems with highly
divergent interests. It was ineffective in addressing the problem of euca-
lyptus on farm boundaries in Areka and springs in both Areka and Ginchi,
owing to the cost (of both eucalyptus removal and foregone revenue
streams). Landowners therefore actively resisted change. This resistance is
actually backed up by national laws mandating that a landowner must be
duly compensated for any loss of property. The only viable solution in this
case would be for an external actor to bear the cost of woodlot removal
(given the prohibitive cost of payment in cash), or for local communities to
repay the farmer in kind (e.g., through contributions to moving woodlots
to new locations). In Ginchi, the approach was effective in enabling early
agreements on approaches to outfield intensification, but these agreements
were not ambitious enough to actually solve the problem. For example,
agreements did not involve curtailing free movement of livestock in loca-
tions where trees and structures were being established, but rather the
active policing of outfield areas from livestock damage. The high cost of
this activity to households meant that policing was ineffective in practice
and most seedlings were damaged through livestock trampling or browsing.
Reluctance to engage in more far-reaching innovations was likely due to
the tenure insecurity in outfields as well as the open access nature of dry sea-
son free grazing, where the users are not well defined—complicating efforts
to agree on collective rules for curtailing grazing.
Lessons learned
The following lessons may be distilled from the negotiation support experiences
of AHI:
● It is critical to “get it right” the first time, to avoid the additional burdens
inherent in follow-up negotiations.
● Effective negotiations require detailed action plans on how to implement
resolutions (specifying what, who, where, when, and how), and in cases of
divergent interests, ensuring sufficient weight is given to agreements through
signed documents, close follow-up and the formulation and endorsement of
formal by-laws. Signed documents can assist in making proper follow-up to
agreements and minimize the emergence of new demands from both parties.
Participatory landscape governance 179
● For successful negotiations, it is important to identify and involve the
appropriate actors throughout the process, including both mediators and
stakeholders.
● Negotiation support is the only approach used by AHI that has enabled
identification of solutions that effectively reconcile the interests of two
divergent interest groups, as it fosters mutual understanding and concessions
for the sake of the collective good. Generic watershed planning processes are
generally ineffective in this regard, leaving contentious issues unaddressed.
Mobilizing collective action for common NRM problems
Some NRM problems that require collective action to be effectively addressed
but do not involve divergent interests require simply mobilizing groups of
people to work toward common goals that cannot be achieved through indi-
vidual efforts. There is no single approach used for this, but rather a sub-set of
approaches that differ slightly in their steps and aims.
Approach development
Approach 1—Working through local institutions effective in mass
mobilization
The first approach consisted of the identification of local institutions known by local
residents to be effective in mass mobilization, and facilitating their efforts to call peo-
ple to action around a locally identified concern. It consisted of the following steps:
1. R&D team assists local residents to identify NRM issues of high priority
through a watershed exploration exercise or stakeholder meetings.
2. R&D team facilitates a process whereby watershed residents identify local
forms of collective action (CA) most effective for mass mobilization.
3. R&D team members and/or expert farmers train leaders (from identified
forms of CA) on technical aspects of addressing identified NRM problems
(based on scientific or local knowledge or both).
4. R&D team or other chosen party facilitates agreement on the roles of
identified CA institutions in mobilizing the community around shared
concerns (e.g., using megaphones or traditional methods of calling the
community to action).
5. Set specific days convenient for all for mass mobilization initiatives.
The approach was very effective in mobilizing collective action at a large scale
owing to the involvement of multiple collective action structures, each one
operating in a small area and with few households but together covering a
large area. If these local institutions of collective action also have the mandate
to develop and enforce by-laws, they can be even more effective in mobilizing
collective efforts (Box 4.10).
180 Laura German et al.
BOX 4.10 MOBILIZING COLLECTIVE ACTION FOR
COMMON NRM PROBLEMS: THE PORCUPINE CASE
This box describes in detail how the challenges described in Box 4.1 related to crop
damage from porcupine were addressed in practice. As mentioned previously,
porcupines travel long distances at night, resulting in very low returns on con-
trol efforts applied by individual households. To mobilize collective action over a
wide area, individuals or groups effective in mobilizing the community and highly
respected by all are needed. Farmers were therefore asked to identify an individual
or entity that could be effective in this regard. Farmers selected the “develop-
mental unit” (DU) (local administrative units consisting of 25–30 households) as a
local institution most capable of mobilizing farmers. In addition to the DU being
of manageable size, DU leaders were thought to be capable of enforcing local
by-laws developed for this purpose and effectively monitoring implementation.
Approaches
By-laws specifying contributions to be made by each household to porcupine
control were developed and approved by local leaders. Local knowledge on
porcupine control was studied, and control methods appropriate to different
landscape niches were agreed upon. The DU leader coordinated the mass
mobilization and each family in the DU agreed to devote one or two “develop-
ment days” per week for collective control efforts. DU leaders then mobilized
farmers on the designated development day using megaphones and a local
instrument called a tirumba and farmers applied the agreed-upon control
methods for the relevant niches.
Outcomes and lessons learned
Nearly 1,000 porcupines were captured or killed in the peak porcupine season
through these collective efforts. Farmers selected DUs to enable implementa-
tion owing to its proximity to communities (small administrative units with
few households) and the ease with which they can closely monitor activities
in their area. Development of by-laws also enabled farmers to negotiate and
clarify ahead of time who would be responsible for what activities, and to
ensure those agreements were respected.
Approach 2—Working with self-mobilized local institutions
The second approach seeks to capitalize upon and support self-mobilized local
institutions in supporting the evolution of stronger institutions of collective
action in support of NRM. This approach consisted of the following steps:
Participatory landscape governance 181
1. Community members organize spontaneously around shared NRM
concerns.
2. External development actors (NGOs, research, local government) identify
existing “nodes” of collective action to support, and facilitate the forma-
tion of a higher-level watershed committee.
3. External facilitators encourage newly formed watershed committee to cre-
ate awareness among CBOs, NGOs, and local government on the need to
collectively address the issue(s) of concern.
4. Local CA institutions conduct village-level planning, and express demand
for support from external development actors.
5. External development actors call sub-county and district-level planning meet-
ing to articulate the roles of different actors in addressing local level concerns.
This approach to community mobilization was highly effective as it was grounded
in emerging forms of self-mobilized collective action and systematic efforts to pro-
vide external support to these emerging initiatives. It further catalyzed interest in
new forms of collective action as a result of its effectiveness in addressing the issue
and bolstering support from outside development agents or service providers.
Approach 3—Mobilizing CA through local government and NRM champions
The third and last approach consisted in the identification of existing NRM
champions and supporting their efforts to mobilize complementary interven-
tions by local government and watershed residents. Basic steps in this approach
include the following:
1. External R&D team assists local residents to identify NRM issues of high
priority through watershed exploration or stakeholder meetings.
2. Local NRM structures are formed (by election) or strengthened (where
existing NRM and leadership structures exist) to spearhead solutions to
issues identified in Step 1.
3. Local NRM structures drive a process involving local government to
address shared NRM concerns (Box 4.11).
BOX 4.11 VARIATIONS ON THE APPROACH FOR
MOBILIZING COLLECTIVE ACTION THROUGH LOCAL
GOVERNMENT AND NRM COMMITTEES
Case 1—Controlling run-off in Kabale
The approach utilized in Kabale began with the identification of farmers from
communities observed to have “zeal” to find a way to address their own NRM
problems. Second, meetings were held with sub-county stakeholders to sensitize
182 Laura German et al.
This approach is highly effective because collective action was mobilized to
address an acute problem facing the community. In those cases where newly
formed or reconstituted NRM structures worked hand in hand with local gov-
ernment (spring protection in Areka and Ginchi, and run-off control in Kabale),
complementary roles were played by these two institutions, further contrib-
uting to the success of mobilization efforts. Local government has a role in
mobilization of development efforts in Ethiopia, as well as by-law formulation
and enforcement functions in all countries. However, government actors had
not adequately addressed common NRM problems owing to lack of capacity
newly elected local government representatives given the recent election, and to
form sub-county NRM committees. Third, sensitization was carried out at village
level by selected members of the sub-county NRM committee with the assistance
of LC1 leaders, faith-based organizations, radio announcements, whistles, and
word of mouth. LC1s, NRMPCs and AHI worked collaboratively from this point
forward, assisting in putting checks and balances on LC1s to encourage them to
respond to felt needs of the community. Villages then selected convenient days
of the week to hold meetings and collective action activities to avoid clashes with
other important activities (market days, hangover days, days of prayer, community
development days). The mobilization concluded with action planning at sub-
county and village levels, cross-site visits to observe successful strategies to control
extreme run-off, and training of farmers on technologies for controlling run-off.
Case 2—Spring development in Ginchi
As already mentioned, decline in water quality was identified as a prior-
ity watershed issue in the Ginchi site. A watershed committee composed of
representatives of each watershed village was formed. They called on the
village-level government (Gare Misoma) to call a meeting on the need to for-
mulate a plan for spring protection, who in turn mobilized the community. In
addition to watershed residents and researchers, district-level ministries (the
Bureaus of Water Resources, Health and Agriculture, and Rural Development)
were called by the Gare Misoma to the meeting. A series of meetings with
diverse local stakeholders was held to agree on how rights (to water use) and
responsibilities (materials, labor, and cash for spring construction and main-
tenance) would be allocated both within the watershed and with adjacent
villages. Contributions to be made from external stakeholders (funds from AHI,
technical assistance from the Ministries of Water Resources and Health) were
also agreed upon at this time. After the spring was constructed and officially
“gifted” to the community, a Water Committee was established and trainings
given on spring maintenance and governance. While spring users contribute
small cash payments for maintenance, the Ministry of Water Resources retains
the mandate to provide additional technical assistance as required.
Participatory landscape governance 183
(financial, technical), greater emphasis on government-set development agendas
than locally felt priorities, or local political interests (getting votes). In a study in
Uganda (Sanginga, et al., 2004), ineffective by-laws were found to be the result
of weak enforcement by local leaders, lack of awareness on by-laws, outdated
regulations, legislative conflicts, small plot size, absence of extension facilities,
and the desire to avoid confrontations within and among households and with
the local leadership. Newly formed or reconstituted NRM structures emanating
from the community itself therefore assumed a complementary “civil society”
function of pressuring local government units to work on local NRM priori-
ties. The downward accountability of local NRM structures combined with the
authority of local government structures proved to be more effective than either
actor working in isolation. In the Kabale case, additional success factors included
the use of multiple strategies for mass mobilization and the network of local insti-
tutional structures (NRMPCs) to support the mobilization effort.
Lessons learned
Approaches tested for mobilizing collective action around common NRM prob-
lems have taught us that:
● Different actors (local government, community-based NRM structures,
faith-based institutions, NGOs, CBOs) and strategies (radio, traditional
methods, and megaphones) play complementary roles in the mobilization
process. When several actors and strategies are engaged simultaneously,
mobilization is likely to be more effective.
● Mobilization is easiest when building upon existing or emerging local
institutions and collective action initiatives.
● Networks of local institutions are highly effective in mobilizing collective
action because they combine a “personalized” approach (e.g., going door
to door) with coverage of large areas (by working through multiple local
institutions spread throughout the landscape).
● Early successes in mobilizing collective action around specific NRM issues
can catalyze community confidence to address new challenges.
● Farmers are willing to invest in NRM on other people’s land, provided
that: (i) the benefits are for the majority; (ii) the problem cannot be effec-
tively solved individually; and (iii) the gestation of benefits is short term.
Participatory by-law reforms
In addition to informal negotiation support, participatory governance was
furthered through participatory by-law reform processes at village and higher
levels. The process of negotiating rules and seeking their formal endorsement
helped both to clarify aims among diverse parties, as well as to bolster commit-
ment to putting into practice what was agreed upon in informal negotiations.
184 Laura German et al.
Three approaches are presented here. The first two, both applicable at vil-
lage level, were selected based on the issue at hand and the implications for
those who should be present during negotiations and/or by-law reform pro-
cesses. The third approach is best differentiated from the first in its efforts to
strengthen the capacity of local institutions and local government to facilitate
the participatory by-law reform process, and may therefore be seen as a way to
institutionalize the first two approaches.
Approach development
Approach 1—By-law reforms through village-level negotiations
The strategy used in this approach was to hold village-level meetings specifically
focused on natural resource governance. While these meetings do not differen-
tiate among local interest groups with divergent ‘stakes’ in the issue, equitable
participation by gender and lower-level administrative units (i.e., hamlets in
Lushoto site) must be ensured when identifying participants to be called to the
meeting. Local leaders charged with proposing by-law reforms and with by-
law enforcement should also be present, to help inform and guide negotiations.
These meetings employed the following steps:
1. Use of graphical representations of landscapes with and without rules gov-
erning NRM, to foster a collective understanding of the role of governance
(see Plate 14).
2. Feedback of watershed problems identified by local residents.
3. Introduction of meeting objectives (namely, to identify the need for
governance solutions to address identified watershed problems) and iden-
tification of types of shortcomings that might exist in policies, norms and
by-laws (namely, poor enforcement, gaps in coverage for certain water-
shed problems, and poor design undermining its utility in addressing the
problem even if enforced).
4. Identification of existing policies, the extent to which they are enforced
(and enforceable under local conditions), and how effective they are in
addressing identified problems when enforced.
5. Discussion of whether any new by-laws are required to address identified
watershed problems, and development of revised by-laws (where existing
by-laws are deficient for addressing identified watershed problems) or new by-
laws (in cases where no current by-laws exist to address identified problems).
6. By-law endorsement, implementation and monitoring.
Approach 2—By-law reforms in the context of multi-stakeholder negotiations
The second approach to by-law reforms is one and the same with the approach to
negotiation support described above. It differs from the first in its explicit attempt
to identify and engage in negotiations groups with divergent interests, so as to
Participatory landscape governance 185
overcome the impasse that tends to characterize many collective action challenges.
It therefore differs by the nature of participants, with this process involving only
those with personal interests or stakes in the issue at hand. It is important to note,
however, that when negotiation support leads to formal by-law reforms, it will be
important to find a means to “scale up” agreements to the lowest administrative
level at which by-laws may be formulated. This is because once approved, by-laws
apply to all residents within an area; their buy-in is therefore critical.
Approach 3—By-law reforms embedded in local government structures
The third approach to participatory by-law reforms is embedded in local gov-
ernment structures established under decentralization reforms, as presented in
Chapter 3 (Approach 2 of participatory watershed diagnosis and planning).
Here, by-law formulation is integrated into a more general strategy of working
through community organizations and local government structures to support
participatory INRM. In this approach, these existing structures are themselves
empowered with facilitation skills to support participatory INRM and by-law
reforms within their respective local administrative structures.
A comparison of the three approaches gives an idea of their relative strengths and
drawbacks (Table 4.1). The unique features and purposes of the three approaches,
however, suggest that with adequate funding they could be best employed in
tandem—with Approach 3 used to build the capacity of local institutions and
administrators to implement the specific negotiation support processes outlined
in Approaches 1 and 2. A comprehensive approach for linking actors at different
levels in the by-law reform process, which could serve as the backbone to the
multilevel governance reform process, will be presented in Chapter 5.
It is important to reflect on the stages after negotiations are concluded. It is
clear that by-law endorsement by higher-level officials is a necessary condition
for their effective enforcement. Yet even with this endorsement, by-laws can
be ignored. The following reasons have been identified by farmers for poor
enforcement of existing or new by-laws:
● The difficulty of holding certain community members (e.g., traditional
healers, wealthy farmers, relatives of the leadership) accountable to by-laws,
as they are feared for their status within the community or relationship
with local leaders.
● Non-compliance of certain local government leaders with by-laws, which
serves as a strong deterrent to others abiding by the by-laws.
● Negative livelihood consequences of enforcement for some households
(Box 4.12).
● Failure to provide livelihood alternatives for activities forbidden or curtailed
through by-law enforcement (such as disseminating fodder trees in exchange
for restrictions on free grazing), thus undermining enforceability.
● Failure of government officials to apply sanctions when offenders are
reported, owing to corruption or favoritism.
TABLE 4.1 Comparison of approaches to participatory by-law reforms
Characteristic of the approach Approach 1: By-law reforms through
village-level negotiations
Approach 2: By-law reforms in the
context of multi-stakeholder negotiations
Approach 3: By-law reforms through
government and community NRM
structures
Entry point for by-law reform Village, ensuring effective
representation by gender and lower
level administrative units
Interest groups involved in relatively
“intractable” NRM issues involving
divergent stakes
Sub-county government
Facilitation R&D teams (but other entities can
also facilitate the process)
R&D teams (but other entities can
also facilitate the process)
Community-based organizations or
sub-county government
Community participation in
by-law revision and formulation
High (conducted first at village
level; ensures representation of
lower government structures)
Medium (involves only those with
direct stakes in the issue at hand),
but explicit targeting of those
directly concerned makes it highly
“equitable”
High (conducted first at village
level)
Ease of by-law endorsement Medium (government structures
not brought on board initially, but
can readily take up proposals once
informed)
Medium (government structures
not brought on board initially, but
can readily take up proposals once
informed) to Low (if negotiations
target specific niches rather than all
local residents with a stake)
High (local government at diverse
levels giving oversight
to the process)
Awareness of legal statutes Medium to Low (existing by-laws
and NRM policies are reviewed by
the community, but awareness is
incomplete)
Medium to Low (existing by-laws
and NRM policies are reviewed by
the community, but awareness is
incomplete)
High (by-laws previously formulated
are brought into the meeting by a
knowledgeable party)
Characteristic of the approach Approach 1: By-law reforms through
village-level negotiations
Approach 2: By-law reforms in the
context of multi-stakeholder negotiations
Approach 3: By-law reforms through
government and community NRM
structures
Duration 1 day mobilization; half day per
village to formulate by-laws
Mobilization can take anywhere
from 2 days (visits to each interest
group) to several months (if certain
parties refuse to enter into dialogue);
half day per niche to negotiate
solutions and by-laws
6 months
Outcomes Community enthusiasm high;
by-laws easily formulated for
most NRM challenges
Stakeholder enthusiasm high
if agreements reached are
acceptable to both sides; by-laws
more likely to “work” for the
more intractable NRM issues
involving divergent interests if
this approach is followed
Community enthusiasm high;
by-laws easily formulated for
most NRM challenges; by-laws
readily endorsed at sub-county
level
188 Laura German et al.
The livelihood costs of improved governance were a very crucial finding,
suggesting there are often significant economic deterrents to more equitable,
sustainable NRM. Two different possibilities exist for minimizing these costs—
one technological and one social. As illustrated in Box 4.12 and in Table 4.2,
technologies can play an important role in minimizing the cost of by-law
enforcement to those households whose livelihood options would be curtailed
in the process. It is interesting to note that during participatory by-law reform
processes, complementary governance and technological solutions are almost
always spontaneously proposed by participants. This has an important bearing
on the sequencing of implementation. By-law formulation must come first, as
new by-laws highlight technologies that may be introduced to help minimize
the livelihood costs—and enhance the effectiveness—of by-law enforcement
(e.g., fodder species providing a feed alternative to free grazing). Awareness of
the by-law and its date of enforcement must also be effectively carried out far
enough in advance of enforcement to enable households to adopt alternative
practices to substitute those that will be curtailed through by-law enforcement.
Only then must technologies be made available to all households, as awareness
creation on upcoming by-law enforcement will affect demand for technologies
and adoption levels. Finally, after livelihood alternatives are in place (i.e., fod-
der is now available), by-laws may begin to be enforced.
Interactions between watershed and non-watershed residents also have
a bearing on effective by-law implementation. For example, a ban on free
BOX 4.12 THE LIVELIHOOD COSTS OF IMPROVED
GOVERNANCE
Some by-laws proposed by community members themselves may carry detri-
mental effects for certain households. For example, by-laws to protect springs
and waterways restrict the land area available for cultivation and grazing, in par-
ticular for those households that have springs, streams, or irrigation canals on
or passing through their farms. Regulations on free grazing of livestock will have
consequences on livestock productivity, in particular for households with larger
livestock endowments or relying more on free than on zero grazing. By-laws
regulating the distance at which certain tree species (those perceived to be
overly “thirsty” or harmful to crops) may be grown relative to farm boundaries
or springs restricts land-use options and revenue streams for those households
practicing these activities. Governance must ultimately balance the social and
environmental costs of the status quo (i.e., declining water resources, negative
effects of boundary trees on neighbors, conflict) with the costs of solving these
problems for the collective good. Alternative technologies (e.g., fodder, crop-
compatible trees) can also go a long way in minimizing the livelihood costs of
more equitable land management practices (German et al., 2009).
Participatory landscape governance 189
grazing in the Tuikat Watershed of Kapchorwa has been effective only in con-
trolling free grazing by watershed residents, but not by farmers living outside
the watershed. A case from Kabale also illustrates this challenge (Box 4.13).
TABLE 4.2 Proposed solutions to identified NRM problems in Ginchi benchmark site
Problem Technological solutions Governance solutions
1. Water quantity
and quality in
springs
(i) Spring development
(concrete structures);
(ii) Physical and vegetative
structures to enhance
infiltration and spring
recharge.
(i) By-law specifying which tree species
may be planted within a specific
distance of springs (100m upslope, 25m
downslope).
(ii) By-laws to balance benefits with
contributions to maintenance.
(iii) [Following negotiations at Ameya
spring] Each spring user to compensate
landowner by planting 1 eucalyptus
tree elsewhere on his farm.
2. Incompatible
trees on farm
boundaries
(i) Substitute species for farm
boundaries that have most of
the beneficial characteristics
of incompatible species but
carry minimal costs.
(i) Minimum 10m barrier between
eucalyptus and cultivated land;
(ii) Payment of reparations if policy is
ignored;
(iii) By-law specifying acceptable
locations for eucalyptus (i.e., degraded
areas).
3. Soil erosion (i) Technologies for erosion
control, drainage, gulley
stabilization (physical and
vegetative structures)
(i) Non-conserving farmers will
compensate for losses to downslope
farmers;
(ii) By-laws governing drainage and
gulley management.
BOX 4.13 NRM BY-LAWS SHOULD EMBODY
FAIRNESS IF THEY ARE TO BE UPHELD AND
WIDELY ADOPTED
In Kabale District, AHI support to the formulation of local NRM by-laws raised
questions of equity, owing to the initial emphasis on implementing them only
in pilot villages. The consequences of NRM by-laws applied in one area but not
in others are numerous and often controversial. Villages where the by-laws do
not apply regard them as “alien” or “AHI” by-laws, and often resented or worked
to actively undermine them. Owing to the prevalent practice of land fragmen-
tation—where individual households own land plots in several landscapes and
administrative units (i.e., villages, parishes, and sub-counties)—residents often
190 Laura German et al.
Lessons learned
The following lessons were learned from efforts to facilitate participatory by-law
reforms in AHI benchmark sites:
● Informal resolutions are generally ineffective in ensuring agreed-upon
rules are respected, requiring local government involvement in by-law
endorsement and enforcement.
● The importance of creating awareness of the possible benefits of improved
governance of natural resources, and of existing policies and by-laws, in
the process of by-law review and formulation. Graphical representations
of landscapes with and without by-laws can go a long way in stimulating
awareness and interest in good governance during participatory by-law
reforms.
● Corruption in different levels of government is a strong determinant of
poor by-law enforcement, and must be addressed in efforts to improve
natural resource governance in the region. This holds from village level
(largely owing to interpersonal reasons and self-interest) up to district level
(owing to financial and material gain from non-enforcement). It is of
fundamental importance that local government leaders govern by exam-
ple, and that these local leaders be sensitized in the consequences of their
actions in this regard.
● By-laws must be applied uniformly in order to avoid negative transbound-
ary effects; local government has an essential role to play in harmonizing
by-laws across villages with a high degree of interdependence in their
natural resource management practices.
● There is an urgent need to integrate livelihood considerations into land-
scape governance efforts to enhance their social and economic feasibility.
For example, those negotiated agreements that create livelihoods costs to
at least one party require livelihood options to minimize those costs. These
complained that by-laws were unfair, and hence ineffective, since they only
applied in particular locations. Consequently, some farmers were disturbed
by the fact that they could freely graze their livestock in some areas, but were
denied the right to graze in other “AHI” areas. At times such site-specific vari-
ations in by-laws aligned with areas under different administrative units. In a
bid to partially redress this inequity brought about by the uneven application
of NRM by-laws, NRM Protection Committees resolved to hasten the process
of lobbying and convincing the different leadership structures at sub-county
level to harmonize the diverse NRM by-laws emanating from different villages,
and endorse and publicize these harmonized rules.
Participatory landscape governance 191
options often involve technologies that can substitute for the functions of
foregone land uses (e.g., fodder in exchange for free grazing).
Missing links
Many natural resource management issues remain unaddressed despite wide-
spread local concern, owing to the complex social and institutional dynamics that
underlie them. These include ineffective or non-existent institutions for col-
lective action, as well as divergent interests of local stakeholder groups that are
difficult to reconcile. Substantial progress has been made by AHI in designing
and testing approaches for participatory landscape governance which seek to
address existing inequities in natural resource management as well as unlock
the potential for solutions. These include methods for supporting local stake-
holders to negotiate “socially optimal” outcomes, methods for mobilizing
collective action and approaches for facilitating participatory by-law reforms.
However, there are a number of methodological gaps that remain that would
provide fertile ground for further methodological innovation:
1. Exploiting synergies among different by-law reform processes. In this chapter we
profiled three distinctive by-law reform processes that were applied in
different sites and for addressing a particular suite of challenges. Yet as
illustrated in the comparative assessment of these approaches, there is a lot
of potential to exploit synergies between these approaches. These include:
a) Efforts to link multi-stakeholder negotiations focused on specific landscape niches
to village level by-law reforms. Some challenges will remain unresolved
in the absence of explicit strategies to identify and engage stakeholders
with divergent interests. Efforts to engage specific sets of stakeholders
in specific “problem niches” (e.g., farm boundary X, spring Y) are
therefore essential. Yet in order for identified solutions to be sup-
ported through formal by-laws (thus making them more enforceable),
they need to be officially endorsed. And for official endorsement and
more widespread buy-in to identified reforms, these should be nego-
tiated and vetted among all those with similar sets of “stakes” within
local government jurisdictions (e.g., all farmers with eucalypt bounda-
ries with all affected parties in village Z). Approaches for linking the
sorely needed interest-based negotiations with wider endorsement
processes remain to be developed.
b) Nesting village-level by-law reforms in multilevel by-law reform processes.
Similarly, detailed processes for negotiating by-law reforms at village
level, presented in this chapter, have yet to be fully linked with formal
processes of by-law reform and endorsement in AHI host countries (to
be treated in Chapter 5). Yet there is considerable scope for refining
and improving upon the ways in which this legislation is implemented
in practice to achieve both equity and sustainability aims.
192 Laura German et al.
2. Identification of an appropriate “institutional model” for mainstreaming participa-
tory landscape-level innovation and governance in the region. Most agricultural
research and development organizations still focus on the farm level,
where decisions on farm management are made by individual farmers or
households. Organizations working at landscape level, on the other hand,
tend to focus on conservation in isolation from livelihood concerns and
livelihood barriers to conservation. Agricultural researchers tend to work
independently from development agencies such as NGOs, local govern-
ment and sometimes even extension. Other actors with a fundamental role
to play, such as local courts and law enforcement agencies, generally do
not view agriculture and NRM as their responsibility. Future innovation
should seek to develop and test new forms of partnership and collabora-
tion among such diverse actors to learn lessons on how to build upon
complementary skills and institutional mandates in operationalizing inte-
grated research and development agendas and fostering greater equity and
sustainability in natural resource management.
Conclusions
Many natural resource management concerns of local land users require a
collective approach. This may be because individualized actions are either
ineffective (cannot solve the problem) or inefficient (requiring efforts that are
greater than the benefits they yield in return), or because local stakeholders
have divergent interests that hinder easy solutions. Issues that are particularly
challenging either involve complex institutional challenges (e.g., open access
resources, as observed in the Ginchi outfields) or require losses to be incurred
by at least one party for the issue to be solved. This chapter provides both a
typology of issues and processes identified by highland residents that require
“participatory landscape governance,” as well as a set of methodologies for
identifying and negotiating solutions that balance the interests of multiple
actors and for ensuring that commitments made through these planning pro-
cesses are actually delivered on—without creating lasting enmities among
neighboring land users.
Examples where previously intractable NRM issues were addressed illus-
trate the potential of drawing on Ostrom’s principles in addressing modern-day
NRM challenges where local institutions of collective action and local gov-
ernance are deficient. This is seen most clearly in the benefits of a clearly
defined set of users (observed in efforts to successfully identify and engage
actors with specific yet divergent sets of interests in an issue, and unsuccess-
ful efforts at intensifying open access outfields in Ginchi where users are
many and often unknown), in the negotiation of voluntary collective choice
rules (as seen in the context of negotiation support and participatory by-law
reforms), and in the nature of those rules (including appropriate sanctions).
Yet in addition to these principles, efforts to balance informal (follow-up
Participatory landscape governance 193
persuasion with users to enhance compliance) with formal enforcement pro-
cesses, and to marry local self-governance with efforts to engage outside
institutions (local government, religious institutions, development agencies)
in natural resource governance, are essential.
Note
1 For example, negotiations on spring management in Areka site were mediated by local
administrative leaders at higher levels when more than one Peasant Association was
involved, and both elders and PA leaders when consulting individual landowners. This
approach enabled the landowner to tentatively agree to eliminate eucalyptus within a
radius of 20m around springs, subject to subsequent community-level negotiations to
agree on a plan for tree removal. In Ginchi, the project was unable to convince the land-
owner to come to the negotiation table, owing to the highly polarized and entrenched
nature of the conflict, until local elders were brought on board.
References
Gaspart, F., M. Jabbar, C. Melard, and J.P. Platteau (1998) Participation in the construction
of a local public good with indivisibilities: An application to watershed development in
Ethiopia. Journal of African Economies 7(2): 157–184.
Gebremedhin, B., J. Pender, and G. Tesfay (2002) Collective action for grazing land
management in mixed crop–livestock systems in the highlands of northern Ethiopia.
ILRI Socio-Economics and Policy Research Working Paper No. 42.
German, L., W. Mazengia, H. Taye, M. Tsegaye, S. Charamila, and J. Wickama (2009)
Minimizing the livelihood trade-offs of natural resource management in the eastern
African highlands: Policy implications of a project in “creative governance.” Human
Ecology 38(1): 31–47.
German, L., J. Ramisch and R. Verma (2010) Beyond the Biophysical: Knowledge, Culture and
Power in Agriculture and Natural Resource Management. Dordrecht: Springer.
Johnson, N., H.M. Ravnborg, O. Westermann and K. Probst (2001) User Participation in
Watershed Management and Research. CAPRi Working Paper 19: 1–25.
Knox, A., B. Swallow and N. Johnson (2001) Conceptual and Methodological Lessons for
Improving Watershed Management and Research. CAPRi Policy Brief 3:1–4.
Leach, M., R. Mearns, and I. Scoones (1999) Environmental entitlements: Dynamics and
institutions in community-based natural resource management. World Development 27(2):
225–47.
Meinzen-Dick, R., A. Knox, B. Swallow, and F. Place (2002) Introduction. In: R. Meinzen-
Dick, A. Knox, F. Place and B. Swallow (eds.) Innovation in Natural Resource Management:
The Role of Property Rights and Collective Action in Developing Countries. Baltimore, MD:
Johns Hopkins University Press, pp. 1–11.
Munk Ravnborg, H. and J.A. Ashby (1996) Organising for local-level watershed
management: Lessons from Rio Cabuyal watershed, Colombia. AgREN Network Paper
65: 1–14.
Munk Ravnborg, H., A.M. de la Cruz, M. del Pilar Guerrero, and O. Westermann (2000)
Collective action in ant control. CAPRi Working Paper No. 7.
Ostrom, E. (1990) Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
194 Laura German et al.
Pandey, S. and G.N. Yadama (1990) Conditions for local level community forestry action:
A theoretical explanation. Mountain Research and Development 10(1): 88–95.
Ravnborg, H.M. and J.A. Ashby (1996) Organising for Local-Level Watershed Management:
Lessons from Rio Cabuyal Watershed, Colombia. AgREN Network Paper 65, 14.
Sanginga, P.C., R. Kamugisha, A. Martin, A. Kakuru and A. Stroud (2004) Facilitating
participatory processes for policy change in natural resource management: lessons from
the highlands of Southwestern Uganda. Uganda Journal of Agricultural Sciences 9: 958–70.
Scott, C.A. and P. Silva-Ochoa (2001) Collective action for water harvesting irrigation in
the Lerma-Chapala Basin, Mexico. Water Policy 3: 555–572.
Wittayapak, C. and P. Dearden (1999) Decision-making arrangements in community-based
watershed management in northern Thailand. Society & Natural Resources 12: 673–691.
5
DISTRICT INSTITUTIONAL AND
POLICY INNOVATIONS
Joseph Tanui, Pascal Sanginga, Laura German,
Kenneth Masuki, Hussein Mansoor, and Shenkut Ayele
Context and rationale
In eastern Africa and indeed across much of the developing world, local gov-
ernment is increasingly being seen as a crucial nexus for rural development
planning and implementation (IULA, 1993; Perret, 2004). While the move
toward local government reforms and decentralized governance is strongly
supported by multilateral development agencies (Khan, 2006), the structural
adjustment programs of the 1980s also generated greater awareness among
government officials of the potentially productive role of local government
in development (Smoke, 1993). Being the arm of government closest to the
people, it is argued that local government is best positioned to support democ-
ratization of political processes and enhance the quality and efficiency of rural
development through grassroots participation.
Yet local governments face a host of challenges in meeting these expecta-
tions. Some of these are related to limited capacity and skills. These include
limited experience with financial and human resource management, coordi-
nation, and planning; limited downward accountability; and lack of capacity
to foster local participation (Perret, 2004). Other challenges are political and
financial in nature, such as limited funding, high levels of dependence on cen-
tral governments for resources, lack of motivation and political interference
by central governments unwilling to relinquish control (Khan, 2006; Ribot,
2003). The need for institutional development and institution building is often
acknowledged, but underfunded (Galvin, 1999). Khan (2006) argues that in
order for local government to be an effective instrument of change, it must
be supported financially and “backed up by consistent political will (by the
state) and active society (people’s participation)”—including the ability to serve
heterogeneous village demands. Thus, institution building must be about both
196 Joseph Tanui et al.
enhancing the capacity of local government to support democratic process, and
the capacity of the grassroots to penetrate political and deliberative spaces and
demand greater accountability.
Such challenges are compounded by historical antecedents. In most African
countries, colonial governments strengthened their control over local pop-
ulations through one of two means of domination: direct and indirect rule
(Mamdani, 1996). With indirect rule, widespread in the governance of rural
areas, the District Commissioner or “chief” served as the sole local authority,
customary leadership and institutions were co-opted to serve the needs of the
colonial rulers, and “local systems through which people were able to take col-
lective action were neglected, distorted and sometimes destroyed” (Wunsch
and Olowu, 1990: 27, cited in Galvin, 1999). Ironically, in the system of indi-
rect rule, the district (in British colonies) and the cercle (in French colonies) was
the seat of “customary” authority through which the centralized “civil” power
of the state was leveraged. Thus, “decentralized” governance and district level
government were tools of the central state to control its subjects (Mamdani,
1996). Newly independent governments maintained these systems for a short
period, and then re-centralized government at the national level as a means to
enhance central control.
Decentralization in Africa is therefore not new; however, the democratic
principles driving the recent wave of decentralization represent a significant
break from both the “decentralized despotism” of the colonial era (Mamdani,
1996) and the centralized control of early post-colonial states. Motives behind
the current wave of decentralization include the desire to achieve administra-
tive efficiency (owing to local decision making and coordination), enhance
procedural and distributional equity, improve service delivery, deepen par-
ticipation, and consolidate national unity (Ribot, 2003).1 By placing decisions
within the local sphere, it is argued that decision making will be faster and
more responsive to local needs, transaction costs will be reduced by mak-
ing decisions locally, and service delivery will be improved through better
matching of supply and demand. These laudable goals create real challenges for
operationalizing decentralized governance, as the very nature of the state must
be transformed. Furthermore, as with South Africa, “the primary level of rural
local government has not existed previously and thus requires support in the
form of training, technical assistance and additional funding to begin to func-
tion effectively” (Galvin, 1999: 99).
Despite these challenges, the district does perform critical functions in the
development agendas of nations in the eastern African region. It is usually the
hub for commercial activity and social services such as hospitals and courts of
law. The role of the district in providing social services, infrastructure, and
other amenities is appreciated by community members who have in a num-
ber of cases petitioned their governments to create more districts, with the
premise that it would bring services closer to the people. This suggests that
district-level institutions and functions hold enormous potential as an engine
District institutional and policy innovations 197
for rural development. One of the key challenges that currently undermines
more effective manifestation of this potential is the poor coordination among
development initiatives and agencies, leading to duplication of efforts, missed
opportunity for synergy and lack of sustainability. Various development actors
(including government agencies, non-governmental organizations, and the
private sector) working in the same locale often lack a consultative culture,
and rarely discuss possible collaboration or coordination of efforts to capitalize
upon their comparative advantage. Other challenges include weak planning
processes; limited accountability; limited capacity and incentives to support
participatory processes; and inefficient use of limited resources.
AHI’s work at district level consisted of the design and testing of district
institutional and policy innovations to explore means to capitalize upon the
district’s potential as a nexus for development planning and implementation
and decentralized governance. This work centered around three core func-
tions of local government in rural development: policy formulation and
implementation; service delivery; and fostering democratic process or political
representation (see also Galvin, 1999; Perret, 2004).
Democratic process
Democracies are characterized by transparent decision-making and open,
inclusive policy-reform processes. They provide for strong state-society
links—the essence of democracy—at all tiers of government, and multi-
ple communication channels between government leaders and citizens,
affording opportunities for people to share their concerns with officials
and to influence government decisions and actions. In well-functioning
democracies … the availability and use of multiple forms of inclusion help
ensure that citizen voices reach decision-makers and are acted on by gov-
ernment. These channels help citizens realize their rights and support the
institutionalization of fundamental democratic principles such as transpar-
ency, responsiveness, and accountability.
Veit et al., 2008
With the move toward decentralized governance, districts have become a key
to democratic process. Via democratically elected local leaders, people gain a
voice in policy matters—a voice that should be enhanced through the transfer
of powers to decentralized local government. Through the proximity of local
government and civil society, people can voice their development concerns
directly to those charged with representing their interests. Where decentrali-
zation has increased the financial resources and discretionary powers of local
government, the government should be more empowered to respond.
This is not to say that decentralization has always enhanced downward
accountability or representative decision making. In decentralization of nat-
ural resource management, inequitable local decision-making and benefit
198 Joseph Tanui et al.
distribution are frequently observed (Ribot, 2002a,b). Weak governance cre-
ates opportunities for local elites and vested interest groups to manipulate
the opportunities created by decentralization for their own benefit (Tacconi,
2007). Local elites may be prejudiced toward the poor and dominant ethnic
groups can use their new powers to take advantage of weaker ones (Ribot,
2002a,b). Therefore, choosing representative and accountable local institutions
is a key for both equity and efficiency.
It is important to note that participation, an informal form of popular rep-
resentation, also has its pitfalls. According to Veit and colleagues,
[While] providing opportunities to directly engage in government mat-
ters, promoting the will of the people and giving voice to minorities while
reinforcing majority positions, it can be time-consuming and expensive; is
susceptible to rushed, uninformed decision-making; and often favours the
most organized and powerful groups in society.
Veit et al., 2008
The difference between democratic and undemocratic process—whether for-
mal or informal—has a lot to do with accountability. Accountability refers
to both the obligation to provide information and explanations concerning
decisions and actions taken on behalf of others, and the ability to enforce rules
and apply sanctions (Brinkerhoff, 2001, cited by Ribot, 2003). Accountability
may be either upward or downward. While the latter is the essence of more
democratic institutions, examples are rife of both unaccountable and upwardly
accountable local institutions leading to misappropriation of funds intended for
local communities (Brockington, 2007; Oyono, 2005).
Two issues related to democratic process were explored within AHI. The
first concerns the development or strengthening of social infrastructure through
which to articulate local development priorities. A number of authors warn
against the creation of parallel local institutions for the implementation of
development programs, given its effect on weakening democratically elected
authorities and its potential to favor the most organized and powerful groups
over majority interests (Ribot, 2002a). Yet some form of hybrid may be needed
where government actors are too weak to fulfill their functions. The second
concerns the development of social and institutional processes through which
local voices are to be heard in setting local development priorities and enhanc-
ing rural governance.
Policy formulation and implementation
New approaches to natural resource management such as integrated natural
resource management (INRM), integrated agricultural research for develop-
ment (IAR4D) and sustainable livelihood approaches have emphasized the need
to move beyond technologies to getting social and institutional innovations
District institutional and policy innovations 199
to work synergistically with technological innovations in addressing natural
resource management challenges (Sanginga, 2004). Recent experience with
more integrated approaches to natural resource management have illustrated
the fundamental role participatory governance (and particularly the devel-
opment of collective choice rules) has to play in addressing natural resource
management concerns of local communities (German et al., 2008, 2010).
Districts have a fundamental role to play in policy formulation and imple-
mentation. Historically, this role was largely restricted to implementation of
state-mandated policies. A system of local by-laws was first implemented by
the British as a means to control the rural population, and utilized to enforce
land management practices believed to be essential to environmental protec-
tion (soil conservation, forest protection, bans on burning, etc.). Imposed from
without rather than developed through collective choice, these by-laws served
to further the interests of colonial powers—creating a situation of resent-
ment toward “modern” laws and the natural resource management practices
enforced by them. By-laws have also been implemented as mechanisms for
central state control in the post-colonial era, as illustrated by the use of agricul-
tural by-laws during Nyerere’s rule in Tanzania as a means to coerce farmers
to produce more food (Sheridan, 2004). Until recently, by-laws were largely
drafted by district or national governments and used as a means to promote
national interests (Wily and Dewees, 2008).
While districts continue to have a fundamental role to play in the imple-
mentation and enforcement of principal laws formulated at national level, in
many places they are also increasingly playing a role in fostering more par-
ticipatory forms of rural governance. With the move toward decentralized
governance, by-laws have been increasingly recognized as a means for rural
self-governance. Today, registered villages in Tanzania and Uganda have the
right to make by-laws in respect to any village matter,2 provided they are
consistent with the provisions of national laws. Ironically, the system of local
by-laws established during the colonial era to further central government con-
trol may now offer an opportunity for more empowering forms of governance
through the presence and political legitimacy of local collective choice rules.
AHI work in this area involved the generation of approaches for mobilizing
the latent potential of local government to bridge technological and govern-
ance innovations in addressing NRM concerns of local communities through
participatory by-law reforms.
Service delivery
The district has a fundamental role to play in the delivery of public ser-
vices, including health care, agricultural extension, infrastructure, education
and—increasingly—information. Public service providers throughout the
region have faced increasing pressure to demonstrate their relevance. This
is largely owing to the predominant tendency toward supply- rather than
200 Joseph Tanui et al.
demand-driven approaches. Agricultural extension, for example, has come
under increased scrutiny owing to a host of institutional weaknesses that have
limited its effectiveness, among these its highly centralized and bureaucratic
structure; exogenous, donor-driven, non-participatory planning; lack of effi-
ciency and accountability of financing and service delivery mechanisms; lack of
motivated service providers responsive to farmers’ needs; and decreasing public
sector funding (Nahdy, 2004; Rivera and Alex, 2004). Key rationales behind
resulting reforms have been the need to strengthen client demand for services
through participatory approaches, and to enhance the role of the private sector
in service delivery (Nahdy, 2004; Rivera and Alex, 2004).
One of the newer services to be delivered to rural populations is information.
Ever since the concept of “information society” came to the fore in the 1970s,
the correlation between access to information and poverty alleviation has been
widely acknowledged (Flor, 2001). The main proposition was that information
leads to resources and to opportunities to generate resources (ibid.). “Leaders in
the World Bank, European Union, United Nations, and G-8 have highlighted
the problem of exclusion from the knowledge economy, where know-how
replaces land and capital as the basic building blocks of growth” (Norris, 2001:
6). While a few large-scale, commercial farmers on the continent have used
some of the decision support tools that information and communication tech-
nologies (ICTs) are providing, relatively little attention has been paid to the
potential benefits of the broader use of ICTs in the (largely informal) agricultural
sector, one of the few in which women often predominate (ACACIA, 2006).
The National Strategy for Growth and Reduction of Poverty and the Poverty
Eradication Action Plan (2004/5–2007/8) of Uganda (Government of Uganda,
2004, 2005) assert that reasons for limited access to ICTs include low literacy
rates, low incomes, and the limited number of ICT service providers.
At the district level, access to information by various actors continues to be
a challenge and a deficit area. Any coordination among R&D actors is ad hoc,
and coherent communications strategies at district level are lacking throughout
the region. Information which is either highly specialized (and therefore found
only in isolated pockets) or not readily available at district level often includes:
market prices, seasonality and traders; the location of expert farmers and service
providers; and agronomic information for non-traditional crops. Given limited
coordination, the act of seeking information by R&D practitioners and provid-
ing it in usable forms to stakeholders is inefficiently handled on a case-by-case
basis, as each entity is doing its own thing in its own location and according to
its own sectoral interests. Such high transaction costs for limited returns (e.g.,
delivery to few farmers) could be addressed through a system of coordinated
information access and delivery at district level. AHI took up this challenge by
employing an action research approach to methodological innovation in infor-
mation delivery.
This chapter summarizes experiences gained by AHI in evolving district
level institutional and policy innovations for natural resource management in
District institutional and policy innovations 201
each of the arenas mentioned earlier. Through specific case studies, the chapter
highlights lessons on systems for democratic decision making in NRM, district
level governance of natural resources, and demand-driven service delivery.
Methods to foster democratic process and vertical
stakeholder collaboration
The implementation and sustainability of landscape level natural resource man-
agement interventions require the participation and support from a variety
of stakeholders at various levels, and ability to accommodate various points
of view. Achieving effective representation of local level actors in decision
making about development and natural resource management issues that affect
them is a challenging task, given the number of actors and interests at the local
level in any given district. For each of these reasons, effective approaches for
achieving democratic decision making in efforts to link development actors at
multiple levels are sorely needed.
The establishment of linkages between actors at different levels is required
to address many problems given their unique and potentially complementary
mandates and contributions in identifying constraints, implementing solutions,
and in ensuring feedback from the grassroots to relevant government actors and
service providers. In this regard there is need for an institutional arrangement
at the district level that can: (i) systematically support the articulation of mul-
tiple local “voices” in development planning, (ii) help to reconcile alternative
visions of land use and development, and (iii) foster local self-sufficiency while
prioritizing issues requiring external support, and ensuring the responsiveness
of the relevant actors through their integration into district-level planning.
While many arguments have been put forward on the merits and demerits of
“top-down” and “bottom-up” approaches to development, there is a dearth
of information on effective processes for linking levels of decision making and
action in rural development and NRM.
Approach development
Two basic approaches for linking levels of decision making and action have
been tested in AHI. The first is more “ad hoc” in nature, and seeks to minimize
the transaction costs of vertical linkages through the application of the “sub-
sidiarity” principle—namely, that matters ought to be handled by the smallest,
lowest, or least centralized competent authority. Only when approaches fail
at this level are linkages with outside actors forged to help resolve conflicts or
bring in resources required to unlock the potential for change. The second
approach is more systematic in nature, establishing an institutional infrastruc-
ture for representative democracy in district-level development planning and
implementation.
202 Joseph Tanui et al.
Approach 1—Vertical integration on demand
The more ad hoc approach to vertical stakeholder collaboration consists of the
following basic steps:
1. During the participatory diagnosis and planning process, an institutional
mapping is done of stakeholders at district and lower levels (the research
and extension system, other government ministries, NGOs, farmer asso-
ciations, government leaders at diverse levels, local courts and faith-based
organizations, among others). All relevant3 stakeholders are listed and their
interests and mandates noted.
2. Initial consultative meetings are held to familiarize different actors with
the initiative. This early involvement of other stakeholders can be vital for
the targeting of actions, mobilization of resources and—importantly—for
mobilizing their support at a later stage.
3. The project is implemented as planned through support to local level
action planning and mobilization.
4. When a problem arises, communities and project representatives first dis-
cuss possible means to address the problem with existing stakeholders and
using local resources.
5. If the problem cannot be resolved effectively at this level (either after
agreeing that higher level intervention is required or after testing local
level solutions and failing to find a solution), agreements are made on the
nature of outside support that can help to address the problem and how to
mobilize those actors to assist (Box 5.1).
BOX 5.1 VERTICAL INTEGRATION FOR WATER
SOURCE PROTECTION IN GALESSA, ETHIOPIA
The participatory diagnosis of landscape-level NRM problems highlighted a
serious shortage of water and high level of water contamination in the Galessa
Watershed. With encouragement and guidance from the research and exten-
sion system, watershed residents showed a high level of interest in addressing
the problem through community-level collective action. Through a process of
stakeholder identification and negotiation support, local residents agreed on
actions that would help to rehabilitate the springs and manage them properly
and formulated by-laws to help support these agreements. Despite early suc-
cesses—including farmer contributions of labor, money, and materials, and
agreements between stakeholders on the removal of fast-growing (“thirsty”)
trees planted near springs (and actual cutting of a portion of a woodlot)—the
process encountered some difficulties in implementation. Addressing these
problems required inputs from district-level stakeholders.
District institutional and policy innovations 203
Challenges in enforcing the by-law with
neighboring villages
Owing to the commitment of watershed residents, concrete structures were
installed around springs with financial, labor, and material contributions from
watershed residents and were being well maintained with small monetary
contributions from users. By-laws were being enforced and spring users from
watershed villages expressed their willingness to accept sanctions for failure to
abide by these local level agreements. The first challenge came from neigh-
boring villages that wished to gain access to the springs but did not wish to
pay the required fees or abide by the by-laws. They claimed that the devel-
oped spring was subsidized by the government and watershed communities
therefore have no right to ask for labor or financial contributions. Watershed
residents refused them access until they contribute in labor and money what
they failed to contribute during spring construction. District level stakeholders
were called in to assist in resolving the impasse. The point raised by neigh-
boring villages was that they too had a right to government assistance in
protecting the spring in their own village. If this support were provided, they
expressed their willingness to make similar contributions to the collective
good. As their position became clear, the district stakeholders assumed the
responsibility in guiding these communities in developing their own spring.
Dealing with emergent conflicts
Following agreements on the removal of eucalypts around Ameya spring
and strong pressure from the community, the woodlot owners cut down the
portion of the woodlot closest to the spring. After some time, however, the
eucalypts began to coppice and the spring owner refused to take any further
action—instead placing increasingly stringent conditions on his compliance
(requesting compensation, reducing the scope of earlier commitments). The
watershed committee was unable to enforce the agreement. Village residents
themselves were going to take it upon themselves to enforce the agreement,
but were also unsuccessful. Therefore, district level stakeholders were called
upon to assist in resolving the conflict, and district and PA-level government
representatives assumed responsibility for finding a resolution to the conflict
by resorting to the law. The conflict was ultimately resolved in support of the
landowners, who would have to receive cash compensation for the eucalypts
if they were to proceed with removal and village members could not generate
sufficient compensation. Importantly, however, the process of dialogue and
decisive intervention by government enabled the latent conflict to dissipate
and neighboring farmers to continue living amicably despite the water prob-
lem remaining unaddressed.
204 Joseph Tanui et al.
Approach 2—A systematic approach to farmer representation in
district-level development planning and decision making
The second approach to vertical stakeholder collaboration involves working
through an (existing or new) institutional infrastructure for representation
in district-level development planning and implementation. The limited
institutional and financial resources for supporting rural development make
such coordination an important part of any government-funded or exog-
enous development effort by ensuring that service delivery supports the
most important concerns of communities throughout the district, and refo-
cuses disconnected development or NRM efforts by leveraging synergies
between actors and interventions. The following are generic steps in the
process of ensuring representative decision making in district development
planning:
1. Create awareness around the topic of concern (e.g., integrated develop-
ment and conservation).
2. Develop a team of “champions” on the topic who are willing to volunteer
during subsequent steps in planning, including farmers and other commu-
nity members as well as local government officials at various levels.
3. Carry out a facilitators’ training, during which skills in facilitating partici-
patory processes are covered and a methodology for facilitating subsequent
steps in participatory planning at diverse levels is agreed upon.
4. Carry out representative planning processes building upon the appre-
ciative inquiry approach (to embed this planning in local level skills
and resources), starting at the local level (villages or farmer groups)
(Box 5.2).
5. For NRM interventions, carry out a middle level of planning at the land-
scape level together with village representatives. This process builds upon
local level action plans but incorporates new activities that require land-
scape-level action.
6. Facilitate the identification of local-level innovations (including farmer
learning processes and forms of indigenous knowledge-in-use) that can be
built upon in addressing farmers’ articulated needs.
7. Collate lower-level action plans from the appreciative inquiry process and
the identified local innovations at district level, and hold a planning meet-
ing with local government and different service providers to agree on how
priorities articulated at the local level can be best supported with limited
human and financial resources. Plans for mobilizing the recently trained
facilitators in supporting development actions at various levels are devel-
oped at this time.
District institutional and policy innovations 205
BOX 5.2 USE OF FARMER LEARNING CYCLES TO
ARTICULATE DEVELOPMENT PRIORITIES AND
INITIATE DIALOGUE WITH DISTRICT LEVEL ACTORS
In Kapchorwa District, Uganda, facilitators were trained to support grassroots
structures (in this case, farmer groups) in strengthening their own learning
and planning processes, as well as to make proactive linkages with district-
level actors to leverage support for local development priorities. An approach
called farmer learning cycles (or “reflect cycles”) was employed, which is
essentially a grassroot’s planning and review process. At village level, farmers
congregate to identify common problems, plan and implement agreed action
plans. The process is facilitated by volunteers (from member organizations)
as well as extension staff. Depending on the type and extent of resources
required (financial and technical), these groups are able to implement their
action plans by mobilizing their own resources. In situations where they are
unable to raise the necessary resources, they pass on an action plan with a
request for support through their facilitators to village or sub-county govern-
ment. These requests are collated at sub-county level, and brought to the
district platform for consideration. The reflect cycles play a key role in mobiliz-
ing local resources to meet local development needs, and in enabling farmers
to proactively lobby for support from external actors. The participation of local
government at various levels (village, sub-county, and district) allows needs to
be matched to service providers and resources, and helps to legitimize local
development efforts being undertaken.
The role of farmer learning cycles
Reflect cycles enhance farmer learning processes by providing opportunities
for farmers to exchange views, and question different understandings through
experience sharing and experimentation. This farmer learning process con-
sists of a group of neighboring farmers, usually not more than 25 in number,
meeting regularly for a period of time, as often as once per week, to study a
certain subject or theme or take part in a practical activity. For agricultural and
NRM issues, meetings are generally held in farmers’ fields. The reflect cycles
are characterized by democratic values and responsibility toward one’s own
situation. These reflect groups are often led by farmer innovators who have
expertise in a topic of mutual interest. In this regard, reflect group leaders vary
depending on the group’s interests. Where expertise is lacking, the group
seeks assistance externally. In the reflect process, farmers plan based on their
needs and interests, exchange ideas, and acquire knowledge based on the
collective wisdom of the group.
206 Joseph Tanui et al.
Lessons learned
The following lessons were learned from AHI’s experience in fostering demo-
cratic process and vertical stakeholder collaboration:
● Ensuring effective representation in district development processes requires
both bottom-up efforts to mobilize latent potential at community level
and articulate demand, and efforts by district-level institutions to respond
to this demand. Such an approach is therefore highly complementary to
approaches highlighted in the upcoming section on multi-institutional
partnerships at district level.
● Ad hoc approaches to vertical integration may be effective in addressing
specific problems with limited transaction costs (e.g., without needing to
invest in social structures and processes for demand-driven development
at local and district levels). However, solutions will remain isolated in
the absence of more systematic approaches. Therefore, while such ad hoc
approaches may be effective in fostering vertical stakeholder collaboration,
they are less effective in ensuring effective representation.
● A more systematic approach to farmer representation in district-level
development planning and decision making requires significant up-
front investment in institution building, which in turn requires a source
of financing. However, costs are minimized and sustainability enhanced
when building on the spirit of volunteerism and mobilizing local facilita-
tors from communities or government agencies.
Responsive governance: The district role in participatory by-law reforms4
With recent decentralization efforts and the mainstreaming of participatory
approaches in policy and development, considerable attention is now given
to devolving decision making to the lowest level, and to refining participatory
Sustaining the process
The main challenge is ensuring responsiveness of district-level actors and ser-
vice providers to the needs articulated by farmers. This requires district-level
commitment to demand-driven development and an organizational mech-
anism to leverage existing human and financial resources (from within and
outside government) in response to demand. As illustrated in the sections on
demand-driven service provision and multi-institutional processes, below, this
mechanism takes a concerted effort and time to develop, requires frequent
monitoring and adjustment (particularly initially, until the process is proven to
be effective), and carries significant costs in the short run.
District institutional and policy innovations 207
techniques by creating more inclusive spaces for hearing the voices of all (James
et al., 2001; Ribot, 2002a,b; Scoones and Thompson, 2003). However, there
is concern that decentralization has not resulted in improvements in NRM,
nor has it affected the capacities and decision-making powers of local com-
munities. It is only to a limited extent that policy makers seek the participation
of local stakeholders in designing and formulating policies or by-laws. Yet, it is
recognized that rural communities and local stakeholders would be more likely
to see by-laws as addressing their own needs and constraints and more likely to
implement them, if they had participated in their formulation (Nkonya et al.,
2005).
Previous chapters of this book indicate that local NRM practices are shaped
by a range of both formal and informal institutions. These chapters illustrate
how AHI attempts to build “adaptive manager communities” (Fabricius
et al., 2007)—communities empowered to formulate their own by-laws, and
develop, adapt, and mobilize collective action and local innovations—have
helped them better manage their landscape resources and even increase land
productivity. The emphasis on local institutions and local innovations is based
on literature suggesting that communities are more efficient than state struc-
tures in the management of natural resources (Agrawal and Gibson, 1999;
Ostrom, 2000). While these and other studies have focused attention on the
role of local institutions (formal and informal), little has been done to illus-
trate the benefits of linking these local institutions to higher, local government
structures, nor how to go about it in practice. The role of local government
in shaping, formalizing, and legitimizing these local by-laws has often been
neglected. A critical component of INRM and of scaling INRM innovations
is building capacity in the “middle,” and particularly strengthening the institu-
tions in local government that translate policy into action. There is therefore
need for a better understanding of approaches and techniques for integrating
local institutions and aspirations into formal policy objectives and processes,
and for making government policies more responsive to, and representative of,
local people’s concerns and experiences.
In the natural resource management arena, by-laws are negotiated rules,
social norms, and agreed behaviors that exist within communities to man-
age natural resources, and prevent and manage conflicts. They are a tool for
managing natural resources in a way that places community interests above
those of individuals (Bowles and Gintis, 2002; Coleman, 1988). They also give
individuals confidence to invest in community activities, knowing that others
will do so too (Pretty, 2003). In legal and policy terms, by-laws are a body of
local laws and customs of a village, town, or city, or rules made by lower local
government councils which provide the local guidelines to be followed in
implementing sectoral policies and preventing agricultural and NRM practices
that could be detrimental to the common good. This form of by-law is formu-
lated at lower levels of decentralized government (villages, wards, districts) and
often help to operationalize national policies.
208 Joseph Tanui et al.
This section draws from experience with participatory by-law reform in
Uganda that involved moving beyond local communities and linking with
higher levels of local government. Participatory by-law reforms are described
in a logical and structured way to enable development practitioners and NRM
researchers to consider how insights gained from AHI’s work on participa-
tory by-law reform, linking local communities with local government, might
be relevant to their own practices and situations. The next section provides a
simple description of legislated processes for formulating and enacting by-laws.
Historical and institutional frameworks for by-law reform in Uganda5
In Uganda and East Africa more broadly, many existing by-laws were inherited
from the colonial administration and are thus seen as repressive and top-down
(Okoth-Ogendo and Tumushabe, 1999). The majority were formulated before
independence by British colonial administrators without local participation,
with strict enforcement mechanisms—including force and coercion. In the
colonial period, local chiefs and administrators strictly enforced by-laws as this
was used as an indicator of their performance. There were also clear enforce-
ment structures and coercive penalties for non-compliance. Enforcement of
by-laws faded after independence, as most by-laws were regarded as instru-
ments of colonial repression. Such top-down and centralized policies often
resulted in disempowerment of local communities, the weakening of custom-
ary forms of governance, power imbalances, and the exclusion of vulnerable
groups, and failed to provide appropriate incentives for community-based
NRM (Means et al., 2002). Often locally unacceptable, many of the by-laws
were left unenforced.
The Ugandan Constitution of 1995 and the 1997 Local Government Act
sought to change this system and guarantee a process of consultation and partic-
ipation at village, ward, community, and district levels for environmental plans
and policies. Bottom-up involvement in policy formulation occurs within an
overall context of administrative and political decentralization, which has the
structure of a five-tier system of local councils and local government structures
(Table 5.1). It includes the devolution of powers for development planning
and the development and implementation of by-laws for land use, environ-
mental management and agricultural production.
Within this structure, the village or LC 1 is the basic level of decentralization
and of community participation in by-law formulation and implementation
(see Box 5.3). The sub-county also has important political and administrative
powers to develop by-laws and implement development plans, and is the low-
est unit where policy reform can be effectively initiated. The district (LC 5) is
the highest level of local government and therefore has important political and
administrative powers to enact by-laws, consolidate development plans, and
allocate budgets. It is also the most effective level for linking with the central
government.
District institutional and policy innovations 209
TABLE 5.1 Decentralized structures in Uganda: Levels and main functions
Local Council level Composition Functions
Local Council 1:
Village (around
50 to 100
households)
9 members, at least
4 women
● Assist in maintaining law, order, and security
● Initiate, support, and participate in self-help
projects
● Recommend persons for local defense units
● Serve as communication channels with
government services
● Monitor the administration of projects
● Impose service fees
● Collect taxes
● Resolve problems and disputes
● Make by-laws
LC 2: Parish
(composed of
3–10 villages)
Depends on
the number of
villages electing
representatives,
but must include
at least 4 women
● Assist in maintaining law, order, and
security
● Serves as communication channels with
government services
● Initiate, support, and participate in self help
projects
● Monitor the administration of projects
● Resolve problems and disputes
LC 3: Sub-county
(Composed of
2–10 parishes)
Depends on the
number of parishes,
but must include at
least:
● 1/3 women
● 2 youth
● persons with
disabilities
● elected councilors
from parishes
● Enact by-laws
● Approve sub-county budget
● Levy, charge, and collect fees and taxes
● Monitor performance of government
employees
● Formulate, approve, and execute sub-
county budgets
● Resolve problems and disputes
LC 4: County
(composed of
3–5 sub-counties)
5 members, including
chairpersons or vice-
chairperson from
each sub-county
● Advise district officers and area Members of
Parliament
● Resolve problems and disputes
● Monitor delivery of services
LC 5: District
(composed of
3–5 counties)
36 members,
including:
● 12 women
councilors
● 2 youth
● 2 people with
disabilities
● 19 elected
councilors
● Exercise all political and executive powers
● Provide services
● Ensure implementation of and compliance
with government policies
● Plan for the District
● Enact district laws and ordinances
● Monitor performance of government policies
● Levy, charge, and collect fees and taxes
● Formulate, approve, and execute district
budgets
210 Joseph Tanui et al.
Despite such clear guidelines, there are few available records on the formula-
tion or revision of by-laws. Where there have been some attempts, the process
has been far from participatory and has tended to be restricted to small edito-
rials to existing by-laws and updated penalties. AHI’s action research efforts
were aimed at developing mechanisms for strengthening local participation
in by-law reforms as a means to support improved NRM and more equitable
development.
Approach development
This section reports on a single approach tested in south-western Uganda to
strengthen the linkages between local-level by-law reform processes and higher
levels of government.
Multilevel policy reforms emanating from the grassroots
The participatory by-law reform process tested in Kabale District, Uganda,
consisted of the following iterative and complementary steps:
BOX 5.3 FORMAL BY-LAW FORMULATION PROCESS
IN UGANDA
The formal process of formulating and enacting by-laws consists of the fol-
lowing steps:
1. Any community can initiate the process of formulating a by-law or their
councilor can draft a bill seeking to formulate a by-law;
2. The draft bill is introduced to the council by one councilor;
3. The bill is then published and distributed to all councilors by the Council
Clerk;
4. The bill is debated and approved within 14 days after publication;
5. If passed, the bill is forwarded to the relevant higher council for certifi-
cation of consistency with the constitution, ordinances, and other laws,
after which it is returned;
6. The bill is then forwarded through the line Minister to Attorney General for
certification of consistency with parliamentary laws and the Constitution,
after which it is returned;
7. The certified bill is then signed by the District Chairperson to become an
ordinance (for a district-level bill) or by-law (for lower council bills).
8. The ordinance or by-law is then published in the gazette, in local media,
or posted in a conspicuous place.
District institutional and policy innovations 211
● participatory diagnostics
● district buy-in and goal setting
● bottom-up community learning and experimentation
● horizontal and vertical policy dialogue at the sub-county level
● district policy dialogues
● participatory monitoring and evaluation, feedback and reflection.
Implemented as a participatory action research process (Reason and Bradbury,
2001), the process of developing and testing these steps consisted of iterative
series of action learning loops at diverse levels of policy innovation (Figure 5.1).
The process was supported by a skilled action research team that motivated
and facilitated people to participate in the process of action learning, while
supporting platforms for policy dialogue and negotiation. The team created
the conditions in which local people were able to participate, analyze and
review existing by-laws, formulate appropriate by-laws, and monitor their
implementation.
The above steps, each of which generated lessons on processes to be utilized
within that step and on subsequent steps required to help achieve overall objec-
tives, merit additional attention. This is done below, with particular emphasis
on the linkages between levels and the role of local government in the process.
Step 1: Participatory diagnostics
Similar to participatory by-law processes profiled in Chapter 3, the first step of
the participatory by-law reform processes carried out in Kabale was an inten-
sive and iterative process of participatory diagnosis and community visioning
(Sanginga and Chitsike, 2005). This was fundamental in stimulating collective
i Participatory
diagnostics
and visioning
ii District buy
in and goal
setting
iii Community
NRM action
learning
iv Horizontal and
vertical policy
learning
v District policy
dialogue
vi M&E,
feedback and
reflection
FIGURE 5.1 Operational framework for participatory policy action research
212 Joseph Tanui et al.
learning and the articulation of desired future conditions. Communities identi-
fied governance and institutional failures as critical aspects of community-based
natural resources management. The lack of strong enforcement mechanisms
of existing by-laws was seen as the main reason for the ineffectiveness of most
prior NRM interventions. The community visioning and planning process
encouraged farmers to think creatively about potential means to enhance
compliance with and equitable implementation of by-laws. It was recognized
that actions at the community level would not yield results unless they were
linked with, supported, and legitimized by higher levels of governance and
government institutions, given the latter’s power to enact by-laws and impose
sanctions for their enforcement. This required buy-in and support from district
authorities.
Step 2: District buy-in and goal setting
The second step in participatory by-law reforms involved bringing together a
number of stakeholders at the district level to begin to analyze the problem.
A series of policy stakeholder workshops and learning events (seminars, field
visits) were organized to catalyze local political support for sustainable NRM.
These workshops revealed that the majority of policy makers and local leaders
have a limited understanding of the policy and by-law formulation process,
the existing policies and by-laws they are charged with implementing, and
the implementation process itself. There was no systematic guidance on the
processes and mechanisms for formulating and enforcing by-laws. In the first
district NRM policy stakeholder workshop, three major recommendations
were made: (i) to conduct an empirical study to provide evidence of people’s
awareness and level of compliance with existing by-laws, and constraints to
their enforcement; (ii) pilot a participatory by-law reform project in selected
communities; and (iii) establish a district Policy Task Force to provide over-
sight to the process of enhancing NRM governance.
An empirical study was then conducted to assess people’s awareness, the
effectiveness of existing by-laws, implementation constraints and strategies for
improving their enforcement. Survey results showed that farmers often have
high levels of awareness of existing regulations. For example, over 75 percent of
farmers interviewed were aware of the regulation that requires farmers to con-
struct soil bunds and other soil conservation structures along the contour. Over
60 percent of farmers were also familiar with the regulation requiring farmers
to plant appropriate vegetation on these structures. Similarly, the majority of
farmers (68 percent) knew about the tree planting by-law, which requires that
any person who cuts a tree plants two and ensures they are protected. However,
despite these high levels of awareness, by-law enforcement and implementa-
tion was weak. It was noted that the decentralization process had introduced
multiple overlapping systems of governance and regulations (legal pluralism),
as well as increased political interference, nepotism, confusion, and conflicts
District institutional and policy innovations 213
between different levels and structures of government. By introducing local
councils at village level where local political and administrative powers are now
concentrated, the decentralization process had weakened existing authorities
and institutions for managing and regulating the use of natural resources. A
combination of social, economic, and political factors had undermined the
ability of local mechanisms, clan elders, and community organizations to man-
age conflicts (Means et al., 2002). This led to factionalism, with the more
educated and wealthier farmers often not willing to accept decisions made by
local communities and clan elders and preferring to take their cases to govern-
ment institutions at higher levels for arbitration. Clan leaders were also found
to exhibit biases in by-law enforcement and engage in corrupt behaviors.
Step 3: Bottom-up action learning processes
The second recommendation of the district policy stakeholder workshop was
to pilot a participatory by-law reform process in select villages (LC1) in one
sub-county. Four villages were selected in Rubaya Sub-County, where AHI
was already established. The entry point was through existing farmers groups
involved in participatory NRM activities and with high levels of social capital.
The project’s strategy was to build on existing social capital and to strengthen
it through facilitating participatory social learning and policy dialogue pro-
cesses. This approach contrasts with approaches highlighted in Chapter 4, in
which processes for landscape governance were grounded in village-level fora
or stakeholder-based negotiations. The approach presented here has the benefit
of initiating with local level institutions with strong social capital and thus pos-
sessing many of the skills required to take on new challenges and sustain their
engagement. However, it may be less effective in ensuring widespread buy-
in by ensuring widespread representation or explicitly addressing conflicting
interests. An effort was made by facilitators to explore multiple perspectives of
resources users, with the aim of gaining credibility and support of different cat-
egories of farmers through more inclusive and consultative processes. Building
on participatory diagnostics and community visioning, the next step involved
the collective analysis of NRM issues and existing by-laws and participatory
community action planning. As a result of this process, pilot communities
reviewed and reformulated a number of informal by-laws—namely, those that
exist outside the formal legislative structure but are addressing specific prob-
lems in the communities. At this time, technologies that could be implemented
in conjunction with certain by-laws were also identified. Over time, participa-
tory by-law reform processes were progressively institutionalized, in order to
strengthen the capacity of village members to effectively engage with higher
levels of governance (Box 5.4).
214 Joseph Tanui et al.
BOX 5.4 INSTITUTIONALIZING GRASSROOTS POLICY
FORMULATION AND IMPLEMENTATION
Recognizing that power relations set limits and social conditions to people’s
participation (see also Cooke and Kothari, 2001; Stringer et al., 2006), the
facilitation team played a proactive role in strengthening the capacity of farm-
ers’ organizations to engage effectively in policy dialogue. This included a
range of participatory techniques (visioning, role plays, and other adult learn-
ing methods) for coaching and mentoring farmers’ representatives to better
articulate their policy needs and NRM visions with confidence. In order for
ad hoc village by-law committees to become part of the policymaking pro-
cess, there was a need to develop mechanisms to institutionalize participatory
processes for policy formulation and implementation. The project therefore
facilitated the formation and functioning of policy task forces (PTFs), with
the following functions: (1) to create and facilitate a platform for dialogue
between communities, local government councils and R&D organizations on
the analysis of NRM issues and local by-laws; (2) to initiate and monitor the
review, formulation, and implementation of by-laws; (3) to link the village
with sub-county and district PTFs, local government and external agencies;
and (4) to disseminate NRM technologies. The formation of these committees
followed a more inclusive and participatory process for electing committee
members and defining their roles and responsibilities.
Through the PTFs, proposed by-laws were debated, harmonized, and
formalized into a set of five by-laws focused on: controlling soil erosion, tree
planting, regulating the grazing of livestock, controlling bush fire and wetland
management, each with its specific regulations and enforcement mechanisms.
PTFs proved to be critical in building support for by-law review and formulation;
for mobilizing the political, social, human, and technical resources needed to
sustain the participation of local communities in policy dialogue and action;
and for the adoption of NRM innovations. They also supported the evolution of
collective action and other forms of social capital such as information exchange,
resource mobilization, collective management of resources, cooperation and
networking, and community participation in research and development activi-
ties. They increasingly became a vehicle through which farmers were pursuing
wider concerns, initiating new activities, organizing collective action and extend-
ing relations and linkages with external organizations.
Step 4: Horizontal and vertical linkages at the sub-county level
Despite progress made at the village level, it was recognized that the strength-
ening of community-level governance processes would be insufficient in the
absence of higher level reforms. Linkages to local government structures are
District institutional and policy innovations 215
a critical element to any policy process, particularly under decentralization—
where the sub-county and district have important political and administrative
powers in by-law formulation, the preparation of development plans, and
budgeting. As the basic political and administrative unit of local government
and with by-law formulation and dispute resolution functions, the sub-county
was seen as an important nexus for stimulating democratic processes for the
deliberation and influence of policies from the bottom up. A key component
of participatory by-law reforms was therefore facilitating policy learning and
dialogue between villages and the sub-county government.
It was particularly useful to sequence PTF meetings with farmer exposure
visits and horizontal linkages between different communities, where farm-
ers had the opportunity to harmonize their demands, share experiences, and
rehearse the presentations they would make at sub-county level. These vis-
its and deliberations centered on analyzing existing by-laws and identifying
opportunities and needs for reviewing and reformulating existing by-laws or
formulating new ones (Box 5.5). In addition to fostering experience shar-
ing, these dialogues were a first step in by-law formalization. The different
by-laws initiated at village level were then presented and debated at the sub-
county level for harmonization and better coordination before they were
enacted as formal by-laws, to be applied in all villages and parishes of the
sub-county.
BOX 5.5 THE FOCUS OF DELIBERATIVE PROCESSES
WITHIN PARTICIPATORY BY-LAW REFORMS
Deliberative processes at the local level focused on the following key issues:
1. Content: What is the by-law about? What is behind by-law formulation?
What is the role of different types of resources (technology, information,
social capital, labor, credit) in creating positive synergies between by-laws
and development/conservation?
2. Process of by-law formulation, implementation, and refinement: What are
effective approaches for crafting local institutions where they are defi-
cient? How can by-laws be equitably assessed and formulated?
3. Functions of by-laws: What functions do by-laws currently play in diverse
areas (community-based NRM, decentralization, landscape management,
and technology adoption/dissemination)? What additional functions
could by-laws effectively play?
4. By-law enforcement: What is the effective balance between formal and
informal enforcement mechanisms in different contexts? What processes
and conditions enhance compliance and minimize the need for strict
enforcement?
216 Joseph Tanui et al.
Step 5: Facilitating district-level policy dialogue
As noted earlier, the district is the highest level of local government that has
powers to enact and formalize by-laws, and establish linkages with other sub-
counties and the central government. In addition to the focused work at village
and sub-county level, policy dialogues were facilitated at the district level to
ensure coherence between policies at all three levels and to reach a wider
consensus on by-law reform processes and outcomes. District-level policy
workshops were usually high profile events aimed at re-focusing the policy
dialogue and building a network of actors who could influence the policy
process. Five policy stakeholder workshops were held over the course of three
years, bringing together a large number of participants (80–100)—from district
leaders and councilors to members of parliament, sub-county councilors, and
representatives of local government technical services, research and develop-
ment organizations, and farmers’ organizations.
One strategy was to organize and facilitate field visits to showcase examples
of successful village level by-law reforms. These visits had a profound effect
in convincing policy makers, local leaders, and farmers alike of the benefits
of participatory policy reforms, allowing them to see things with their own
eyes and to share experiences with innovative farmers. Another important
tool to stimulate learning at district level was the use of policy narratives and
NRM scenarios—which help to simplify complex problems and enable more
informed decision making (Keeley, 2001).
5. Legal and social foundations of by-laws: How effective are customary and
statutory laws in supporting by-laws under different land-use systems and
conditions, and how and why does this effectiveness vary? For whom is
legal pluralism beneficial/detrimental? What opportunities exist for build-
ing upon remnants of traditional governance systems and improving
synergies through vertical policy linkages? To what extent can by-laws be
used to operationalize statutory law in ways beneficial to local land users?
6. Particular vs. general: How can the need to adapt by-laws to the local
context be balanced with standardization for legislation and enforce-
ment? Can law enforcement agencies manage a high level of complexity
in “adaptive” governance?
7. Outcomes and impacts: What are the impacts of improved (participatory)
governance on poverty, equity, and environment in different contexts?
How do processes and content affect outcomes?
8. Vertical linkages and scale: How can the scale of participatory by-law reforms
be expanded without compromising quality in participatory processes? How
can participatory by-law reforms be effectively reconciled with national pol-
icy formulation processes? What are effective processes for “going to scale”?
District institutional and policy innovations 217
Recognizing that power relations are pervasive and always affect the quality
and process of participation (Chambers, 2005), targeted efforts were necessary
to empower the weakest stakeholders (farmers) and at the same time to enable
policy makers and local leaders to acknowledge their own power, be aware of
how they may habitually disempower others, learn to use power to empower
those with less power, and avoid being inhibited by the learning process. A
range of participatory techniques and other adult learning methods were used
for engaging and empowering local communities directly in the articulation
of their policy needs, and in the analysis, design, and implementation of poli-
cies and NRM innovations. This involved coaching and mentoring farmers’
representatives to increase their assertiveness and confidence in articulating
their policy needs and collective NRM visions. As a result, some of the most
interesting moments during the stakeholder workshops were when farmers
articulated their own visions and experiences with the participatory by-law
review, formulation, and implementation process.
Out of the multilevel sharing processes emerged a genuine interest and
willingness among stakeholders in Rubaya Sub-County to disseminate the
approach to other villages and sub-counties and to the district at large. At the
same time, other villages, sub-counties and districts (Kisoro, Kanungu, and
Rukungiri) expressed interest in the process. NGOs such as CARE, Africare,
and Landcare and government agencies such as NAADS took an interest in
the process and began supporting selected communities. A series of sensitiza-
tion meetings was held for farmer groups and development organizations in
pilot communities to disseminate the participatory process of formulating and
implementing local by-laws and NRM practices.
Step 6: Participatory monitoring and evaluation, feedback and reflection
At the end of each policy learning event and policy dialogue workshop, the
research team facilitated a process of structured reflection using a tool called
“After Action Review (AAR)” to help communities to reflect, analyze, and
learn by talking, thinking, sharing, and capturing the lessons learned about the
dialogues and workshops before these are forgotten (CIDA, 2003). AAR is
usually facilitated using the following six questions: (i) What was supposed to
happen and why? (ii) What actually happened and why? (iii) What accounts for
the observed differences? (iv) What went well and why? (v) What could have
gone better and why? and (vi) What lessons can we learn?
An important aspect of the participatory by-law reform process was to
facilitate community-based participatory monitoring and evaluation (PM&E)
to monitor progress, track outcomes, and enhance learning through critical
reflection and feedback. To complement the PM&E system, systematic studies
and process documentation were carried out to understand the outcomes of
project interventions for equity, NRM, and sustainability. Boxes 5.6 and 5.7
illustrate some of the positive outcomes of the participatory by-law reform
218 Joseph Tanui et al.
process. Box 5.8 illustrates what might go wrong with the process, and the
importance of active monitoring to identify and address negative outcomes
such as inequities in the flow of benefits and costs.
BOX 5.6 GENDERED OUTCOMES OF BY-LAWS
The number of collective action events and the level of participation of differ-
ent stakeholders were two of the indicators used to track local buy-in to by-law
reform processes. Results confirmed that women’s participation in pilot com-
munities was sustained over time (Figure 5.2). A linear trend line of women’s
participation shows a steady increase in the number of women participating
over time (R2 = 0.83), from less than 20 to more than 60 women attending
the different community meetings.
The relatively high participation of women is consistent with earlier analy-
sis of the patterns and dynamics of participation in farmers’ organizations in
Africa (Sanginga et al., 2006). However, it is interesting to note that contrary
to earlier findings on group dynamics which show decreasing participation
of men in group activities, the findings of this study show that men’s par-
ticipation was also sustained over time. The process has increased women’s
confidence and changed perceptions of their status within communities. The
vast majority of male and female farmers interviewed (95.6 percent) indicated
that women’s participation in decision-making and community leadership
positions had improved in the three years since by-law reforms were initiated.
Average number of participants
2002 2003a 2003b 2004a
70.0
52.5
35.0
17.5
0
Men
Women
Linear
(women)
Agricultural seasons
2004b 2005a
R2 = 0.8287
FIGURE 5.2 Gendered patterns of participation in by-law meetings over time in
pilot communities
District institutional and policy innovations 219
BOX 5.8 THE “DARK SIDE” AND LIMITS OF BY-LAW
REFORMS
Although the previous results show that the outcomes of by-law reforms have
been largely positive, the study also revealed some important downsides. We
found that certain categories of farmers had difficulty in complying with some
of the by-laws. These included older men and women, widows and orphans
with limited family labor, or who lack money to hire labor or to buy farm imple-
ments needed to establish conservation structures. There had been instances
of conflict among livestock owners and cultivators, which in some cases led
to divisions and hatred within communities. It was also found that owners of
small livestock, especially women with small farm sizes, had problems with
the by-law to control free grazing. Strict enforcement of this by-law forced
the poor to sell their livestock, thereby perpetuating the poverty trap. A focus
group discussion in one of the villages revealed that two factions had emerged
as a result of the controlled grazing by-law. One group (Nkund’obutungi, the
wealthier farmers) disliked the system of free grazing and did not allow other
farmers to graze in their plots, because they have large farms in which they
graze their livestock. It is this group that was pushing for strict enforcement of
the controlled grazing by-law. The second faction (Nkund’obutungi, the poorer
BOX 5.7 TECHNOLOGY ADOPTION AS AN
INDICATION OF BY-LAW EFFECTIVENESS
NRM outcomes of by-law reforms were also tracked to assess how the process
had influenced adoption rates and farmers’ willingness to invest both labor
and cash (e.g., for purchase of tree seedlings) in technology adoption. Results
showed significant increases in adoption levels (Table 5.2).
TABLE 5.2 New soil conservation measures established in 2005 (% of farmers)
Soil conservation measure Female-headed
households
Male-headed
households
All households
Construction of new terraces 38.6 45.3 42.1
Digging of trenches 32.9 38.7 35.9
Stabilizing soil conservation
structures with agroforestry
technologies
25.7 30.7 28.3
Planting grass strips 8.6 9.3 9.0
Use of trash lines 5.7 6.7 6.2
220 Joseph Tanui et al.
Lessons learned
The main thrust of action research was to support and facilitate the integration
of participatory approaches in policy decision-making at district level, and to
strengthen local-level processes and capacity for developing, implementing,
and enforcing by-laws to improve natural resource management. Some of the
lessons learned from the participatory by-law reform process are summarized
below:
1. The understanding and analysis of existing by-laws and policy processes is
an important first step in participatory by-law reforms, as it enables inno-
vations to target key gaps in both the content and process of these reforms.
2. While by-laws can be effectively formulated at village level, their enforce-
ment may require involvement of a higher level authority with the power
to sanction the by-laws and enforce their implementation, such as the local
government.
3. Participatory by-law reforms must involve capacity building for both local
communities and decentralized local government structures. The inad-
equacy of human capital at different levels of local government is a key
constraint to by-law formulation and implementation. Building capacity in
local government structures linking communities to higher level authori-
ties is critical for effective by-law reforms.
4. Linking local communities with local government requires an “honest
broker” from the research or NGO community, or from the community
itself, with the capacity and skills to provide evidence-based analysis and to
facilitate policy dialogue.
5. As observed in Chapter 4, participatory by-law reforms involve both insti-
tutional and technical innovations. Not only are technologies important
farmers) had smaller plots where livestock could not be grazed and limited
labor for controlled grazing. This group was forced to confine their animals
or be fined for non-compliance. The Nkund’obutungi passed a by-law against
grazing on their plots, thus negatively affecting the Nkund’obutungi. In turn, the
Nkund’obutungi organized themselves into a group and agreed to allow grazing
in each other’s land. This conflict led to the failure of the controlled grazing by-
law, with implementation left to the wealthier households who would benefit
from it. Clearly, viable feeding alternatives were required by poorer households
to enable them to restrict their grazing activities and avoid experiencing nega-
tive livelihood impacts from by-law reforms. The stakeholder-based planning
processes highlighted in Chapter 4 would also have been useful in reconciling
divergent views on the problem and solutions.
District institutional and policy innovations 221
for by-law implementation by providing alternative livelihood options for
activities curtailed by by-laws. By-laws are also important for technology
adoption, by enhancing their uptake and/or effectiveness.
6. Mature social capital can help in the establishment of local institutions for
environmental governance, and in ensuring the effectiveness and contin-
ued participation in such institutions. Participatory by-law reforms require
the ability of farmer groups and local communities to self-organize and to
engage with and influence NRM governance processes. With an appro-
priate catalyst (external facilitator, strongly felt need), rural communities
have the capacity to develop their own institutions, skills and networks
for improved NRM governance. External agents can play a critical role
in building social capital for by-law reforms and for the pursuit of other
long-term development efforts.
7. Piloting is important. Many policies and by-laws have failed because they
tried to do too much too soon, with little time to learn by doing and
build upon these successes in taking on new challenges. Piloting the by-
law reform process and particular by-laws in selected communities offers
policy makers, development agents and other stakeholders the opportunity
to test an approach and its effectiveness in addressing NRM challenges
before expanding to other areas.
8. There are some “dark sides” of participatory by-law reforms.
Enforcement of by-laws does not always ensure fairness, especially to
women, the elderly, and others endowed with fewer human, finan-
cial, social, and political resources. Caution must be used to ensure
that participatory processes do not reproduce existing patterns of social
exclusion by ignoring those who are less able to negotiate their rights
and shape social relationships to their advantage (see also Cleaver, 2005;
German and Stroud, 2007).
9. In order for participatory by-law reforms to become part of the for-
mal policymaking process, mechanisms are needed to institutionalize
the approach. Decentralization policies now prevalent in many eastern
African countries offer an opportunity for achieving this, as districts and
other decentralized local government bodies have received legislative
and executive powers to formulate and implement their own policies
and by-laws in NRM. However, support from research and develop-
ment organizations is required to ensure reforms are accompanied by
effective means of engaging local communities in by-law formulation
and implementation.
10. Given the policy resistance, implementation failures, and defensive routines
(Sterman, 2006) common in local government structures, R&D profession-
als may need to stay close to the policy process and exploit opportunities
that come along to get political buy-in to participatory processes. This
may require opportunism in diagnosing the policy environment, identify-
ing points of leverage, and recognizing short-term opportunities associated
222 Joseph Tanui et al.
with legislative calendars, planning, and budgeting activities, and changes
in political leadership and government personnel.
Systems for demand-driven information provision
With the support of IDRC’s ACACIA initiative,6 AHI embarked on an action
research experiment to develop and field test a system for demand-driven
information provision at district level. The experience was piloted in Kabale
District, Uganda, with the aim of learning lessons that could be scaled up to
other districts and countries. While information is needed for all realms of
human well-being, the pilot experience focused on the areas of agricultural
production, marketing, and natural resource management. One of the first
activities was to assess the challenges associated with current patterns of infor-
mation access and sharing (Box 5.9)—which suggests the strong need for a
coordinated approach to information and communication.
BOX 5.9 CHALLENGES IN INFORMATION SOURCING
AND DISSEMINATION IDENTIFIED IN KABALE
DISTRICT
The consulted stakeholders expressed facing challenges in sourcing informa-
tion as well as disseminating it. The following were identified as constraints to
information sourcing:
● Information is scattered (diversity of sources).
● Some information is inaccurate.
● Information access requires having personal contacts in institutions that
are information sources.
● They lack awareness of what information is available.
● Information available is most likely to be in English rather than the local
language (Rukiga).
● There is a general culture of waiting to be informed or told rather than
being proactive information seekers.
Meanwhile, the following were identified as constraints to information
dissemination:
● There is limited capacity and resources to package information in a suit-
able form.
● Because stakeholders involved in information dissemination would pre-
fer using the least-cost dissemination form, the adequacy of information
and quality of information delivery may be compromised.
District institutional and policy innovations 223
Approach development
Approach 1—Demand-driven information provision at district level
The approach for demand-driven information provision required both effec-
tive articulation of information needs from farmers, and the development of a
system for information gathering, packaging, and delivery. Figure 5.3 illustrates
the key steps in this process and how information needs to flow in order to link
farmer needs with information sources and their ultimate dissemination and
application among target groups.
● Stakeholders involved in information dissemination would prefer that
recipients pay for the service, so the tendency is to provide information to
those who are willing and able to pay for it.
● There is inconsistency in the information delivered to farmers from diverse
sources.
● There is a repetition of efforts, with different organizations disseminating
the same information to the same population without coordination.
Step 1
Farmers articulate their
information needs
Information flow from
source to farmers
Step 2
Farmers’ information
needs collated at
parish and
sub-county
levels
Step 3
Information
gathered from
selected sources
Step 4
Information is packaged
at the Kabale telecenter
through various uses of ICTs
Step 5
Information products are
reviewed by the quality
assurance committee
Step 6
Information products
are disseminated to
farmers and evaluated
for their effectiveness
Step 7
Feedback from farmers
is integrated into new
product development
FIGURE 5.3 Information flow in demand-driven information provision
224 Joseph Tanui et al.
These steps may be summarized as follows:
1. Farmers articulate their information needs. Farmer groups at the village level meet
with community-based facilitators (CBFs) to identify issues of concern in
their farming, marketing, or natural resource management practices. The
CBFs may use tools such as “needs trees” to generate an open-ended dis-
cussion on current information needs. A more formal Information Needs
Protocol (Box 5.10) is then applied to categorize identified needs into
three main subject matters (agriculture, natural resources management,
and markets), to improve gender equity in information needs articulation
and to identify preferred information sources and channels.
BOX 5.10 BASIC COMPONENTS OF THE INFORMATION
NEEDS PROTOCOL
● Challenges and related information needs in:
– Agricultural production
– Marketing
– Natural resource management
● Whether there are any gender-specific information needs that have
been missed
● Preferred information sources (to determine whether there is a spe-
cific source they know of where the information can be sourced and
which is considered reputable)
● Preferred communication channels (e.g. radio, pamphlets, posters,
SMS, and demonstration)
2. Farmer information needs are collated at parish and sub-county levels. Following
the articulation of information needs at village level, CBFs deliver the
results to parish level committees or village information centers (VICE),
who then compile the information to distil priority needs throughout the
parish. Priorities at the parish level are then submitted to the sub-county
telecenter, where priorities at sub-county are distilled (see Table 5.3 for
an example). The telecenter collates all the information received from the
six parishes and responds by: (i) distributing existing information available
at the telecenter, and/or (ii) sending information needs to the district level
telecenter for identification and packaging.
3. Information is gathered from selected sources. While the original idea was to source
information through the sub-county telecenters, language barriers and prob-
lems with internet connectivity made this difficult. Therefore, an evaluation
is made on whether the information sources preferred by farmers is feasible,
based on information availability. Decisions on information sources are then
District institutional and policy innovations 225
made and the information is gathered. This often includes the sourcing of
information on the internet through the Kabale telecenter. A checklist was
developed to guide the service provider in gathering information from vari-
ous sources (Box 5.11). Information may also be gathered by community
members working on behalf of the larger community, as illustrated by the
efforts made by parish-level marketing committees to source weekly market
information at various local markets within the district.
4. Information is packaged at the Kabale telecenter through various uses of ICTs. The
district telecenter serves as a hub where information acquired from diverse
sources is organized and scrutinized for its clarity, quality, and relevance.
Based on the communication medium preferred by farmers, the budget and
the nature of the information itself, decisions are also made at this stage on the
means of dissemination—as it influences how information is packaged for end
users. This evolved from a heavy reliance on paper-based products to posters
and radio broadcasts, and eventually, to the piloting of collectively managed
mobile phones as parallel means to enhance information access at parish level
(Box 5.12). The information is then prepared for the identified dissemination
medium and translated into the local language for dissemination.
TABLE 5.3 Categories of information needs articulated by groups in different parishes of
Rubaya Sub-County (N= 55 groups)
Topic Number of groups in each Parish Total
Mugandu Karujanga Buramba Rwanyena Kitooma Kibuga
Soil selection using
local indicators
61289733
Clean seed management 6 10 9 10 10 6 51
Making organic
fertilizer using local
resources
24561826
Post-harvest handling 6 10 9 10 10 9 54
Market information 6 10 9 10 10 10 55
Control of crop and
animal pests and
disease
61668734
Work plan
development
01040611
Credit schemes 11266521
NRM technologies
and by-laws
338106939
Fertilizer sourcing
and application
(quality, quantity)
32389530
Apiculture 04212413
226 Joseph Tanui et al.
BOX 5.11 SAMPLE CHECKLIST TO AID SERVICE
PROVIDERS IN SEEKING INFORMATION FROM
DIVERSE SOURCES
Internet
1. What is the source? Is it reputable? Is it relevant to your context?
2. What do farmers need to know to be able to apply the information in
their farms/lives?
3. Can you find all of this information on the internet? If not, can the experi-
ence of other knowledgeable local actors help to fill the gaps?
NGOs
1. General description about the knowledge or innovation that farmers have
demanded, from the perspective of the NGO (Why is it so popular? How
does it differ from other options?)
2. What are the key steps in implementation? [Please put yourselves in the
farmer’s shoes and find out enough detail so that you could apply the innova-
tion yourself if you needed to, as this will enable you to describe it in sufficient
detail for others.]
3. What are the main challenges to its implementation, and how can farm-
ers overcome them?
4. Do you have any written material on the innovation that we could use to
develop an information product for farmers (final products, grey litera-
ture, field reports)?
5. Would you like to co-author the publication and help us in the writing?
6. Who can farmers or NGOs contact to find out more information?
Expert farmers
1. General description about the knowledge or innovation that farmers have
demanded for, from the perspective of the model farmer (Why is it so
popular? How does it differ from other options available to you?)
2. How did you acquire the experience? What lessons can it offer to other
farmers wishing to learn from you?
3. What are the key steps in implementation? [Please find out enough detail
so that you could apply the innovation yourself if you needed to, as this will
enable you to describe it in sufficient detail for others]
4. What are the main challenges in its implementation, and how can they be
overcome by other farmers wishing to repeat the experience?
5. Can we use your name in the publication, to publicize to other farmers
the good work you have done?
6. Can other farmers or NGOs contact you to find out more information?
District institutional and policy innovations 227
5. Information products are reviewed by a Quality Assurance Committee. The
Quality Assurance Committee (QAC) was established to oversee district-
level efforts to respond to farmer information demands, and to ensure
that products are effectively disseminated and utilized. Members of the
Committee were selected by farmer representatives at sub-county and
district levels based on jointly agreed selection criteria. Members of the
QAC consisted of representatives from sub-county and district-level
BOX 5.12 USE OF WIRELESS PHONES TO ENHANCE
FARMER INFORMATION ACCESS
Wireless telephones powered by solar energy were distributed to each of the six
parishes where the ACACIA project was piloted. Users (members of parish com-
mittees and other local farmer groups) pay a small fee for the service, which is
standardized across parishes and is designed to cover the cost of airtime and gen-
eral maintenance. To monitor the effectiveness of these phones, log books were
distributed so that records for each call being made through the phone could be
maintained (including characteristics of the user and the use). While the original
emphasis was placed on phone use specifically for the project’s focus on informa-
tion related to NRM, agriculture, and markets, actual usage was monitored to
observe the extent to which these phones are useful for the intended purpose—
and the extent to which unanticipated usage can also contribute to improved
livelihoods. Results indicated that calls focused on personal and social issues were
by far predominant, while marketing and agricultural production information was
also actively sought out (Figure 5.4). Findings also showed a higher proportion of
women using the phones to request information on NRM and agriculture, and
men for personal reasons and to search for market information.
Calls made (%)
Marketing Production Social
issues
Others
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Purpose of call
FIGURE 5.4 Use of VICE phones in 2008, Rubaya Sub-County, Kabale District,
Uganda
228 Joseph Tanui et al.
farmer organizations, NGOs serving as active information providers,
representatives of district line ministries (District Veterinary, Agriculture
and Fisheries Officers, District Secretary of Production), and agricultural
research. Formal terms of reference were drafted to help orient the QAC
in its responsibilities related to the production and dissemination of infor-
mation products and to ensure adequate representation of the views and
needs of communities.
6. Information products are disseminated to farmers and evaluated for their effective-
ness. After adjusting information products based on feedback from the
QAC, they were either aired on the radio or printed and taken to the sub-
county telecenter and VICE for dissemination. Participatory monitoring
and evaluation was then carried out with farmer groups in six parishes,
with a focus on product content (relevance, intelligibility), means of dis-
semination, and usefulness in decision making.
7. Feedback from farmers is integrated into new product development. Over time,
farmers’ feedback is a means through which general qualities of effective
information products and delivery are distilled. Lessons learned through
this feedback can then become mainstreamed within future approaches to
information sourcing, packaging and dissemination.
Lessons learned
The AHI–ACACIA project generated a number of lessons that may be of
more widespread interest, which include the following:
● Developing a system for demand-driven information provision utilizing
ICTs is a challenge in contexts where the ability to pay for services is lim-
ited. It requires the concerted efforts of multiple actors (government, civil
society, farmers, and research), close attention to mid-term outcomes (to
enable the introduction of corrective changes), and ability to identify and
capture opportunities.
● The technical challenges associated with effective systems of ICT-for-
development are not just related to hardware and connectivity. They have
to do with the development of human skills in the areas of information
needs assessment, information capture, information processing and pack-
aging, monitoring and evaluation, and adaptive learning.
● Use of ICTs for development is not simply a technical matter; a host of
institutional and governance challenges must also be addressed to get it to
work effectively. Institutional challenges include developing and sustain-
ing farmer institutions capable of and motivated to work in the collective
interest; a transition in the role of ender users from receivers of advice
to active seekers of information; and multi-institutional collaboration at
district level to achieve synergies and economies of scale. Governance
challenges may be identified in the equitable articulation of information
District institutional and policy innovations 229
needs; the management of resources owned or managed collectively (e.g.,
services, ICT infrastructure); and clear mechanisms (decision processes,
terms of reference, incentives) to govern interactions among stakeholders.
● Developing user friendly and cost-effective ways of linking rural commu-
nities to information sources is an ongoing challenge, requiring additional
commitments to action-based learning and experimentation.
Fostering multi-institutional partnerships at district level
Each of the above district-level approaches, and indeed many of the methodo-
logical innovations in this entire volume, requires some form of collaboration
among organizations with complementary mandates, skills, and resources to be
effectively implemented. This raises significant challenges, given the tendency
for development and conservation initiatives to be conceived and often imple-
mented by specific government agencies or non-governmental organizations.
These organizations tend to specialize in production or conservation, research
or development, livelihoods or governance, with minimal collaboration among
institutions with complementary mandates. At the district level, rural develop-
ment and natural resource management initiatives have not lived up to their
potential as a result of lost opportunities for joint planning and resource shar-
ing. Poor structural and functional linkages among different organizations and
poorly coordinated planning have led to inefficiencies and opportunities lost
in fostering synergies in resources and mandates. These constraints have clearly
hindered innovation, undermined impact, and reduced opportunities for fos-
tering more integrated, “win–win” solutions.
There is a need for a holistic approach that facilitates decision making at
landscape and district levels as a substitute for isolated efforts. This approach
to NRM necessitates a functional and well organized partnership. To achieve
this goal, the spirit of collective action endemic in many societies in eastern
Africa needs to be drawn upon in development and conservation activities. At
the district level, partnerships among research, development, and conservation
agencies can play a crucial role in ensuring more inclusive decision making at
all levels and in exploiting synergies that enable multiple goals to be met simul-
taneously (e.g., livelihood improvements and conservation).
Approach development
AHI has experimented with two approaches to district-level institutional
partnerships: multi-stakeholder platforms and informal partnerships. The lat-
ter largely emerged as a natural step in the implementation of other NRM
innovations, whereas the former was intentionally designed as a district-level
institutional innovation to be tested and improved upon through action
research. We present both, owing to the lessons that may be learned through
drawing comparisons between them.
230 Joseph Tanui et al.
Approach 1—Multi-stakeholder platforms
The approach is based on the development of an alliance of institutions with
a shared vision and coordinated actions, in this case a vision for integrated
natural resource management. That vision should encompass multiple objec-
tives (e.g., development and conservation), as well as a set of core values that
help to sustain the partnership and enhance its relevance (for example, local
ownership, flexibility, shared credit, and a spirit of voluntarism). As the plat-
form derives its legitimacy from a demand-driven approach to development,
its members must be diverse so as to enhance the ability to respond effec-
tively to articulated needs. Ideally, partners should include local government,
NGOs, CBOs, and farmer groups, research and conservation institutions, and
individual community members (Box 5.13). Given the relationship between
good governance and good environmental practices, involvement of govern-
ment agencies responsible for by-law formulation and enforcement may also
be useful. The private sector may also be called in to explore opportunities
to link local livelihood needs to market opportunities. Such a platform pro-
vides a mechanism for negotiation and decision-making in the articulation
of strategic development plans and in the sharing of responsibility for their
implementation.
The formation of such a platform is likely to involve the following steps:
1. Hold individual consultations (person to person and organization to
organization) to identify the weaknesses of the current way of doing busi-
ness and bolster commitment for a new approach.
2. Conduct consultations with farmers, farmer groups, and other intended
beneficiaries of development efforts on their concerns related to liveli-
hoods, natural resources, and the quality of governance and service
provision.
3. Host a workshop with potential platform members to develop a joint
understanding of the deficiencies in current (disconnected) development
and conservation initiatives, explore goals and desired functionalities of the
platform, articulate the core strengths of different partner organizations in
supporting the effort, solicit commitments from partner organizations, and
agree on next steps in a collaborative planning process.
4. Initiate a bottom-up diagnostic, visioning, and planning process starting at
the farmer group level to ensure adequate coverage of diverse sub-coun-
ties, parishes, and villages in the district. Collate plans at parish, sub-county,
and district levels, distil the forms of support requested from outside actors
and discuss how to effectively support these plans at each level.
5. Hold a meeting of the platform to agree how to support the action plans
and reflect on what needs to be done by the platform to steward the initia-
tive into action.
District institutional and policy innovations 231
6. Hold a facilitators’ training with volunteer facilitators from different levels,
to impart the necessary skills for facilitating participatory and deliberative
reflection and planning processes.7
7. Formulate a constitution and strategic plan to guide the operations of the
platform.
8. Establish a Secretariat to guide the implementation of the platform’s busi-
ness plan.
9. Carry out periodic evaluations of the effectiveness of the platform through
consultations with partners and beneficiaries, and replanning to improve
the platform’s effectiveness and responsiveness to feedback.
BOX 5.13 DEVELOPMENT OF A DISTRICT MULTI-
STAKEHOLDER PLATFORM IN KAPCHORWA
DISTRICT, UGANDA
In Kapchorwa District, an alliance of institutions was formed with a shared
vision for integrated natural resource management and inspired by the
Landcare approach. Members of this platform (the Kapchorwa District
Landcare Chapter, or KADLACC) include NGOs, CBOs, farmer groups, local
government, research and conservation organizations an individual commu-
nity members. The platform objectives are:
● To create a forum for government, civil society, research organizations,
and other stakeholders involved in land and natural resource manage-
ment to harmonize their activities and work collaboratively.
● To build the capacity of member organizations in planning, influencing
policy and resource mobilization to enhance performance at district level.
● To advocate for democratic processes for NRM and land-use policies.
● To conduct action research on ways to support integrated approaches to
land use and livelihoods.
Key focal areas and activities of KADLACC are summarized in Table 5.4.
So what is the added value of enhancing district-level collaboration? For
KADLACC, the benefits may be summarized through a before/after compari-
son of development practice (Table 5.5).
232 Joseph Tanui et al.
TABLE 5.4 Focal areas and activities of KADLACC
Focal areas Activities
Protected area
collaborative
management
Facilitating negotiations among communities and protected
area managers
Working with displaced and indigenous peoples to enhance
access to customary resources
Watershed
management
Filling knowledge gaps through training and action research
Negotiation support for socially optimal solutions
Farmer institutional
development and
learning
Conduct farmer skills needs assessments
Supporting institutional capacity building of farmer groups
Matching innovations and technologies to farmer needs
Marketing
and enterprise
development
Seek and develop market niches and opportunities for income
generation
Awareness creation on ecosystem health-based product branding
Partnership and
networking
Affiliation and participation in the African Landcare Network
and Landcare International
TABLE 5.5 Comparison of development practice before and after the establishment
of the multi-stakeholder platform
Before After
NRM not mainstreamed in development
initiatives but carried out through “lone
ranger” approaches
Integrated development and NRM
planning at multiple levels, with the
involvement and support of local
government
Limited access to development and
extension services for a large number of
households
Farmer groups linked to trained
facilitators from various member
institutions, enabling more widespread
access to services
Role of local government in pro-poor,
ecologically friendly policy support
process undefined or unclear
Strengthened role of local government
structures in integrated NRM planning;
involvement of community members in
policy reform
Conservation efforts delinked from
rural development and marketing;
livelihood needs seen as contradictory to
conservation objectives
Strategic approach for linking livelihood
goals to conservation objectives and
supporting the marketing of ecologically
friendly products in place
District institutional and policy innovations 233
Approach 2—Informal partnerships in INRM
Informal approaches to collaboration at district level are the norm, and gener-
ally emerge on an as-needed basis. Such a need may arise from community- or
project-level needs that cannot be met through the community’s efforts or a
single support institution, the desire to exploit an opportunity that is condi-
tional upon partnership (for example, funding streams), or commitments to
donors. Such partnerships are largely ad hoc in nature, ephemeral (lasting for
as long as the specific activity or need lasts), and carry limited transaction costs
given the limited investments in partnership building (relative to actual imple-
mentation). Common steps in the development of informal partnerships in
AHI have involved the following:
1. A challenge or opportunity arises that calls for linkages to new organiza-
tions with the required skill base, mandate, or resources.
2. Constituent-building to seek buy-in, often from individuals who come to
represent the wider organization—but at times through a formal agree-
ment with the partner organization.
3. Planning workshop to agree on the division of roles and responsibilities
and budgets for supporting partner activities.
4. Implementation (including any number of steps associated with engag-
ing the beneficiaries in planning and/or implementing activities for which
partners have assumed co-responsibility).
5. Joint monitoring and evaluation (largely focused on the work plan, but at
times including a reflection on the partnership itself), and adjustment as
needed to address challenges that have emerged through implementation.
Lessons learned
The following lessons were derived from a comparative analysis of the two
approaches to multi-institutional partnerships:
● The transaction costs of more formal partnerships are higher than informal
approaches, and the benefits gained from the former must be worth the
effort. Achieving such benefits will often require the development of rather
ambitious goals supported by significant buy-in from partner organizations.
● Success, particularly with the more formal institutional platform approach
to partnership, is more likely where there is a strong spirit and practice
of voluntarism. This generally comes from the establishment of trust and
rapport among group members, and from a sense of accomplishment that
goes beyond what individual member institutions have achieved in isola-
tion. Success of the multi-institutional platform also rests on building the
capacity of volunteer facilitators, for whom a set of “soft skills” can go a
long way in sustaining community engagement.
234 Joseph Tanui et al.
● To support truly bottom-up approaches to development at district level with
wide geographical coverage, more formal approaches to district level partner-
ship are likely to be required—given the limitations in the skill base, mandate,
and resources of any given organization, and the need to match local expecta-
tions with a firm commitment by district-level service providers.
● Strong complementarities exist between local government and civil soci-
ety, owing to their unique skill sets and institutional mandates. One key
function of local government is lending legitimacy to the platform as a
mainstream (rather than marginal) mechanism for the coordination of
development activities in the district. Efforts should therefore be made to
ensure district-level partnerships include these two sets of actors.
● Start-up activities often require an external source of funding, to sustain
activities until partners have bought into the idea and begin contributing
their own resources (often in the form of staff time and operations) to
ensure the platform’s financial viability.
● The effectiveness of district-level institutional partnerships is constrained
by staff turnover or shifts in the focus of partner organizations, a problem
which is likely to be more acute in informal partnerships than in estab-
lished platforms where continuity is more likely due to institutional level
rather than individualized commitments.
Missing links
While significant progress has been made in understanding the elements of
effective approaches to district institutional and policy innovations, a number
of methodological gaps remain. These gaps suggest a number of priorities for
future research and methodological innovation on the topic:
1. Sustainability of district-level institutional and policy innovations. The experi-
ences shared in this chapter derived from project-based experiences lasting
a number of years (3 to 6) and supported by external funding. Lessons
are needed on how to sustain such innovations with existing financial
resources once human resources and institutions are strengthened. Lessons
on how to sustain such innovations have begun to emerge with the
ACACIA experience (through efforts to institutionalize demand-driven
information provision within NAADS, to be discussed in Chapter 6) and
with the Landcare experience (through efforts to build self-sustaining dis-
trict platforms and farmer reflect cycles). However, exit strategies require
time to implement and financial resources—both to ensure the sustain-
ability of initiatives and to learn lessons on how approaches change as they
are institutionalized.8 It is these lessons that are perhaps most useful when
scaling out district-level innovations to new districts.
2. Linking methods for farm- and landscape-level innovation to district institutional
innovations. The host of approaches described in earlier chapters needs a
District institutional and policy innovations 235
home if they are to be applied on a wider scale. That institutional home
could be within district-led innovations, as suggested in this chapter, or
within national-level institutions, as suggested in Chapter 6. With the
exception of participatory by-law reforms, AHI has yet to make a system-
atic effort to scale up specific proven methodological innovations (e.g.,
watershed management) through district-level institutions or initiatives.
Efforts have instead largely focused on piloting novel innovations at this
level.
3. Scaling out. With the exception of our work with ACACIA/NAADS and
Landcare, little effort has been made to scale out proven district-level inno-
vations to new districts (where a set of institutional and political conditions
similar to the pilot district is more likely to prevail) or countries (where
a unique set of contextual factors is likely to affect an approach’s feasibil-
ity). Even where these efforts have been made, they have in some cases
been ephemeral owing to limited funding horizons. Both experiences are
urgently needed if we are to capitalize upon the investments made to date
in pilot experiences in AHI.
Conclusions
This chapter illustrates a set of methodological innovations designed to enhance
the potential of districts as engines of rural development and sustainable natu-
ral resource management. Our experiences point to the fundamental role of
institutional innovations at multiple levels (particularly village, sub-county, and
district) to enable cross-scale communication, exploit synergies in the human
and financial resources found at diverse levels, and tap the latent potential
that exists at each level of socio-political organization. It also points to the
fundamental role of institutional innovations in getting technological innova-
tions to work and in supporting improved natural resource management at a
meaningful scale. Thus, findings also suggest that it is high time that meaning-
ful investments be made in the “soft skills” (such as facilitation and institutional
strengthening) required to revitalize public institutions and the modus operandi
of the agricultural and NRM sector.
Notes
1 More critical reviews suggest that decentralization is simply a means for central govern-
ments to transfer their fiscal and administrative burdens to decentralized actors (Nsibambi,
1998).
2 The Tanzanian Local Government (District) Authorities Act of 1982 empowered district
councils to pass by-laws and the 1997 Local Government Act of Uganda provides the
legal framework for the participation of local communities in policymaking (Sanginga,
2003; see also www.leat.or.tz/publications/decentralization/4.3.district.authorities.php).
3 Please note that at this stage, the team may not know which stakeholders are relevant to
the kind of problems that may emerge later on. Thus, if the research and development
236 Joseph Tanui et al.
team has little familiarity with actors in the district, it is best that this activity be more
comprehensive than what is thought to be needed.
4 This section draws heavily from Sanginga et al. (2010a).
5 For details see Sanginga et al. (2010b).
6 ACACIA works with African partners to help countries in Africa apply information and
communication technologies (ICTs) to social and economic development. ACACIA’s
mission is to support research on ICTs that improve livelihood opportunities, enhance
social service delivery, and empower citizens while building the capacity of African
researchers and research networks. For more information, visit: www.idrc.ca/acacia/.
7 Please note that this step was introduced here owing to feedback received from partici-
pants. However, it may be useful to have this step come earlier, prior to Step 4.
8 In recognition of the fact that changes must occur as an approach moves from an inde-
pendent initiative with external funding to its institutionalization within government
structures and programs, as illustrated by the NAADS experience.
References
ACACIA (2006) ACACIA Prospectus 2006–2011. www.idrc.ca/acacia/ev-113431-201-
1-DO_TOPIC.html
Agrawal, A. and C. Gibson (1999) Enchantment and disenchantment: The role of
community in natural resource conservation. World Development 27(4): 629–649.
Bowles, S. and H. Gintis (2002) Social capital and community governance. Economic Journal
112: 412–426.
Brinkerhoff, D. (2001) Taking account of accountability: A conceptual overview and strategic
options. Draft report for the Implementing Policy Change Project, Phase 2, Center for
Democracy and Governance, USAID. Washington, D.C.P: ABT Associates, Inc.
Brockington, D. (2007) Forests, community conservation, and local government
performance: The village forest reserves of Tanzania. Society and Natural Resources 20:
835–848.
Chambers, R. (2005) Ideas for Development. London: Institute of Development Studies and
Earthscan.
CIDA (Canadian International Development Agency) (2003) Knowledge Sharing. Methods,
Meetings and Tools. Ottawa: Canadian International Development Agency.
Cleaver, F. (2005) The inequality of social capital and the reproduction of chronic poverty.
World Development 33(66): 893–906.
Coleman, J. (1988) Norms as social capital. In: E. Ostrom and T.K. Ahn (eds.), Foundations
of Social Capital. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, pp. 136–158.
Cooke, B. and Kothari, U. (eds.) (2001) Participation: The new tyranny?, London: Zed
Books.
Davids, I. (2003) Developmental local government: The rural context and challenges.
Development Update 4(1): 31–54.
Fabricius, C., C. Folke, G. Cundill, and L. Schultz (2007) Powerless spectators, coping
actors, and adaptive co-managers: A synthesis of the role of communities in ecosystem
management. Ecology and Society 12(1): 29. [online] www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol12/
iss1/art29/ (accessed July 9, 2007).
Flor, A.G. (2001) ICT and poverty: The indisputable link. Paper presented at the Third
Asia Development Forum on ‘Regional Economic Cooperation in Asia and the Pacific,’
11–14 June, 2001, Bangkok, Thailand. Available at: www.fsp.usp.br/acessibilidade/
ICTandPoverty-TheIndisputableLink2001.pdf (accessed October 14, 2009).
District institutional and policy innovations 237
Galvin, M. (1999) The impact of local government on rural development in South Africa.
Transformation 40 (1999): 87–111. Available at: http://www.transformation.ukzn.ac.za/
archive/ tran040/tran040005.pdf (accessed Nov. 5, 2009).
German, L. and A. Stroud (2007) A framework for the integration of diverse learning
approaches: Operationalizing Agricultural Research and Development (R&D) Linkages
in Eastern Africa. World Development 35(5): 792–814.
German, L., W. Mazengia, H. Taye, M. Tsegaye, S. Ayele, S. Charamila, J. Wickama
(2010) Minimizing the livelihood trade-offs of natural resource management in the
Eastern African Highlands: Policy Implications of a Project in “creative governance”.
Human Ecology 38, 31–47.
German, L., W. Mazengia, W. Tirwomwe, S. Ayele, J. Tanui, S. Nyangas, L. Begashaw,
H. Taye, Z. Adimassu, M. Tsegaye, F. Alinyo, A. Mekonnen, K. Aberra, A.
Chemangeni, W. Cheptegei, T. Tolera, Z. Jotte, and K. Bedane (2008) Enabling
equitable collective action and policy change for poverty reduction and improved
natural resource management in the eastern African highlands. In: E. Mwangi, H.
Markelova, and R. Meinzen-Dick (eds.), Collective Action and Property Rights for
Poverty Reduction: Lessons from a Global Research Project. Washington, D.C.: CAPRi,
pp. 11–12.
Government of Uganda (2004) Poverty Eradication Action Plan (2004/5—2007/8).
Kampala: Ministry of Finance, Planning and Economic Development.
Government of Uganda (2005) National Strategy for Growth and Reduction of Poverty of
Uganda. Kampala: Government of Uganda.
IULA (1993) IULA world-wide declaration of local self-government. Available at: www.
bunken.nga.gr.jp/siryousitu/eturansitu/charter/iula_decl_txt.html (accessed November
6, 2009).
James, R., P. Francis and G. Ahabwe (2001) The institutional context of rural poverty
reduction in Uganda: Decentralisation’s dual nature. LADDER Working Paper No. 6.
Available at: www.uea.ac.uk/dev/odg/ladder/ (accessed March 22, 2005).
Keeley, J. (2001) Understanding and influencing policy processes for soil and water
conservation. In C. Reij and A. Waters-Bayer (eds.), Farmer Innovation in Africa: A Source
of Inspiration for Agricultural Development. London: Earthscan Publications, pp. 281–291.
Khan, S. (2006) Local government and participatory rural development: The case study of
district government in north western Pakistan. PhD thesis, Gomal University. Available
at http://eprints.hec.gov.pk/1011/1/742.html.htm
Mamdani, M. (1996) Citizen and Subject: Contemporary Africa and the Legacy of Late Colonialism.
Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Means, K., C. Josayma, E. Neilsen, and V. Viriyasakultorn (2002) Community-based Forest
Resource Conflict Management: A Training Package. Vols. 1 and 2. Rome: Food and
Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations.
Nahdy, S. (2004) The Ugandan National Agricultural Advisory Services. In: W. Rivera and
G. Alex (eds.), Volume 1: Decentralized Systems, Case Studies of International Initiatives, pp.
46–52. Agricultural and Rural Development Discussion Paper No. 8.
Nkonya, E.M., J. Pender, E. Kato, S. Mugarura, and J. Muwonge (2005) Who knows, who
cares? Determinants of enactment, awareness and compliance with community natural
resource management. CAPRi Working Paper No. 41. Washington, D.C.: International
Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
Norris, P. (2001) The Digital Divide: Civic Engagement, Information Poverty and the Internet
Worldwide. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
238 Joseph Tanui et al.
Nsibambi, A. (ed.) (1998) Decentralization and Civil Society in Uganda: The Quest for Good
Governance. Kampala: Fountain Publishers.
Okoth-Ogendo, H.W.O and G. Tumushabe (1999) Governing the Environment: Political
Change and Natural Resource Management in East and Southern Africa. Nairobi: ACTS Press.
Ostrom E. (2000) Collective action and the evolution of social norms. Journal of Economic
Perspectives 14(3): 137–158.
Oyono, P.R. (2005) The foundations of the Conflit de langage over land and forests in
southern Cameroon. African Study Monographs 26(3): 115–144.
Perret, S. (2004) Matching policies on rural development and local governance in South
Africa: Recent history, principles and current challenges. Paper presented at the workshop
on Local Governance and Rural Development, organized by GTZ and the University of
Pretoria Post Graduate School for Agricultural and Rural Development. Available at:
www.up.ac.za/academic/ecoagric/fulltext/2004-06.pdf (accessed November 5, 2009).
Pretty, J. (2003) Social capital and the collective management of resources. Science 32:
1912–1914.
Reason, P. and H. Bradbury (2001) Handbook of Action Research: Participative Inquiry and
Practice. London, UK: Sage.
Ribot, J. (2002a) African decentralization: Local actors, powers and accountability.
Democracy, Governance and Human Rights Working Paper No. 8. Washington, D.C.: WRI.
Ribot, J. (2002b) Democratic Decentralization of Natural Resources: Institutionalizing Popular
Participation. Washington, D.C.: World Resources Institute.
Ribot, J.C. (2003) African decentralization: Actors, powers and accountability. Democracy,
Governance and Human Rights Paper No. 8. Geneva: UNRISD.
Rivera, W. and G. Alex (eds.) Volume 1: Decentralized systems, case studies of international
initiatives. Agricultural and Rural Development Discussion Paper No. 8.
Sanginga, P. (2003) Strengthening social capital for improving policies and decision-making
in natural resources management. Natural Resources Systems Programme Project
Report. London: DfID.
Sanginga, P. (2004) Facilitating participatory processes for policy change in natural resource
management: Lessons from the highlands of southwestern Uganda. Uganda Journal of
Agricultural Sciences 9: 958–970.
Sanginga, P. and C. Chitsike (2005) The power of visioning. A handbook for facilitating the
development of community action plan. Enabling Rural Innovation Guide #1. Kampala,
Uganda: International Centre for Topical Agriculture (CIAT).
Sanginga, P., R. Kamugisha, and A.M. Martin (2010a) Strengthening social capital for
adaptive governance of natural resources: A participatory action research for by-law
reforms in Uganda. Society and Natural Resources 23: 695–710.
Sanginga, P., A. Abenakyo, R. Kamugisha, A. Martin, and R. Muzira (2010b). Tracking
outcomes of social capital and institutional innovations in natural resources management:
Methodological issues and empirical evidence from participatory by-law reform in
Uganda. Society and Natural Resources 23: 711–725.
Sanginga, P., J. Tumwine, and Nina Lilja (2006) Patterns of participation in farmers research
groups. Agricultural and Human Values 23(4): 501–512.
Scoones, I. and I. Thompson (2003) Participatory processes for policy change. PLA Notes
6(10): 51–57.
Sheridan, M. (1994) Environmental consequences of independence and socialism in North
Pare, Tanzania, 1961–88. Journal of African History 45(2004): 81–102.
District institutional and policy innovations 239
Smoke, P. (1993) Local government fiscal reforms in developing countries: Lessons from
Kenya. World Development 21(6): 901–923.
Sterman, J. D. (2006) Learning from evidence in a complex world. American Journal of Public
Health 96: 505–514.
Stringer, L.C., A.J. Dougill, E. Fraser, K. Hubacek, C. Prell, M.S. Reed (2006) Unpacking
‘participation’ in the adaptive management of social-ecological systems: A critical review.
Ecology and Society 11.
Tacconi, L. (2007) Decentralization, forests and livelihoods: Theory and narrative. Global
Environmental Change 17(2007): 338–348.
Veit, P. with G.Z. Banda, A. Brownell, S. Mtisi, P. Galega, G. Mpundu Kanja, R. Nshala,
B. Owuor Ochieng, A. Salomao, and G. Tumushabe (2008) On Whose Behalf? Legislative
Representation and the Environment in Africa. Washington, D.C.: WRI.
Wily, L.A. and P.A. Dewees (2008) From users to custodians: Changing relations between
people and the state in forest management in Tanzania. World Bank Policy Research
Working Paper No. 2569. Washington, D.C.: World Bank.
Wunsch, J.S. and D. Olowu (1990) The Failure of the Centralized State: Institutions and Self-
Governance in Africa. San Francisco: Westview Press.
6
INSTITUTIONAL CHANGE
AND SCALING UP
Chris Opondo, Jeremias Mowo, Francis Byekwaso,
Laura German, Kenneth Masuki, Juma Wickama,
Waga Mazengia, Charles Lyamchai, Diana Akullo,
Mulugeta Diro, and Rick Kamugisha
Context and rationale
Cases of participatory watershed management … managed by NGOs,
are becoming increasingly abundant. Yet, almost without exception,
they are very small in scale and can be expanded only by repeating the
same slow, costly, in-depth techniques in successive villages. Many gov-
ernment-sponsored approaches have expanded rapidly, but often lack
the local ownership and group coherence necessary for sustainable man-
agement of the common pool components of watersheds. If approaches
… are to be participatory and rapidly replicable, then the preconditions
for scaling up have to be identified and introduced into the design of
projects and programmes.
Farrington and Lobo, 1997: 1
Over the last decade, there has been a growing concern among donors and
development agencies about the limited impact that natural resource man-
agement (NRM) technologies and practices have had on the lives of poor
people and their environment. Interventions have often failed to reach the
poor at a scale beyond the target research sites (Ashby et al., 1999; Briggs
et al., 1998; Bunch, 1999). Acknowledgment of this fact has resulted in a
recent surge of interest in the concept and practicalities of “scaling up.” Yet
organizations accustomed to work at a certain scale struggle with the organi-
zational, methodological, and financial challenges of “going to scale” (Snapp
and Heong, 2003). Technologies that are relatively easy to assimilate into
farming systems and bring rapid returns to farmers can often spread of their
own accord (Chapter 2, this volume). Yet moving beyond socio-cultural
and institutional barriers to access, and disseminating more complex NRM
Institutional change and scaling up 241
technologies at larger scales, pose more complex challenges (Middleton et al.,
2002). If technologies and novel approaches to research and development
are to be rapidly replicable, then the preconditions for scaling up have to be
identified and introduced into the design of projects and programmes (see,
for example, Farrington and Lobo, 1997). This chapter explores AHI experi-
ences with “scaling out” from benchmark sites and facilitating institutional
reforms for more widespread impact.
Scaling out and institutional change defined
The proliferation of terminology around efforts to “go to scale” has created a
lot of confusion, with the terms scaling out, scaling up, horizontal scaling up
and vertical scaling up, among others, often used interchangeably. For exam-
ple, for the World Bank (2003) the term scaling up is used in reference to the
replication, spread, or adaptation of techniques, ideas, approaches, and con-
cepts (the means), as well as to increased scale of impact (the ends), while for
Lockwood (2004) scaling up implies expanded coverage rates to rapidly meet
the needs of diverse groups or to ensure that “islands of success” are maintained
at expanded scale.
The use of different terminology to say the same thing requires that one’s
definitions be clarified up front. AHI adopts definitions similar to those
proposed by Gündel et al. (2001), which clearly differentiate between the
horizontal and vertical dimensions of “going to scale” as a question of geo-
graphical expansion vs. changes in structures, policy, and institutions. To
be more precise, AHI defines “scaling out” as a process of reaching larger
numbers of a target audience through expansion of activities at the same level
of socio-political organization. In short, it implies doing the same things but
over a larger area. “Scaling up,” on the other hand, involves innovations
at a new level of socio-political organization—namely, support to institu-
tional changes which enable tested innovations or the process of innovation
itself to be supported over a larger area (Millar and Connell, 2010). In short,
it involves doing new things at a level where it will make a bigger differ-
ence. It often involves taking the lessons and experiences from pilot projects
to decisions that are made at the upper levels of management, such as what
kind of approaches to support and where. Institutionalization is the process
through which new ideas and practices become acceptable as valuable and
become incorporated into normal routines and ongoing activities in society
(Norman, 1991). It is a more permanent form of scaling up, as it involves
assimilation of the innovation into the everyday structures, procedures or
practices, or organizations. According to Jacobs (2002: 178), institutionali-
zation is a change that has “relative endurance” or “staying power over a
length of time,” or “has become part of the ongoing, everyday activities of
the organization.” Figure 6.1 helps to visualize how scaling out and scaling
up are conceived of within AHI.
242 Chris Opondo et al.
In the context of AHI, many activities—whether at farm, landscape, or dis-
trict scale—have been designed as pilot or demonstration projects enabling
the design and testing of innovations to explore “what works, where and
why.” This has enabled the program to test what does or does not work well
and identify needed adjustments, before engaging in costly (and risky) inno-
vations at a broader scale. This “piloting” strategy is essential for enhancing
innovation while ensuring efficient use of resources.1 It helps to avoid the
traps of sticking to the status quo (which may or may not be working well)
for fear of making costly mistakes and supporting costly innovations before
they are proven to work. Yet it also leaves the innovation process incom-
plete, as the process of taking pilot experiences to a larger scale remains—and
is also likely to involve further refinements for the approach to become more
widely applicable to new contexts.
Methodological innovation in AHI has been structured around a set of
“learning loops”—key analytical thrusts that have been the subject of action
research-based learning (Figure 6.2). It is important to note that while the
innermost loops are largely focused on developing novel methodological inno-
vations, the outermost loop focuses on “going to scale.” This encompasses the
dissemination of lower-level social and biophysical innovations as well as new
types of institutional innovations to enable the former to be applied as part of
everyday institutional practice, and to support the institutionalization of the
overall approach to action research.
Before closing the section on definitions, it is important to acknowledge
the partnership dimension of scaling up. To some authors (Uvin and Miller,
Local government
Testing innovations
in pilot sites
NGOs Research
Extension
Technologies and practices
(Scaling out)
Methodologies and approaches
(Scaling up)
FIGURE 6.1 Scaling out and scaling up in AHI
Institutional change and scaling up 243
1994; 1996), scaling up implies increased interaction with diverse stakeholders.
FARA (2006) has also emphasized the need for widening the scope of partici-
pants in agricultural research beyond traditional actors to bring impact to rural
communities. This view is in tandem with proponents of the innovation sys-
tems approach (Hall, 2005; Sumberg, 2005) and beyond farmer participation
(Scoones et al., 2007). While this is not an explicit feature in AHI definitions,
it is explicit in the innovations tested by the program.
Elements of “scalable” innovations
An objective of AHI is to spread successful innovations (whether new approaches
to development and NRM or tangible technologies) from pilot benchmarks to
new environments, be they communities or research and development organi-
zations. Scalability may be defined as the ability to adapt an innovation to
effective usage in a wide variety of contexts (Clarke et al., 2006). From both
empirical work and interactions with farmers, researchers, and managers, AHI
has harvested some of the elements regarded as key ingredients for innovations
to be scalable in a given context (Box 6.1).
Scaling up and
institutionalization
AHI’s analytical frame for INRM
and knowledge management
Innovations
in partnerships
and institutional
arrangements
Enhancing
organizational capacity
for collective action
Approaches
for INRM
watersheds
FIGURE 6.2 AHI “Learning loops”
244 Chris Opondo et al.
Yet it is not just the characteristics of the innovation that matter, but the nature
of the scaling up/out process itself, that will determine its success. For scaling out
to be effective, the following conditions must be met:
● The participatory process of problem identification and prioritization, and
the matching of innovations to these priorities, must be effective and sus-
tained over time.
● Efforts must be made to overcome the social and institutional constraints to
spontaneous and mediated forms of technology dissemination, such as the
tendency for gender-based patterns of technology access or the bias exhib-
ited by extension agents in some countries or locations toward wealthy
male farmers (who can more easily innovate).
BOX 6.1 CHARACTERISTICS THAT DETERMINE THE
POTENTIAL OF AN INNOVATION TO GO TO SCALE
Valued outcomes: The ability of the innovation to generate income and enhance well-
being at community level or to achieve policy objectives at the institutional level. An
example of the former is a high-value cash crop with a ready market in urban cent-
ers. An example of the latter is a methodological innovation within a research or
development organization that promotes institutional objectives (e.g., farm-level
value capture, market-oriented research), or demand-driven service provision.
Effectiveness: The ability of the innovation to meet the goals and aspirations of
beneficiaries. For example, an approach or process that emphasizes equitable
technology distribution or sharing among individuals and among villages will
appeal to the majority of farmers, especially those with meager resources and
formerly excluded by research and development programs.
Efficiency: What is being piloted is cost-effective, thus enhancing its potential for
scaling up and out. Production of a unit of good or service is termed eco-
nomically efficient when that unit of good or service is produced at the lowest
possible cost, relative to the value it generates. With limited financial resources,
this consideration is particularly important in an organization’s decisions to
invest in particular research or development activities.
Sustainability: The potential for the benefits from the innovation process to be
enjoyed over prolonged periods by the recipients, even after those supporting its
dissemination are no longer involved. This is a characteristic of a process or
state that can be maintained at a certain level indefinitely. Although the term
is used more in environmental circles, it is relevant to social processes (e.g.,
participation, collective decision-making, institutional collaboration) that work
in tandem with technologies.
Institutional change and scaling up 245
● Adequate attention is given to developing the financial, human, and social
capital required to apply the technology successfully (Adato and Meinzen-
Dick, 2002; Knox McCulloch et al., 1998).
● Adequate attention is given to adapting the technology to local conditions
(Chambers et al., 1989).
For scaling up to be effective, the following conditions must be met:
● Committed leadership to identify and support new strategic directions.
● Budgetary reallocations and the provision of sufficient financial resources
to support proposed institutional changes.
● Behavioral and attitudinal changes that exhibit a willingness to make
reforms (e.g., the decentralization of authority and resources) (Gillespie,
2004).
● Realignment of institutional incentive mechanisms such as staff perfor-
mance appraisals to new policy objectives.
● Strategic networks to build upon complementary skill sets, institutional
mandates, and resources.
● Scaling up fast-track interventions needs to be well aligned with govern-
ment policies and procedures so as to ensure sustainability (Buse et al.,
2008).
● Scaling up requires that the host organization has the capacity to interest
people and enable them to adopt new ideas or diffuse the intended innova-
tions (Senge et al., 1999).
● Ability to cope with and adapt to a diversity of contexts and dimensions
that are political, institutional, financial, technical, spatial, and temporal
(Gonsalves and Armonia, 2000).
Learning organizations
As part of an introduction to institutionalization, it is important to consider
what is known about characteristics that make organizations effective in meet-
ing new challenges and adapting to change. One highly relevant body of
literature in this regard is that which explores the nature of “learning organi-
zations.” Just what constitutes a learning organization is a matter of ongoing
debate (Argyris and Schon, 1996; Senge, 1990). In this sub-section, we explore
some of the themes that have emerged in the literature and among key thinkers
on the subject.
The concept of a learning organization emerged in response to an increas-
ingly unpredictable and dynamic business environment. Organizational
learning involves individual learning, and those who make the shift from tradi-
tional thinking to the culture of a learning organization develop the ability to
think critically and creatively. According to Meinzen-Dick et al.,
246 Chris Opondo et al.
[this] can be fostered by a spirit of critical self-awareness among profes-
sionals and an open culture of reflective learning within organizations.
In such an environment, errors and dead ends are recognized as oppor-
tunities for both individual and institutional learning that can lead to
improved performance.
Meinzen-Dick et al., 2004
The term “learning organization” was coined in the 1980s to describe organi-
zations that experimented with new ways of conducting business in order to
survive in turbulent, highly competitive markets (see Argyris and Schon, 1996;
Senge, 1990). The aim in such organizations is to become effective problem
solvers, to experiment with new ideas and to learn from internal experiences
and the best practices of others. In the learning process, positive results accrue
to individuals and the organization or to the organizational culture as a whole.
However, concrete cognitive (mental) and behavioral traits, as well as specific
types of social interaction and the structural conditions to enhance the likeli-
hood that the necessary organizational qualities are achieved and sustained over
time, need to be in place. Some of these key qualities are communication and
openness; a shared vision, open inquiry and feedback; adequate time allocation
for piloting new ideas; and mutual respect and support in the event of failure.
Senge (1990) notes that for learning to be effective, the personal goals of staff in
such organizations must be in line with the mission of the organization.
The process of evolving into a learning organization therefore involves
behavioral change, and changes in the ways of thinking and information pro-
cessing (Garvin, 1993). It may take as long as five to ten years for institutional
change to become part of the corporate culture, given the fragility of change
and resistance that often accompanies it (Kotter, 1995). This is because most
people practice defensive reasoning; because people make up organizations,
those organizations also tend to exhibit this culture (Argyris, 1991). So at the
same time that an individual or organization is avoiding embarrassment or the
threat of failure, it is also avoiding learning. Senge et al. (1999) point out that
there is also a need to focus on understanding the factors limiting change, such
as lack of systems thinking, fear and anxiety in the face of change, and the dan-
ger of innovations acquiring “cult status” and thus becoming isolated from the
organization. Kotter (1995) has suggested that the failure to “anchor” cultural
change is a key challenge to learning organizations. Thus, until new behaviors
are rooted in social norms and shared values of the organization, they are sub-
ject to resistance.
Research and development organizations also operate in a dynamic world
and must learn to adjust to changes in their context in order to be effective
and, often, in order to survive. The institutional learning and change (ILAC)
initiative of the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research
represents a formalized response of the agricultural sector to embrace the con-
cept of institutional learning.2 The ILAC mission is to strengthen the capacity
Institutional change and scaling up 247
of collaborative programs to promote pro-poor agricultural innovation, and to
ensure that research and development activities are managed more effectively
vis-à-vis contributions to poverty reduction. Institutional learning and change
is a process that can change behavior and improve performance by drawing
lessons from the research process and using them to improve future work.
The ILAC framework encompasses a set of emerging interventions that will
strengthen performance by encouraging new modes of professional behavior
associated with continuous learning and change (ILAC, 2005). Research in the
ILAC model involves multiple stakeholders in a process that is more participa-
tory, iterative, interactive, reflective, and adaptive.
According to ISNAR (2004), research activities that would allow for insti-
tutional learning and change include new modes of working, such as: (i)
public–private partnerships as research organizations embrace a market-led
research agenda; (ii) new research approaches oriented towards innovations
in the commodity value chain; and (iii) new paradigms that link research,
extension, universities, and farmers’ organizations in participatory knowledge
quadrangles. While R&D actors engage in these activities, institutional change
and learning take place, leading to the generation of lessons that further inform
thinking and organizational practice.
Institutional change in agricultural research systems
As much of AHI’s work on institutional change involved national agricul-
tural research systems (NARS), it is worth taking some time to summarize
what is known to date about institutional change and innovation in these
organizations.
Historical evolution of research approaches
In the past, most agricultural research and extension organizations have carried
out research and extension in a top-down or linear manner. Technologies have
in large part been generated on-station, with minimum inputs of end users to
define desirable characteristics of the technology, and then transferred to the
end users using the unidirectional “transfer-of-technology” model (research to
extension to farmers) (Hagmann, 1999). This approach tends to be commod-
ity based and employs a unidirectional communication model, undermining
the extent to which the socio-economic circumstances of the end users are
considered. With such an approach, R&D institutions are unable to adequately
respond to the demands of end users.
Historically, the focus of research in the CGIAR and in NARS has been
on food crops and on high yielding varieties. This has led to some undeniable
successes, with nearly 71 percent of production growth since 1961 occur-
ring owing to yield increases (Hall et al., 2001). However, recognition of
the huge gap between what scientists do and can do on-station, and what
248 Chris Opondo et al.
farmers do and can do on-farm, led to a conviction that major changes were
necessary in the way in which technologies were designed and evaluated
(Collinson, 1999).
There is evidence from adoption studies and direct feedback from farmers
that technologies developed by research were not always relevant to farmers’
needs because the socio-economic and agro-ecological circumstances of the
end users were seldom considered (Baur and Kradi, 2001). Probst et al. (2003)
show that the complexity and magnitude of farmers’ problems have increased
considerably and “new” approaches, concepts, and theoretical perspectives are
needed. They argue that research should shift from a focus on the production of
scientific “goods” to support more integrated and complex livelihood options.
Collinson (2001) lays the blame for low research impact among smallholder
farmers in developing countries on conventional approaches and paradigms
undergirding applied research institutions. He argues that in this paradigm,
scientists and managers give their allegiance to commodities, disciplines, and
institutions rather than to the intended beneficiaries as the appropriate drivers
of research programming and organization.
In response to these critiques, research approaches have gone through a
series of transformations in an attempt to enhance the effectiveness of research
in achieving impact. One of the first shifts was from on-station research to on-
farm research, notably through the farming systems research (FSR) approach.
Even FSR has gone through a series of conceptual and methodological trans-
formations, with its guiding conceptual framework expanding from an initial
emphasis on cropping systems in the 1970s to an emphasis on farming systems
in the 1980s and on watershed level work in the 1990s (Hart, 1999). Part
of this transformation involved an increasing emphasis on farmer participa-
tory research (FPR) (Ashby and Lilja, 2004; Collinson, 1999), where farmers’
circumstances and criteria become central to problem definition and research
design. The move from FSR to FPR was necessitated by the tendency of
researchers to lead the research process in FSR, with limited involvement
of farmers. Other reasons were that: (i) smallholder farmers, particularly in
marginal areas, were not benefiting from the yield increases achieved through
FSR; and (ii) the commodity orientation, which places emphasis on finding
the best germplasm and the best husbandry to maximize yields, isolates results
from the everyday realities of farmers (Collinson, 1999). The shift to FPR,
where effectively applied, led to the more active participation of farmers in
decision-making at all stages of research, from problem identification to exper-
imentation and implementation, and even the dissemination of research results.
While these approaches led to important changes in research methodology
and involvement of smallholders, they failed to catalyze large-scale impacts
from agricultural research and extension or widespread changes in institutional
practice. The demand for demonstrable impacts of research and development
efforts is now high on the agenda of governments, donors, and civil society
(FARA, 2005; IAC, 2004; NEPAD, 2001; Williamson, 2000). In this regard,
Institutional change and scaling up 249
national agricultural research organizations in developing countries are seeking
ways of improving the involvement of stakeholders in research and develop-
ment (R&D) processes to achieve greater impact and more efficient research
systems in times of shrinking budgets (AHI, 2001, 2002; ASARECA, 1997).
This has led to a drive for institutional change throughout the system.
New drive for institutional change
The demand for demonstrable impacts on poverty has led to a call for insti-
tutional learning and change (ILAC) within the agricultural profession and
institutions (Ashby, 2003; Meinzen-Dick et al., 2004; Okali et al., 1994).
A number of initiatives have supported institutional change in the agricul-
tural sector in Africa and beyond. One of the most prominent is the World
Bank’s efforts to work with developing countries to improve the ability of
their national agricultural research organizations (NAROs) to generate tech-
nology that increases agricultural productivity while alleviating poverty (World
Bank, 1998). In so doing, diverse reforms have been carried out in an effort
to make research systems more effective.3 These have included efforts to: (i)
ensure greater administrative flexibility to enable the pursuit of financing from
diverse sources, guarantee timely disbursement of funds and provide a system
of open and merit-based recruitment, pay, and promotion; and (ii) deepen
the involvement of different stakeholders (farmers and others) to help focus
research on client needs. Interdisciplinary and multi-stakeholder approaches
have been promoted as part of the latter effort (and adopted with varying
degrees of success) and as a means to accommodate the diversity of farmers’
needs, integrate production with the management of natural resources that
sustain agricultural productivity, and ensure contextual factors (constraints and
opportunities beyond local control) are considered.
More recent efforts such as Integrated Agricultural Research for
Development (IAR4D) and innovation systems approaches recognize the
need to extend beyond technological innovation to cover a wider set of
institutional and policy innovations essential for rural development. Such
developments must be multi-directional, expanding the institutional knowl-
edge base of research institutions to enhance the contribution of research
to agricultural innovation, while also enhancing the capacity of individuals,
organizations, and innovation systems to catalyze this innovation and better
articulate the contribution of research to it (ISNAR, 2004). ICRA-NATURA
(2003) further argues that capacity building in key components of IAR4D is
essential for bringing about the desired impacts from research investments.
This is because the shift from the traditional commodity-based and discipli-
nary approach to more integrated approaches will expand the complexity
of challenges faced, and thus the knowledge systems and skill sets required
to confront these. It is also important to recognize that change will only be
meaningful and sustained when there is buy-in from within organizations.
250 Chris Opondo et al.
When involving institutional leaders themselves in institutional learning and
change, change objectives can emerge from within—shaping the nature of
institutional aims and the strategies seen as most likely to support these.
In support of this call for institutional reforms in agricultural research,
AHI has worked with NARS to support institutional learning and change
using an action research/action learning approach. The approach aimed to
ensure that institutional change objectives and processes within national
research systems respond to the concerns of managers and national policy
priorities, as well as the needs and interests of the intended beneficiaries.
The challenges facing AHI and its NARS partners included: (i) how to build
in-house capacity for critical reflection and experiential learning at institu-
tional level; and (ii) how to form strategic partnerships with organizations
beyond agricultural extension.
The sections which follow highlight approaches taken to scale out proven
innovations from benchmark sites and for supporting institutional change, and
lessons learned in the process.
Scaling out proven innovations from benchmark sites
As illustrated in Chapters 1 through 5, AHI places an emphasis on action
research for the purpose of developing and testing innovative approaches
to INRM. This requires sustained investment by donors and site teams in
specific locations (plots, farms, villages, micro-watersheds, and even districts)
in a process of experiential learning and trial and error. Thus, activities are
implemented as pilot or demonstration projects to test what is and is not
working and undertake any needed adjustments, before translating lessons
from benchmark or pilot sites to a broader scale. Once specific solutions or
approaches to generating these are validated in benchmark sites, R&D teams
face the challenge of scaling these out to wider areas. The overall goal of
scaling out is to reach more people with technologies, approaches, and tools
that have been validated in pilot learning sites and thus expand impacts on
livelihoods and landscapes.
Lessons learned from the original testing of methods and approaches
in benchmark sites are key ingredients to scaling out to new farms, vil-
lages, watersheds, or districts. However, scaling out is also in and of itself
a learning process, owing both to the process of discriminating among past
interventions to highlight those that worked the best and to the surprises
that come from implementing a similar set of actions in new locations.
The process also requires some methodological innovations, as scaling out
implies using new techniques or approaches to spread the same innovations
but over a wider area.
Institutional change and scaling up 251
Approach development
Two primary approaches were tested for scaling out successful innovations
from AHI benchmark sites.
Approach 1—Implement a high-profile activity and advertise it well
One approach that was tested involved few steps, as follows:
1. Replicate the successful activity in a highly visible location that is acces-
sible to a large number of people;
2. Publicize the activity, approach used, and impacts obtained using mass
media; and
3. Find means to effectively harvest expressions of interest in adopt-
ing the approach, and support endogenous efforts to learn from project
experiences.
A notable example of this approach is the water source rehabilitation activities
carried out in Lushoto, Tanzania. It is worth noting that AHI research teams in
the benchmark sites not only considered and dealt with agricultural technolo-
gies and approaches, but also ecosystem services that were seen as central to
community livelihoods. The idea was not only to build rapport with the com-
munity based on the program’s responsiveness to NRM priorities highlighted
in the participatory diagnostic exercises (thus hoping to catalyze interest in a
wider set of activities), but also to link water source improvement to broader
processes of INRM at landscape level (e.g., reduced erosion, labor saving for
investment in other NRM activities, etc.).
Approach 2—Document successes and demonstrate them to the
target audience
A second approach has been to monitor implementation of the innovation and
gather proof of its effectiveness, and to host targeted dissemination activities.
The following generic steps were taken to scale out integrated solutions to new
watersheds or districts:
1. Ensure the development and documentation of successful innovations in
pilot sites by following a minimum set of necessary steps:
a) Facilitate a participatory process of problem identification and prioriti-
zation, planning, and implementation for the most pressing concerns
related to agriculture and NRM, as described in Chapters 2 through 5;
b) Provide close follow-up to implementation through periodic moni-
toring and reflection meetings with intended beneficiaries, to ensure
any emerging problems are rapidly addressed. This enables adjustment
252 Chris Opondo et al.
and replanning as needed, while identifying, addressing, and docu-
menting success factors and challenges; and
c) Evaluate the effectiveness of the approach using participatory moni-
toring and evaluation or measurement of project-level indicators
through a more formal impact assessment.
2. Host an event to showcase successful innovations to relevant stakeholders
and decision-makers to stimulate demand and bring pride to communities
hosting the innovation.
3. Provide follow-up to organizations interested in scaling out the approach
to their respective areas of operation.
Field days with diverse stakeholders have been widely used by AHI as mech-
anisms for scaling out successful technologies and approaches. This is an
opportunity for participating farmers to demonstrate and testify to the perfor-
mance of the technology or approach to non-participating farmers, policy and
decision-makers, input suppliers, NGOs, CBOs, and other relevant stakehold-
ers. Box 6.2 illustrates how such a field day is carried out through a case study
from Areka BMS in 2007.
BOX 6.2 FIELD DAY IN AREKA, SOUTHERN ETHIOPIA
Phase III of AHI at the Areka BMS started with a participatory exploration of
problems of Gununo watershed, in 2002/2003. Problems were identified and
prioritized by groups disaggregated by gender, wealth, and age. This was fol-
lowed by the development of a formal action research proposal. Since then, a
number of research activities have been launched to develop integrated solu-
tions to prioritized problems related to the management of soil and water,
vertebrate pests, trees, and springs. Two years after the commencement of
activities, positive results were observed for most of the activities undertaken—
many of which had not been attempted before by research institutions or NGOs
(e.g., equitable dissemination of technologies, porcupine control). The team
decided to undertake a field day to demonstrate and scale out the initial results
to various stakeholders from within and outside the pilot site (see Plate 15).
In 2007, the Areka site team organized a field day to scale out experiences
from Gununo watershed. Over 236 participants from various institutions par-
ticipated, including research centers (Awasa and Holleta Agricultural Research
Institutes), directors from national and regional agricultural research institutes
(EIAR, SARI), institutes of higher learning, the Bureau of Agriculture at differ-
ent levels (regional, zonal, district), Council members at different levels (zonal,
district, and peasant association), NGOs and farmers in and outside of the
watershed. News agencies (national and regional TV and radio) were invited
to help document the event and related innovations and share them with a
Institutional change and scaling up 253
Lessons learned
The following lessons have been learned through AHI’s early efforts to scale
out proven innovations from benchmark sites:
1. The first approach to scaling out, in which a high profile activity is imple-
mented and well advertised, is effective only for activities that carry a very
high value among local communities, and can therefore muster political
support for scaling out.
2. Farmers often need organizational training more than technical training to
enable them to adopt or sustain an innovation. Key competencies include
articulating their demands, developing institutional capacities (e.g., for
accessing input or output markets or ensuring technologies are equita-
bly multiplied and disseminated), improving natural resource governance
(e.g., implementing local by-laws in support of technological or other
innovations), and monitoring and evaluating innovations.
3. Practical field demonstrations and inter-community visits are vital elements
of scaling out, because they enable farmers and other stakeholders to under-
stand how the technology or practice works and observe the benefits in situ.
4. Institutional dependency needs to be overcome if scaling out is to be sus-
tained. Success cases have indicated that in order to overcome any given
problem, farmers need ready access to all the necessary elements that ena-
ble them to adopt, adapt, and disseminate new technologies and practices
that they have found attractive. These include increased organizational
capacity, access to appropriate materials for implementation and mainte-
nance of the innovation, and technical support when problems arise.
wider public. In the course of the day, participants visited sites where different
technologies and approaches had been applied. Leaflets on different topics
were prepared for participants, and over one hundred copies were distrib-
uted among them. News of the experiences received media coverage in the
national language on Ethiopian Television and Southern Nation Television and
Radio. The team also made an arrangement with the news agencies to host a
special TV program for wider dissemination, and to have an additional radio
program aired in the local language spoken by farmers in Gununo watershed
and surrounding areas. The impact of the field day has included increased
demand for technologies and approaches by farmers in neighboring villages,
government agencies, and NGOs. It has also led to an expanded membership
in village research committees, including farmers from neighboring villages
who had not participated in pilot research activities, thus scaling out technolo-
gies and approaches beyond the watershed.
254 Chris Opondo et al.
5. The use of participatory monitoring and evaluation and process docu-
mentation tools is helpful not only in guiding the change process, but
also in providing information on outcomes and impacts accruing from
R&D efforts. These tools generate information that is complementary to
that which is normally collected by researchers (which tends to focus on
quantitative, and often biophysical indicators such as yield or soil fertility),
such as the performance of indicators of importance to farmers. This infor-
mation is essential to bolstering support for the innovations among actors
seeing them for the first time.
6. Radio is a very effective tool for raising awareness on an innovation to
a large audience; however, it is insufficient for imparting the necessary
knowledge and skills to ensure effective implementation. Thus, effec-
tive scaling out requires both awareness creation and support to formal
efforts to train others and help them trouble shoot during their efforts to
implement complex methodological innovations. Fortunately, piloting an
innovation develops human resource capacities within villages and institu-
tions that can in turn be leveraged to support the spread of innovations,
provided these individuals are empowered with the necessary training/
facilitation skills and financial resources.
7. Responsiveness of research and development institutions to farmers’ articu-
lated needs is critical to ensuring the effectiveness of any scaling-out effort. In
order to maintain the interest of the intended beneficiaries of any scaling-out
effort, it is important that time is taken by researchers or development profes-
sionals to understand their problems, that attractive options be made available
and that timely actions are taken to respond to farmer demand. This represents
a challenge for most institutions or projects, particularly those constrained by
inadequate human and financial resources. For instance in Tanzania, the ratio
of extension agent to farmers is 1:1600. It is also constrained by institutional
approaches that are supply- rather than demand-driven.
8. A comprehensive approach to scaling out that considers various require-
ments to successful adoption of the technology or approach is essential.
This includes strategies for raising awareness, for building capacity, for
availing the necessary inputs (technological or other), and for monitoring
the spread and performance of the innovations. Capacity development
efforts often involve more than a one-off training in the classroom; practi-
cal implementation is generally required for adequate assimilation of new
technologies or practices.
9. For scaling out to be effective, partnerships with new actors beyond agri-
cultural research are important. This is true for several reasons. In the
absence of such partnerships, bottlenecks to participatory processes are
quickly reached as communities express needs that go beyond the insti-
tutional mandate of research. Second, with limited communication and
harmonization of efforts, different organizations may pursue conflicting
goals or duplicate efforts in some locations while leaving other locations
Institutional change and scaling up 255
with no services. There may also be a need for research institutions operat-
ing at different levels or in different locations to coordinate their activities
for greater effectiveness. While partners may face challenges associated
with divergent approaches, mandates, and resource levels, most important
is that they share the same goals, philosophy, and eventual credit.
Self-led institutional change
In addition to scaling out technological and methodological innovations from
benchmark sites to new watersheds and districts, AHI has supported processes
of institutional change at national level. Institutional change is aimed at struc-
tural, procedural, and systems changes within R&D organizations to enhance
the effectiveness of these organizations and their relevance to clients.
Most institutional change work in the region has been catalyzed by actors
and factors outside of the organizations undergoing change (Chema et al.,
2003). While this may also be true in the case of AHI, the institutional change
processes carried out in partnership with NARS may be termed “self-led”
because while AHI and partner organizations have provided the facilitation,
the change process was largely self-propelled and self-managed by senior man-
agers. In participatory reflection workshops, NARS managers and partners
noted that for sustainable change to be realized, the change process had to start
from within the organizations themselves (AHI, 2001). The managers indi-
cated that self-led institutional change should start with development of better
dialogue between researchers and managers, and then with external partners
such as NGOs, extension departments, the private sector, and institutes of
higher learning. AHI has engaged with NARS managers to facilitate their
efforts to steer self-led institutional transformations, with the aim of ensuring
that change is initiated and managed from within the organization. This has
enabled changes to be aligned with organizational and national policies and
priorities. This means that NARS stakeholders jointly reflect on the key aspects
that they would like to change and then internally develop solutions and strate-
gies for managing the change process.
While a general focus on poverty alleviation is clear in the emphasis on insti-
tutional change in eastern African research institutions, more specific change
objectives needed to be clearly articulated. As a result, AHI held meetings with
NARS managers and researchers to discuss some of the main objectives of agri-
cultural research, and the changes that are needed in national agricultural research
systems to achieve these objectives (AHI, 1998; 2001). Participants highlighted
the following changes in organizational policies, structure, and function that are
required to enhance their effectiveness in contributing to poverty alleviation:
1. Enacting policy reforms in research and extension agencies to ensure that partici-
patory approaches become part and parcel of researchers’ daily routines. It was
observed that such reforms necessitate new incentive schemes so as to
256 Chris Opondo et al.
motivate staff and reward them for their efforts. Stakeholders identified
reluctance of managers to experiment with innovative reward mechanisms
as a key barrier to institutionalization of participatory approaches. They
stressed decentralization of authority from headquarters to research stations
and accountability to stakeholders as the main strategies to ensure demand-
driven approaches to R&D.
2. Strengthening and targeting research activities through improved consultation
with end users. This includes two key elements: farmer participation in
defining desired changes and the contributions of research to these, and
the need to strengthen farmer organizations to enable them to partici-
pate effectively in defining research priorities and articulating demand
for advisory services. The National Agricultural Research Organization
(NARO) of Uganda, for example, has restructured its programs to shift
from a commodity-based to a thematic focus to ensure that farmers’
priorities and participation are at the center of research activities (see
www.naads.org).
3. Strengthening the interface between research and extension, especially at local, dis-
trict, and regional levels. The general trend is for research and extension
to work independently of one another, creating unnecessary competi-
tion over resources and resulting in the dissemination of contradictory
information to the public. In Uganda, stakeholders envisioned a stronger
relationship between NAADS and NARO through zonal agricultural
research institutes and NAADS district operations.
4. Developing systems for experiential learning and action research in support of
institutional learning and change. Stakeholders identified the iterative
process of planning, action, reflection, and feedback (among implement-
ers, and with farmers and policy makers), replanning, and continuous
improvement as key to meeting any challenge associated with impact-
oriented research and extension. Part of this strategy includes the need
for an effective and flexible system for data capture and analysis, so that
information on the effectiveness of approaches under development is
accessible to decision-makers.
5. Creating and strengthening innovation platforms, networks, and systems for commu-
nication, documentation, and dissemination. Strategic partnership arrangements
were seen as a key ingredient to achieving impact, to capitalize upon syner-
gies in institutional mandates, skills, and resources. For example, demands
emerging out of participatory problem diagnosis and prioritization that
do not fall within the mandate of one organization can be more easily
accommodated if organizations with diverse mandates are working in part-
nership. Similarly, action research to develop methodological innovations
in research and development requires contributions from both research
and development agencies.
6. Bolstering support from senior leadership. As institutionalization of participa-
tory and impact-oriented research approaches was required to accelerate
Institutional change and scaling up 257
impacts, AHI and NARS partners were of the view that the process
needed the support of the top leadership within the organization—both to
reflect on their readiness to engage in change, and to develop the necessary
mechanisms to support it.
AHI support to self-led institutional change agendas has gone through several
phases. From 2002, an attempt was made to pilot the institutionalization of par-
ticipatory research approaches together with researchers, managers, and their
development partners so as to make them common practice in selected NARS.
These efforts have evolved to encompass a wider array of approaches, such
as integrated research and innovation systems approaches. Organizations that
have been involved in these efforts included the Department of Research and
Development of Tanzania, the Ethiopian Agricultural Research Organization,4
and, more recently, the National Agricultural Research Organization of
Uganda and the Institut des Sciences Agronomiques du Rwanda. AHI and its part-
ners aimed to catalyze changes among the NARS partners so that approaches
proven to be effective become institutionalized. This implied developing new
ways of interacting and engaging with other stakeholders, among other internal
changes in organizational structure and function.
Approach development
Two approaches may be highlighted based on where the impetus for change
originated from, whether the external environment or the beneficiaries
themselves.
Approach 1—Self-led institutional change catalyzed by
external drivers
The first approach involves changes induced by external drivers, such as donor
agencies, new government policies or global trends (e.g., newly acquired
knowledge or development strategies, shifts in the global economy or cli-
mate change). Since change cannot be effective without local ownership, the
approach involves collaboration with internal managers and leaders of R&D
organizations so that the change process is driven and managed from within.
The following primary steps were taken in the AHI context:
1. An external push for change in the way research and development prac-
tices are undertaken occurs. One prominent example is the recent push by
donors, politicians, and civil society for research and development organi-
zations to show impact, and increase the rate and scale over which impact
is achieved.
2. Managers and other stakeholders visualize the changes they would like to
see, often with the help of an external facilitator. Visualizing change often
258 Chris Opondo et al.
involves a search for evidence of what works in practice, so as to ground
change in proven practices rather than in theory alone. Within public
research organizations, for example, managers are demanding that evi-
dence of impact from new approaches be gathered to enable them to make
informed decisions about new investments (e.g., reallocation of budgets
and staff time). Visualizing change may also involve developing a frame-
work to highlight the scope of changes required, to plan for these, and to
evaluate the effectiveness of the process as it is implemented (Box 6.3).
BOX 6.3 DEVELOPING PERFORMANCE CRITERIA FOR
EVALUATING INSTITUTIONAL CHANGE
In Ethiopia, an assessment framework was developed by asking workshop
participants, “If research were highly effective, what would stakeholder X
be doing differently?” The question was asked of farmers, farmer organi-
zations, researchers, and research organizations, to highlight behavioral
changes that would occur at diverse levels if the envisioned outcomes were
achieved. Answers to this question helped in the development of a set of per-
formance criteria against which institutional changes were evaluated during
implementation.
3. “Best bet” approaches are identified. Before getting started with the
self-led change process, organizational leaders assess internally their own
projects or those of other agencies to identify key approaches and les-
sons that can be institutionalized. In Ethiopia and Tanzania, for example,
eight projects using participatory research were assessed to give managers
insights on best practices and conditions for successful outcomes to be
achieved. A standardized structured questionnaire was employed to collect
data about the approaches employed by and results emanating from each of
these projects. Analysis of all the case studies and discussions that followed
provided a basis for defining critical success factors or “cornerstones” for
effective research (Figure 6.3). These cornerstones were in turn utilized
to design an institutional change strategy, and to monitor and evaluate the
performance of this strategy during its implementation.
4. Piloting of the innovation in selected sites or research centers. Prior to
engaging in organization-wide change processes, pilots are used to test
whether the new ideas/approaches are feasible within the new institutional
context. This helps to build capacity in applying the innovation in practice
and also highlights key activities that must be undertaken to ensure the
innovation is successfully internalized. Only once these pilot experiences
have proven successful are efforts made to institutionalize them within the
organization as a whole.
Institutional change and scaling up 259
5. Synthesis of lessons learned. The lessons from the change process are
documented continuously and synthesized for wider dissemination. This
synthesis enables key lessons to be distilled on what did and did not work
well, which then guides efforts to expand the approach within the wider
organization.
6. Institutionalization of changes based on lessons learned. Once the
lessons are synthesized, the managers of the research or develop-
ment organization utilize them as ingredients for institutionalizing
the approaches. Institutionalization is meant to ensure the approaches
become routine and are applied in everyday activities of the organiza-
tion. This requires allocating budgets and staff time to these activities
in all research centers and/or among all staff, and mainstreaming the
activities into annual planning and review processes. In some cases
(only where needed for effective implementation), structural changes
2. Clear partnerships and
collaborative arrangements built on
trust, ownership and joint
commitment to vision
and impacts
Managing INRM
interventions
3. Enabling governance
and policy that provide incentives,
capacities and resources to
key stakeholders
4. Explicit scaling-up
and out strategy building on
successes and strategic
entry points
5. Effective facilitation,
co-ordination and
negotiation at different
levels
6. Access to
information on technical,
market, policy and
institutional options
7. Enhanced creativity
and learning through exposure,
experimentation and iterative
reflection on successes
and failures
8. Enhanced
organizational capacity for
collective action and
self-governance
9. Effective cross-
disciplinary learning
teams of R&D agents
1. Shared problem
and opportunity focus
among partners
10. Interest and energy
created in short-term to ensure
commitment to longer term goals
and processes among
partners
11. Effective
research design and
process to integrate R&D
objectives
FIGURE 6.3 Cornerstones for effective research in Ethiopia and Tanzania
260 Chris Opondo et al.
may be required—for example, the creation of new units to enhance
interactions among disciplines or with outside actors. Such institutional
reforms begin during the piloting phase, but are often expanded at this
time as they require commitments from senior management or the
organization’s headquarters.
An example from Rwanda is illustrated in Box 6.4.
BOX 6.4 SCALING UP AND OUT AHI APPROACHES
TO INRM: THE CASE OF ISAR IN RWANDA
Limited adoption of NRM practices by smallholder farmers in Rwanda had
led to increasing soil erosion and subsequent siltation of cultivated wetlands
and valley bottoms. Research and development approaches were ineffective
in catalyzing shifts toward more sustainable NRM. Limitations of the con-
ventional approach included an emphasis on individual components rather
than on component interactions or systems; a top-down approach to tech-
nology development and dissemination with limited involvement of intended
beneficiaries (and developed technologies failing to reflect famers’ priorities
or realities); a focus on the plot and farm level (which left issues operating
at other spatial scales or requiring collective action unaddressed); failure to
link technological innovation with other complementary innovations (e.g.,
supportive market linkages or policies); and limited collaboration among rele-
vant research and development partners. The composition of research teams
(with few social scientists or researchers with skills in integrated approaches)
and high staff turnover were further impediments to implementing desired
institutional changes. This called for an approach for encompassing broader
units of analysis and intervention and which takes into account both the
biophysical and social dimensions of NRM. To accommodate these require-
ments, the Institut des Sciences Agronomiques du Rwanda (ISAR) adopted the
AHI approach to INRM to address the diverse factors responsible for natural
resource degradation in Rwanda.
Initiatives taken to address the problem
The development and implementation of watershed management plans for
integrated NRM was identified as a major thrust over the next two decades
in Rwanda’s agricultural sector master plan. Subsequently, ISAR sent two
scientists to India to explore the possibility of learning from this country’s
experience with participatory watershed management and explore the pos-
sibility of a south–south partnership to leverage benefits from past experiences
Institutional change and scaling up 261
in both countries. With World Bank support, ISAR also recruited a group of
“experts” in different professional fields outside Rwanda to support capacity
development following the genocide. In 2005, one of the senior scientists
recruited by ISAR, a former AHI benchmark site coordinator, was hired to sup-
port institutionalization of the watershed management approach within ISAR.
The following steps were followed:
1. A country-wide tour to different agro-ecological zones was organized for
newly recruited scientists.
2. The integrated watershed approach was introduced to ISAR management
and scientists.
3. The ISAR DG requested that capacity building on INRM be conducted for
all ISAR scientists.
4. Two training workshops, sponsored by the Government of Rwanda, were
conducted at ISAR headquarters.
5. The ISAR DG agreed to sponsor watershed-level INRM pilot activities in
three pilot sites (and to subsequently increase this to four sites).
6. Watershed teams comprised of all disciplines were formed, and local
development partners engaged.
7. Selection of pilot sites by research teams in collaboration with farmers and
district partners.
8. Introduction of the approach to watershed communities.
9. Selection (by farmers) of representatives to work with the research team,
taking into consideration hamlet representation and farmer categories
(age, wealth, gender, landscape location of plots).
10. Implementation of participatory diagnostic surveys to identify constraints
and opportunities for overcoming these constraints.
11. Prioritization of identified issues by farmers, with facilitation of the
research team.
12. Feedback of results to watershed communities and other stakeholders.
13. Participatory preparation of community action plans (CAPs).
14. Implementation of CAPs, and periodic follow-up by the research and
development team.
15. Lessons learning from pilot watersheds to explore the potential for insti-
tutionalizing the approach throughout the organization.
Although the above steps in self-led institutional change have taken place
within the selected NARS, variations in the approaches used in different
countries have been noted. Box 6.5 illustrates how self-led institutional
change may be catalyzed by different drivers—whether national policy
priorities or donors.
262 Chris Opondo et al.
Box 6.6 illustrates how the key steps in institutional change may vary according
to context and the priorities of stakeholders involved.
BOX 6.5 NATIONAL POLICY PRIORITIES AND
DONORS AS DRIVERS OF INTERNAL CHANGE IN NARS
In Ethiopia, the director of research, managers, and researchers were under
pressure by government ministers and members of parliament to provide evi-
dence of impact from agricultural research in order to secure ongoing funding
for their activities. The recurrent drought and food insecurity had created pres-
sure on the government to deliver interventions to mitigate these challenges.
In the case of Uganda, donors demanded evidence of impact from the work
that had been funded. This led the Director General of NARO to bring in
external consultants from ICRA and Makerere University to design a workshop
on integrated agricultural research for development (IAR4D) as a new way of
conducting research that would show rapid impacts among target benefi-
ciaries. All 13 zonal agricultural research and development institutes (ZARDI)
attended these workshops and developed action plans that they implemented
when they returned to their respective research stations to practice what was
learned in the workshops.
BOX 6.6 VARIATIONS IN INSTITUTIONAL CHANGE
PROCESSES LED BY EIAR AND NARO MANAGERS
Steps in institutional change in the Ethiopian Institute
of Agricultural Research (EIAR):
1. Inception workshop with managers on what needs to change
2. Learning and experience sharing workshops combined with training
3. Field-based implementation of action plans generated in workshops
4. Follow-up by AHI Regional Research Team and managers on
implementation of action plans
5. Synthesis of lessons and insights from workshops and the field
6. Dissemination of lessons and insights to managers, researchers, and
regional stakeholders.
Steps in institutional change in the National Agricultural
Research Organization (NARO):
1. Institutional change facilitators’ design workshop for senior managers
Institutional change and scaling up 263
Approach 2—Self-led institutional change catalyzed by grassroots
demand
A second approach to institutional change is catalyzed not by external actors,
but by grassroots demand. While change is initiated from below, it also requires
responsiveness to farmer demands among service organizations—and is thus
often conditional on a favorable institutional and policy environment or organ-
izational leadership.
The following steps are key in enabling institutional change based on grass-
roots demand:
1. Grassroots problems identification, facilitated by an independent party. In
contexts where farmers are not adequately organized, the articulation of
grassroots demand may require the involvement of an independent party.
In cases where community-based organizations are strong and networked
at higher levels, this demand may be expressed spontaneously.
2. Information sharing or advocacy with district and national policy makers.
Once demands are articulated, identified changes must be advocated to
leverage the necessary political will to support these changes among pol-
icy makers or institutional managers (depending on the nature of changes
desired).
3. Gathering of evidence that identified changes are in fact able to leverage
the purported benefits. As mentioned above, policy makers and managers
will often require evidence that the proposed change works in order to
justify changes in policies, institutional practices or budgets. Where such
an innovation has already been implemented in practice, evidence can be
gathered from these existing cases. Where such cases do not exist, evidence
can only be gathered through the piloting of innovations and documenta-
tion of observed changes (for example, using an action research approach).
2. Workshop on institutionalized responses to research and develop-
ment challenges for representatives from zonal agriculture research
and development institutes (ZARDI)
3. Workshops for staff of research stations implementing pilot
experiences
4. Piloting of innovations at station level
5. Mid-term evaluation
6. Adjustments in the approach formulated based on recommenda-
tions from the evaluation, and proposal developed and submitted for
funding.
264 Chris Opondo et al.
4. Lessons sharing at diverse levels (e.g., national fora, cross-district exchange
visits) to influence other actors to invest in the innovation.
5. Scaling up or institutionalization of the innovation with monitoring, to
enable mid-course adjustments to be made.
For an example of this approach, please see Box 6.7.
BOX 6.7 LINKING FARMERS TO POLICY MAKERS:
THE ROLE OF ACTION RESEARCH IN FARMER
INSTITUTIONAL DEVELOPMENT
A host of challenges have been experienced in the delivery of public sector
services in developing countries: matching services to felt needs of beneficiar-
ies, enabling effective stakeholder participation, ensuring equitable coverage
and representation of diverse social groups, efficiency and effectiveness in
service delivery, and overcoming barriers to information flow. The National
Agricultural Advisory Services of Uganda (NAADS) is a program for demand-
driven extension provision that relies on local institutions (farmer fora) to
articulate farmers’ demands from private service providers. While NAADS poli-
cies provided the institutional framework for effective demand-driven service
delivery, a number of concerns were raised by intended beneficiaries about its
effectiveness in practice.
Initiatives to address the problem
AHI, CARE, and other organizations operating at community level throughout
the district had observed a host of complaints leveraged by farmers about the
implementation of NAADS. One key concern was the limited effectiveness of
farmer fora in representing all of the villages in their jurisdiction and in ensur-
ing downward accountability in the management of financial resources and
services. In response to these concerns, AHI and CARE formed the Coalition
for Effective Extension Delivery (CEED) with other concerned organizations to
support stakeholders in addressing these concerns. Key steps in the process
included the following:
1. Identification of critical bottlenecks to the effective functioning of NAADS.
This was done by consulting diverse stakeholders involved in implement-
ing the program or intended to benefit from it (e.g., male and female
farmers). The limited effectiveness of farmer institutions was identified as
one key barrier to effective program implementation.
2. A participatory diagnostic activity was carried out in one parish where
CARE was working to assess the problem more deeply from the perspective
Institutional change and scaling up 265
of the intended beneficiaries. The primary concern related to farmer rep-
resentation was poor coverage of services for parishes geographically
distant and politically disconnected from the farmer fora.
3. A participatory action research process was initiated with CEED facilita-
tion, to support parish residents to find their own ways to overcome the
problems of representation and accountability. This involved the piloting
of institutional innovations recommended by farmers—in this case, the
formulation of parish-level farmer fora to help represent and advocate on
behalf of parish residents at sub-county level.
4. The performance of these pilot experiences was evaluated in order to
formulate recommendations.
5. Feedback was provided to NAADS at national and district level, and CEED
lobbied for institutionalizing the approach in other NAADS parishes/districts.
6. NAADS commissioned a national-level study by CEED on farmer institu-
tional development to explore whether the same problems exist in other
NAADS districts, as a key step in leveraging institutional commitment
for reforms. Findings suggested the problems were very similar to those
experienced in other districts.
7. Parish-level farmer representative bodies were adopted by NAADS and
implemented in other districts under the name of parish coordination
committees (PCCs).
Outcomes
NAADS implementation at parish level (i.e., planning, monitoring, and qual-
ity assurance of service delivery) has been strengthened as a result of PCCs.
This has increased awareness and interest of farmers in the NAADS program,
leading to improved outputs from program activities. PCC chairpersons have
also been integrated into the sub-county farmer fora for improved information
flow and overall coordination. The primary challenge is sustaining and main-
taining the spirit of volunteerism within farmer institutions, as the members of
NAADS farmer fora and PCC perform their roles without a wage.
Approach 3—Self-led institutional change catalyzed from within
The final approach involved institutional changes for which the impetus largely
comes from within the organization itself. The external environment may be
instrumental in either the creation of the institution or in providing inspiration
to reforms, but the management is self-motivated to innovate in the develop-
ment and/or reform of key organizational processes as a means to meet the
core objectives of the organization. The following are key steps involved in
such reforms:
266 Chris Opondo et al.
1. Development of an institutional mandate, policies or guidelines that struc-
ture learning within the organization.
2. Exposure to innovations related to the overall mandate of the organiza-
tion. This may occur through partnerships, literature review, field visits or
internal monitoring systems that enable the identification of best practices
or ‘nodes of innovation’ within the organization itself. This step may be
particularly instrumental or time consuming cases involving a new organi-
zation for which all operational systems must be generated from scratch.
3. Direct involvement in an innovation and lessons learning process, either
within partner organizations or from isolated cases.
4. Active improvement on the approach as the innovation process unfolds
through periodic monitoring, reflection, synthesis of lessons learned and
documentation. This has multiple functions, from improved performance
of the innovation to better alignment of the approach with the broader
institutional mandate and procedures.
5. Development of a strategy for institutionalizing the approach, including
the formulation of action plans and formalization of partnership agree-
ments required to apply the innovation at a larger scale (e.g., nationally, or
institution-wide).
An example of this approach is summarized in Box 6.8, which profiles efforts
to institutionalize the system for demand-driven information provision within
NAADS operations in Kabale District. An example in which AHI played a
more minor role in exposing the lead institution to innovations of possible
relevance to the organizational mandate (as highlighted in Step 2, above) is
presented in Box 6.9.
BOX 6.8 EFFORTS TO INSTITUTIONALIZE DEMAND-
DRIVEN INFORMATION PROVISION IN NAADS
Once the system for demand-driven information provision developed under
the ACACIA project and described in Chapter 5 was running on a pilot basis,
AHI faced the challenge of how to institutionalize it before the project came
to an end. Several options were considered. The most feasible of these was
to institutionalize the initiative within NAADS, the Ugandan system for
demand-driven extension delivery described in Box 6.7. NAADS had both the
vision and the institutional infrastructure to accommodate demand-driven
information provision. Parish coordination committees (PCCs), sub-county
farmer fora and district farmer fora under NAADS provided a hierarchy of
farmer institutions through which information needs could be articulated
and delivered. PCCs were already responsible for articulating agricultural ser-
vice delivery needs within NAADS, and their role could easily be expanded
Institutional change and scaling up 267
to encompass information needs. NAADS also had a district monitoring and
evaluation team drawn from various government departments (production,
planning, information) and civil society that could assume the functions of
the Quality Assurance Committee set up under AHI–ACACIA. In an explora-
tory meeting, we discovered that not only was NAADS an opportunity for
AHI, AHI was also an opportunity for NAADS. NAADS had faced a series of
challenges in their efforts to nationalize a system for demand-driven service
provision in agriculture, and saw the model as a potential means to address
the following concerns:
● Ensuring service providers have quality and up-to-date information.
● The proliferation of service providers in NAADS districts had raised chal-
lenges for quality control, with some service providers less informed than
farmers. At other times, contradictory information was provided by differ-
ent service providers. NAADS saw the AHI–ACACIA model as a means to
access quality information and to deliver it to service providers.
● Ensuring cross-fertilization among farmers and communities. Even within
farmer groups at village level, farmers were unaware of what happens on
the plots of other farmers. As one moves to the district level, such lost
opportunities are magnified. Farmers also have indigenous technologies
and knowledge that may be of relevance to other farmers and villages.
Thus, a centralized information capture and delivery mechanism was seen
as an excellent opportunity to achieve economies of scale in knowledge
management at district level.
The final year of the AHI–ACACIA project was spent piloting the management
of demand-driven information provision within NAADS with NAADS leader-
ship, based on the following steps:
1. Document how the current system works for the NAADS Secretariat and
district, to bolster commitment among a wider array of NAADS stake-
holders. This included past activities, the value added, lessons learned,
and implementation guidelines derived from the pilot phase.
2. Develop and pilot test a mechanism for sustainable demand-driven infor-
mation provision by the district telecenter. This included: (i) the handover
of ownership of the telecenter to the District Farmer Forum and develop-
ment of mechanisms for its effective management; (ii) developing the
terms of reference for contracting a private sector service provider to
manage the telecenter; and (iii) contracting a service provider on trial
basis under NAADS technical procedures and procurement system, with
close follow-up monitoring by AHI and NAADS.
3. Bolster commitment and buy-in from the NAADS Secretariat. This was
done by sharing preliminary experiences at the annual NAADS planning
268 Chris Opondo et al.
meeting, featuring the initiative in the Kabale District semi-annual review
report and hosting a site visit for the Secretariat.
4. Harmonize NAADS and AHI procedures for articulating service delivery
needs. This included: (i) developing an integrated protocol for articulat-
ing farmer needs for advisory services and information and for synthesis
of information at the district level; (ii) pilot testing the protocol; (iii) con-
ducting a training on the use of the modified protocol; (iv) mainstreaming
the process into standard NAADS information needs assessments (twice
yearly); and (v) raising awareness among farmers on the pathways
through which they may request information on a regular basis.
5. Pilot test a mechanism for information needs articulation and delivery at
sub-county level, and for linking farmers within the sub-county to the
district service provider.
In practice, a number of challenges were encountered, among these:
● Frequency of information delivery. Information needs were articulated on a
bi-annual basis within NAADS, limiting the agility of information feedback
to farmers. An entire production season could come and go within such
a period. Establishment of new service contracts at sub-county level and
encouraging more proactive articulation of information needs by farmers
on a regular basis were two ways envisioned to overcome this problem.
● Articulation of information needs. Under NAADS, sub-counties must
prioritize few enterprises for service delivery in order to enhance the effi-
ciency and effectiveness of service delivery. Under AHI–ACACIA, the focus
was much broader—encompassing just about any information need in
the area of agriculture, marketing, and NRM. These challenges were
addressed by adjusting information needs assessments under NAADS to
accommodate a wider set of components (production, marketing, and
NRM interests specific to the chosen enterprises). However, information
on other enterprises, and on natural resource management concerns that
go beyond specific crops or enterprises, was effectively excluded.
● Effective governance of the telecenters. Mechanisms for maintenance and
upkeep of computers and other equipment in the telecenters raised a
major challenge. NAADS was not in a position to pay salaries; the only
means to embed telecenter operations in NAADS was by means of service
contracts. The district telecenter would be treated as a priority enterprise
for the district, with the same holding true at sub-county level. To ensure
effective ownership and upkeep, ownership was to be given to farmers
rather than local government—and managed through the district and
sub-county farmer fora. The challenge, then, became how to ensure facil-
ities owned by farmers but operated by private service providers would
be well maintained.
Institutional change and scaling up 269
BOX 6.9 THE IMPORTANCE OF “OWNERSHIP” OF
THE CHANGE INITIATIVE BY KEY DECISION-MAKERS
Experiences of AHI and partner organizations in supporting institutional
change suggest that senior level decision-makers are crucial to supporting any
change process. These individuals play an essential role in aligning institu-
tional policies and incentives in support of the envisioned change, so that staff
are encouraged and enabled to participate in new kinds of activities. They
also play an important role in availing the necessary resources for compe-
tence building at station and national level and for monitoring and evaluation
processes to track learning and outcomes. In Ethiopia, high levels of political
and financial commitment have now taken institutional change processes in
new directions, with a focus on partnerships with development actors and the
private sector, as well as clear impacts on agricultural practices and technol-
ogy adoption. The pressure and will for change is filtering down to the level
of researchers, who are keen to also see impact from their work. At the time
of writing, pilot learning was ongoing in certain research stations in Uganda,
but greater financial support from government and donors was required to
support learning and scaling up.
This helps to illustrate the complexity of trying to mainstream a complex
approach within existing institutional structures and mandates—and provides
a clear case for embedding new institutional innovations within existing institu-
tional structures that can potentially ensure their sustainability should they prove
to be effective. While the learning process was ongoing at the time of writing,
efforts to institutionalize the demand-driven information provision model under
the NAADS framework had received acceptance by stakeholders at different
levels. The NAADS Secretariat was also keen to scale it up to other districts.
Lessons learned
A host of lessons were learned through AHI’s efforts to support institutional
change processes within partner organizations. These include the following:
1. The essential role of political will and ownership of institutional reforms
by key decision-makers. AHI experiences suggest that for changes to be
successful, key stakeholders—particularly senior management—must be
convinced that the new changes are needed and that the changes are both
effective in achieving a desired outcome and feasible. This ensures internal
270 Chris Opondo et al.
ownership of the change process and enables the alignment of organiza-
tional resources with change objectives and processes (see Boxes 6.8 and
6.9 above). Building consensus for change requires time and resources, and
should be carefully planned.
2. The importance of identifying and supporting “champions” of institutional
change. The change process depended a great deal on local “champions”
within the respective organizations to motivate others and catalyze change.
In Ethiopia, the Director of EIAR and his deputies were the champions in
steering the process. In Uganda, the Director General and Deputy Director
in charge of outreach managed the process, providing leadership in the
process of developing a strategic vision and building local commitment.
3. The critical importance of grounding institutional change on a clear vision,
supported by evidence of what works in practice. In each of the cases
profiled above, one of the first steps in improving the effectiveness of insti-
tutional practice involved a thorough analysis of current performance of
priority innovations in order to assess their effectiveness. This is important
both for leveraging the necessary political will for reforms, and for learning
lessons on what works that can be built upon in efforts to institutionalize
new approaches. Acquiring evidence will involve either comprehensive
evaluations of approaches already being implemented (building upon rig-
orous impact assessment or evaluation methods), or the piloting of new
concepts using rigorous action research. In the second case, approaches
used as they are tested and adjusted over time, and the outcomes achieved
at these different stages of innovation, are documented. It is also impor-
tant to keep visions and expected outputs and outcomes realistic so that
visible impacts can be demonstrated and the motivation for reforms can
therefore be sustained. This can often be done by reflecting on challenges
likely to be faced in realizing the vision and planning accordingly (e.g.,
to reduce the scope of ambitions or to implement measures to overcome
these challenges).
4. The need to support synergies between different levels of organization
when supporting institutional change. AHI worked very closely with
NAADS staff at district level in implementing the NAADS program and
piloting initiatives at community level, while also carrying out strategic
nation-wide studies on behalf of the Secretariat. Feedback to the district
NAADS coordinator and the Kampala-based Secretariat on lessons learned
from these different levels of intervention and knowledge generation
helped to inform the NAADS Secretariat on issues concerning institu-
tional policy and strategies.
5. The fundamental importance of systematic lessons learning and support
to transitional phases of institutional change, given the complexity of the
challenge. The application of action–reflection processes within AHI and
partner organizations was catalytic in stimulating researchers and man-
agers to reflect internally on their strengths and weaknesses and further
Institutional change and scaling up 271
develop strategies to overcome identified weaknesses. This was the case
in Ethiopia, Rwanda, Tanzania, and Uganda, where change consultants
worked with AHI regional team members and NARS partners to intro-
duce and apply action–reflection processes with a view of developing an
effective national agricultural research system. In order to apply what was
learned in workshops, participants were asked to develop action plans and
tasked with their implementation following the workshop. Through this
process, they were able to accumulate experience which would then serve
as an input to subsequent workshops (and thus the design of institutional
change processes) and to future capacity development efforts within the
organization. Effective documentation of institutional learning and change
processes, and the outcomes induced by these changes, is also essential to
learning lessons that will then orient the change process in ways beneficial
to the ultimate aims.
6. The importance of “pilots” in supporting organizational learning prior
to scaling up. The piloting of institutional changes in select locations or
departments within an organization is essential to the institutional learning
process. In the absence of such pilot experiences, significant institu-
tional resources will be allocated to implementing changes throughout
the organization before they are tested or proven to work. While new
approaches may be tested in other contexts either outside the organization
or in selected branches of the organization, institutionalizing the approach
requires new skills to be built and adjustments to be made for the approach
to be effective and affordable in its new institutional context. Piloting is
therefore essential in enabling key decision-makers to understand what
kind of reforms will be required, and at what cost, for the reforms to be
effective. This enables effective prioritization of investments with high
returns while avoiding costly and politically risky institutional investments
in changes with uncertain outcomes.
7. The need to reward innovation and change within organizational cultures
and procedures such as performance appraisals and monitoring systems.
Rewarding innovation in these ways will encourage managers and staff
to engage in innovative approaches. In cases where innovations are effec-
tively identified, documented, and built upon, it should also ultimately
yield improvements in institutional performance and impact.
Missing links
While AHI engaged in a host of experiences aimed at scaling out proven inno-
vations and enabling institutional change, a number of key gaps remain. These
include the following:
1. Approach for fostering synergy between local opinion leaders and technical organi-
zations. The support of political leaders is key to mainstreaming and
272 Chris Opondo et al.
institutionalizing participatory and integrated approaches, or to ensuring
the success of any institutional transformation. Local political, religious,
and opinion leaders also have a role to play in bolstering support and
mobilizing communities to take up new development initiatives in their
localities, but approaches for enhancing their involvement have not been
adequately explored in AHI.
2. Strategies for ensuring institutional buy-in and commitment. While AHI has
experimented with institutional change in a number of agricultural
research and development organizations, we have yet to distill the
minimum set of commitments required to sustain change. Some pre-
conditions that seem to matter include: co-financing arrangements for
the change initiative, integration of the initiative into standard planning
and evaluation procedures (so that it is part and parcel of everyday busi-
ness), and regular monitoring visits by senior management. However,
new efforts are needed to distill the basic conditions for effective insti-
tutional change and the processes through which these conditions can
be developed or met.
Efforts are also needed to involve human resource and institutional
policy experts in institutional change efforts. When capacity development
is done in isolation from human resource departments and policy makers,
these efforts may be ephemeral owing to lack of institutional commit-
ment and follow-up. Each of the NARS in the eastern African region has
human resource departments that are responsible for organizing capacity-
building events. These need to link with new projects that come into
their organizations that have capacity-building components, to mini-
mize duplication of efforts and explore ways in which skills developed
in the context of projects can be internalized in the everyday practices of
organizations.
3. A strategy for broadening the base of institutional support. A critical mass of
champions is needed in all organizations, particularly those undergo-
ing a process of institutional change, in order to minimize the effects of
turnover on organizational memory and performance. This applies in all
public research and development organizations. AHI has not developed
the necessary lessons on how to create such a critical mass and thus cement
commitment to reforms into the future.
4. Approaches to institutionalize methods developed by AHI in the everyday practices
of development organizations. With the exception of demand-driven infor-
mation provision, few of the institutional change initiatives carried out by
AHI partner organizations involved institutionalizing methods tested in
AHI benchmark sites—representing a disconnect between the piloting of
innovations and institutional change efforts. While AHI conducted a series
of regional trainings to share our methods with stakeholders throughout
the ASARECA region, with the exception of Rwanda, no follow-up was
given in-country to ensure the effective assimilation of these methods
Institutional change and scaling up 273
within national research and development organizations. Thus, it is pos-
sible that these methods were largely lost to the organizations that the
participants represented. Such trainings should be linked to organizational
change processes, to enable active evaluation of methods by national
development agencies and support in-field application and institutionali-
zation of those methods deemed to be most desirable.
5. Mainstreaming action research. In addition to mainstreaming the most prom-
ising methods and approaches presented in this volume, institutionalizing
the action research process itself within research and development organiza-
tions is a “must.” This will help to ensure that methodological innovations
are not only produced by pilot projects of short duration, but continue to
be developed as everyday practice of these agencies in partnership with
local communities. Research organizations largely lack the vision and nec-
essary skill sets to conduct research on “process” (observing the outcomes
associated with different approaches to development support), and lack the
funding base required to sustain heavy facilitation tasks. This undermines
their commitment to action-based learning and their ability to effectively
bridge research and development. Development actors and NGOs, on
the other hand, seldom give adequate attention to assessing the effective-
ness of the approaches they employ to support rural communities and
how these approaches advance or undermine livelihood goals, equitable
benefits capture, sustainability, and innovation. They also tend to under-
value the contribution that research might make to help them learn more
proactively from practice. Both sides have much work to do to bridge the
gap between systematic learning and practice. New research should look
into the appropriate institutional models for action research based on new
forms of research–development partnership.
6. Performance assessment and incentive-based systems that recognize and reward
achievement in the application of new approaches. If research organizations are
to take on the complex challenge of institutionalizing process-based action
research and other forms of innovation, individuals in these organizations
need to receive adequate support in the form of both training and reward
systems. This would create an enabling institutional environment for sci-
entists and other R&D professionals to overcome their fear of change,
re-evaluate their roles in new approaches, change their mindsets, and
enhance the “soft skills” that are so fundamental to institutional innova-
tion and change.
7. Partnership model to sustain research–policy and research–practice dialogue and
synergy. National and district level institutional arrangements are needed
to strengthen the linkage between research and policy on the one hand
(for evidence-based policy development, as seen in the NAADS case) and
research and development on the other. Multi-institutional efforts are iden-
tified in the literature as a way to harness the relative strengths of extension,
NGOs, universities, and the private sector in testing innovations or “going
274 Chris Opondo et al.
to scale” (Snapp et al., 2003). Models for such arrangements need to be
developed and pilot tested in an action research mode to distill relevant
lessons, particularly in cases where an action-based approach to research is
envisioned—given the need for high-quality research and facilitation skills
to operationalize such an approach.
Conclusions
Scaling out and institutional change are essential for leveraging more wide-
spread and sustained impacts from development interventions. All too often,
such interventions are transient, owing to the frequent failure to move beyond
pilots to exit strategies that build the necessary institutional competencies to
sustain change and/or to “go to scale.” Scaling out from benchmark sites and
institutionalizing innovations in the everyday practices of organizations are
processes that need to be treated as organizational and research objectives in
their own right by research and development organizations.
This chapter distilled AHI’s experiences with each of these processes, while
also highlighting critical gaps that remain. While significant advances have been
made in understanding the critical ingredients to success, the cost of these initi-
atives and time taken to understand their ramifications over the long run mean
that much more must be done to understand the processes through which
these success factors may become manifest at reasonable cost. It is important
to recognize that “going to scale”—whether through the horizontal spread
of innovations to new farms, communities, and watersheds or the changes in
institutional policies and practices—requires its own set of professional skills
and competencies. R&D organizations and donors alike must recognize the
need to invest in such “soft skills” if past and future development investments
are to yield more meaningful returns.
Notes
1 Such a piloting approach was also integral to the “learning process” approach to partici-
patory development adopted by the Ford Foundation and USAID in their programs in
Southeast Asia from the late 1970s to the early 1990s (Korten, 1981).
2 For more information, see: www.cgiar-ilac.org/
3 Similar reforms have been carried out among agricultural extension agencies in eastern
Africa. Programs such ATIRI and NALEP in Kenya, PADEP in Tanzania, NAADS in
Uganda and Research Extension Advisory Councils (REAC) in Ethiopia are among the
initiatives aiming at strengthening the role of end users in the design, implementation,
and evaluation of research and extension and aligning these programs to the needs of end
users.
4 The Ethiopian Agricultural Research Organization (EARO) has since changed its name
to the Ethiopian Institute of Agricultural Research (EIAR) to reflect the broad partner-
ships under which it now works.
Institutional change and scaling up 275
References
Adato, M. and R. Meinzen-Dick (2002) Assessing the impact of agricultural research on
poverty using the sustainable livelihoods framework. FCND Discussion Paper No. 128
and EPTD Discussion Paper No. 89. Washington, D.C.: IFPRI.
AHI (1998) African Highlands Initiative: An Eco-regional program in Eastern Africa. AHI Phase 2
Proposal January 1998 to December 2003.
AHI (2001) African Highlands Initiative Annual Report 2001. Kampala, Uganda: AHI.
AHI (2002) African Highlands Initiative Annual Report 2002. Kampala, Uganda: AHI.
Argyris, C. (1991) Teaching smart people how to learn. Harvard Business Review 4(2): 4–5.
ASARECA (1997) Association for Strengthening Agriculture Research in East and Central Africa
Annual Report 1997. Entebbe, Uganda: ASARECA.
Ashby J.A., J.I. Sanz, E.B. Knapp and A. Imbach (1999) CIAT’s research on hillside
environments in Central America. Mountain Research and Development 19(3): 241–250.
Ashby, J. (2003) Introduction: Uniting science and participation in the process of innovation
– Research for development. In: B. Pound, S. Snapp, C. McDougall and A. Braun (eds.),
Managing Natural Resources for Sustainable Livelihoods: Uniting Science and Participation.
London: Earthscan/IDRC.
Ashby, J. and N. Lilla (2004) Participatory research: Does it work? Evidence from
participatory plant breeding. Proceedings of the 4th International Crop Science Congress,
September 26–October 1. Brisbane Australia.
Argyris, C. and D. Schön (1996) Organisational Learning II: Theory, Method and Practice.
Reading, MA: Addison Wesley.
Buse, K., E. Ludi, and M. Vigneri (2008) Sustaining and scaling the millennium villages:
Moving from rural investments to national development plans to reach the MDGs.
Formative Review of MVP Synthesis Report, September 2008.
Baur, H. and C. Kradi (2001) Integrating participatory research methods in public agricultural
research organizations: A partially successful experience in Morocco. AgREN Network
Paper No. 109. London: ODI.
Briggs, S.R., M. Tenywa, and B.R. Nalileza (1998) A review of past and present agricultural
and environmental research in the highland areas of Uganda. Report for NARO, DFID-
NRSP. UK and Kampala: SRI and Makerere University.
Bunch, R. (1999) Reasons for non-adoption of soil conservation technologies and how to
overcome them. Mountain Research and Development 19(3): 223–219.
Chambers, R., A. Pacey and L.-A. Thrupp (1989) Farmer First: Farmer Innovation and
Agricultural Research. London: Intermediate Technology Publications.
Chema, S., E. Gilbert and J. Roseboom (2003) A review of key issues and recent experiences
in reforming agricultural research in Africa. ISNAR Research Report No. 24.
Clarke, J., C. Dede, D. Jass Ketelhut, B. Nelson, and M. Collinson (2006) A design-based
research strategy to promote scalability for educational innovations. Available at: http://
muve.gse.harvard.edu/rivercityproject/documents (accessed January 4, 2011).
Collinson, M. (eds.) (1999) A History of Farming Systems Research. New York: CAB
International.
FARA (2005) Promoting inclusiveness of civil society organizations (CSOs) in African
agricultural research agenda: A FARA/GFAR collaborative initiative. Meeting Report
26 p.
FARA (2006) Promoting inclusiveness of civil society organizations (CSOs) in agriculture
in African ARD. Concept Note. 4 p.
276 Chris Opondo et al.
Farrington, J. and C. Lobo (1997). Scaling up participatory watershed development in India:
Lessons from the Indo-German watershed development programme. Natural Resource
Perspectives No. 17. London: ODI.
Garvin, D.A. (1993) Building a learning organization. Harvard Business Review 71(4): 78.
Gillespie, S. (2004) Scaling up community-driven development: A synthesis of experience.
FCND Discussion Paper No. 181. Washington, D.C.: International Food Policy Research
Institute.
Gonsalves J. and R. Armonia (eds.) (2000) Scaling Up: Can We Bring More Benefits to More
People More Quickly? Rome: Global Forum on Agricultural Research (GFAR).
Gündel S., J. Hancock, and S. Anderson (2001) Scaling-up Strategies for Research in Natural
Resource Management: A Comparative Review. Chatham, UK: NRI.
Hagmann, J. (1999) Learning Together for Change: Facilitating Innovation in Natural Resource
Management through Learning Process Approaches in Rural Livelihoods in Zimbabwe.
Weikersheim: Margraf Verlag.
Hall, A. (2005) Embedding agricultural research in a system of innovation. Paper presented
at the CGIAR Science Forum on Strengthening Research-for-Development Capacity, December
6, 2005, Marrakech, Morocco.
Hall, M., J. Dixon, A. Gulliver, and D. Gibbon (eds.) (2001) Farming Systems and Poverty:
Improving Farmer’s Livelihoods in a Changing World. Rome and Washington: FAO and
The World Bank.
Hart, R. (1999) Understanding farming systems: FSR’s expanding conceptual framework.
In: M. Collinson (ed.), History of Farming Systems Research. Rome: FAO and CABI,
pp. 41–57.
Inter Academy Council (IAC) (2004) Realizing the Promise and Potential of African Agriculture:
Science and Technology Strategies for Improving Agricultural Productivity and Food Security in
Africa. Amsterdam: InterAcademy Council.
ILAC (2005) The Institutional Learning and Change Initiative: An Introduction. ILAC
Brief No. 1.
ISNAR (2004) Inception Report, ISNAR Program. Washington, D.C.: IFPRI.
ICRA-NATURA (2003) Mobilizing partnerships for capacity building in integrated
agricultural research for development (IAR4D). Paper presented at the a workshop held at
the International Agricultural Centre, Wageningen, Netherlands, 27–29 November, 2003.
Jacobs, R.L. (2002) Institutionalizing organizational change through cascade training. Journal
of European Industrial Training 26: 177–182.
Knox McCulloch, A., R. Meinzen-Dick, and P. Hazell (1998) Property rights, collective
action, and technologies for natural resource management: A conceptual framework.
SP-PRCA Working Paper No. 1. Washington, D.C.: CAPRi.
Korten, D.C. (1981) The management of social transformation. Public Administration Review
41(6): 609–618.
Kotter, J.P. (1995) Leading change: Why transformation efforts fail. Harvard Business Review
73: 59–67.
Lockwood, H. (2004) Scaling Up Community Management of Rural Water Supply. The Hague:
IRC International Water and Sanitation Centre.
Meinzen-Dick, R., M. DiGregorio, and N. McCarthy (2004) Methods for Studying Collective
Action in Rural Development. Was hington, D.C.: IFPRI.
Middleton, T., M.A. Roman, J. Ellis-Jones, C. Garforth, and P. Goldey (2002) Lessons
learned on scaling-up from case studies in Bolivia, Nepal and Uganda. Report No.
IDG/02/21. Bedford, UK: Silsoe Research Institute.
Institutional change and scaling up 277
Millar, J. and J. Connell (2010) Strategies for scaling out impacts from agricultural systems
change: The case of forages and livestock production in Laos. Agric Hum Values 27:
213–225.
NEPAD (2001) Annual Report 2001. Johannesburg: NEPAD.
Norman D.A. (1991) Cognitive Artefacts. In: J.M. Carroll (ed.), Designing Interaction –
Psychology at the Human-Computer Interface. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Okali, C., J. Sumberg and J. Farrington (1994) Farmer Participatory Research: Rhetoric and
Reality. London: Intermediate Technology Publications.
Probst, K., J. Hagmann, M. Fernandez, and J. Ashby (2003) Understanding participatory
research in the context of natural resource management: Paradigms, approaches and
typologies. AgREN Network Paper No. 130. London: ODI.
Scoones, I., J. Thompson, and R. Chambers (2007) Farmer First Revisited: Farmer Innovation
and Agricultural Research and Development Twenty Years On. Brighton: University of
Sussex, Institute of Development Studies.
Senge, P. (1990) The Fifth Discipline: the Art and Practice of the Learning Organization. New
York: Doubleday.
Senge, P., A. Kleiner, C. Roberts, R. Ross, G. Roth, and B. Smith (1999) The Dance
of Change: The Challenges of Sustaining Momentum in Learning Organizations. London:
Nicholas Brealey.
Snapp, S.S., M.J. Blackie, and C. Donovan (2003) Realigning research and extension to
focus on farmers’ constraints and opportunities. Food Policy 28: 349–363.
Snapp, S.S. and K.L. Heong (2003) Scaling up: Participatory research and extension to reach
more farmers. In: B. Pound, S.S. Snapp, C. McDougal, and A. Braun (eds.), Uniting
Science and Participation for Adaptive Natural Resource Management. London: Earthscan,
pp. 67–87.
Sumberg, J. (2005) Systems of innovation theory and the changing architecture of agricultural
research in Africa. Food Policy 30: 21–41.
Uvin, P. and D. Miller (1994) Scaling Up: Thinking Through the Issues. City: World Hunger
Program. Available online at: www.globalpolicy.org/component/content/article/177/
31630.html (accessed June 10, 2003).
Uvin, P. and D. Miller (1996) Paths to scaling up: Alternative strategies for local
nongovernmental organizations. Human Organization 55(3): 344–354.
World Bank (1998) Reforming agricultural research organizations: Good practice for
creating autonomous bodies and managing change. AKIS Good Practice Note No.01/99.
Williamson, J. (2000) What should the World Bank think about the Washington Consensus?
The World Bank Research Observer 15 (2) August 2000: 251–264
World Bank (2003) Scaling-Up the Impact of Good Practices in Rural Development. A working
paper to support implementation of the World Bank’s Rural Development Strategy.
Report Number 26031. Washington, D.C.: The World Bank.
ANNEX I
Program management and governance
Introduction
AHI’s complex structure and accountability channels demanded that due atten-
tion be given to the program’s governance. As stated earlier, AHI was, for most
of its history, both an ASARECA network1 and a CGIAR ecoregional program
convened by ICRAF. Program management is shared by the AHI regional office,
AHI implementing partners, AHI Steering Committee and AHI stakeholders.
AHI site teams and national focal points
AHI site teams are composed of a site coordinator and a group of between
seven and ten research and development specialists from different disciplines
and organizations. The site coordinator and site team members are employees
of national research and extension organizations in each partner country. They
are responsible for coordinating and facilitating all activities in AHI benchmark
sites, in partnership with partner organizations and the regional office. National
focal points within National Agricultural Research Institutes are responsible for
providing coordination between AHI and national research programs, and for
monitoring team performance.
Regional research team
Everyday management of the program falls under the Regional Coordinator,
administrative staff and a small regional research team. The regional research
team (RRT) collaborates with and supports site teams directly in the field
through structured exchanges (for joint learning) and technical follow-up. Each
RRT member is responsible for an AHI research theme around which his/her
interactions with site teams and partners is structured. They are also responsible
Annex I 279
for fostering methodological innovation and lessons learning regionally around
their assigned theme.
A technical support group (TSG) comprised of the RRT and site coordina-
tors assists the Regional Coordinator in ensuring high-quality implementation
and technical outputs, agrees on annual work plans and budgets, and guides the
overall technical direction of AHI.
AHI steering committee
The major task of the Regional Steering Committee (RSC) is to provide stra-
tegic direction and technical support to the network. The AHI RSC is the
highest body governing the program and comprises the Director General of host
country research institutes (or his/her designate), AHI site coordinators, repre-
sentatives from partner International Agricultural Research Centres (IARCs),
selected donor representatives, and the Executive Secretary of ASARECA.
The RSC is chaired on a rotational basis by host NARI representatives.
AHI partners and stakeholders
AHI has worked with a broad range of partner institutions at different stages
of program evolution, depending on the nature of work being done. These
include: NARS and extension organizations in ASARECA member countries;
International Agricultural Research Centres (ICRAF, CIAT, CIP, IFPRI);
NGOs (IUCN, Eco-agriculture Partners, Lishe Trust, Africare, Action-Aid,
Care International); local government; networks (African Mountain Forum,
the International Mountain Forum, Landcare International, Mountain
Research Initiative); and universities inside and outside the ASARECA region
(Makerere University, Wageningen University, Uppsala University).
A broader set of stakeholders is also involved in the governance, manage-
ment, and implementation of AHI. These include farmers in AHI benchmark
sites; district institutions (NGOs, CBOs, and local government); national,
regional, and international institutions; and donor organizations. These stake-
holders are either beneficiaries of the different AHI products, provide strategic
direction and financing, or provide in-kind support to project implementa-
tion. Local communities provide labour and land for testing of approaches and
methods in INRM, while district institutions participate in scaling out and up
approaches, backstopping farmers, and providing in-kind support. Other AHI
stakeholders provide funding or participate in scaling up INRM.
Note
1 This was true until September, 2007 when ASARECA reorganized from 17 networks
to 7 programs. Some of the activities that were undertaken by AHI were relocated to
the new NRM program of ASARECA. However, AHI has maintained its mandate as a
CGIAR ecoregional program convened by ICRAF.
ANNEX II
Key phases in AHI’s evolution
Phase I (1995–1997)
Phase I of AHI employed a competitive grant system to foster multidisciplinary
teamwork among diverse areas of agronomic expertise and to foster partner-
ships among national agricultural research institutes, agricultural extension
institutions, and local communities. As could be expected, multidisciplinarity
was relatively new to those involved and a great deal of effort was spent dur-
ing this phase to raise awareness on the merits of collaborative research among
scientists accustomed to deriving professional recognition from achievements
within narrow scientific disciplines. Four countries were involved in this phase,
namely Ethiopia, Kenya, Madagascar, and Uganda. Two themes served to
structure research cooperation: Integrated Pest Management (IPM), focusing
on pests and diseases caused by soil nutrient depletion and agricultural intensi-
fication, and the Maintenance and Improvement of Soil Productivity (MISP).
Regional research fellows (RRFs) with expertise in these areas were also hired
to provide technical support to teams of grantees in the implementation of
research programs. In an evaluation commissioned by ICRAF in May 1996,
changes in direction were proposed to strengthen multidisciplinary collabora-
tion. This led to a shift in operational modalities from a competitive grant
system in Phase I to the use of benchmark sites to foster research cooperation
and innovation in Phase II.
Phase II (1998–2000)
During this phase the country coverage was expanded to five to include
Tanzania, and benchmark sites were selected in areas with high population den-
sity, evidence of natural resource degradation, and representative of broader
Annex II 281
eco-regions. This resulted in eight benchmark sites initially, two in Madagascar,
two in Ethiopia, two in Kenya, one in Uganda, and one in Tanzania. Site teams
composed of NARI scientists representing diverse disciplines (soils, plant breed-
ing, livestock husbandry, entomology, and “socio-economics”) were constituted
to carry out the work in each benchmark site. Site coordinators were identified
and seconded to AHI either partially or fully (depending on the distance of sites
to research stations) to coordinate the work in benchmark sites. The number
and disciplinary diversity of RRFs were also expanded to include systems and
participatory research perspectives. The second phase of AHI also saw the for-
mation of a technical support group (TSC) consisting of site coordinators and
the regional research team (regional research fellows and Regional Coordinator)
to provide technical oversight to the work. The small grants were replaced
with larger projects designed to enable multidisciplinary and multi-institutional
teams from research and development (agricultural extension and/or civil soci-
ety) organizations to work more holistically. An internal Planning, Monitoring,
and Evaluation (PM&E) framework outlining the program purpose, specific
goals, outputs, and strategy for implementation was also developed.
This phase led to the generation of a host of technological and meth-
odological innovations for integrated natural resource management at farm
level, including the integration of high-value crop varieties with soil nutri-
ent management practices; “linked technologies” enhancing adoption through
synergies among crop, soil, and livestock technologies; and innovations for pest
and disease control.
An external review conducted in 2000 led to a number of further recom-
mendations to orient future work, including:
● bolstering the commitment of research managers from partner NARIs;
● improving communication and documentation;
● focusing and phasing of activities to concentrate on process and partnerships;
● reducing the number of benchmark sites to enable more focused atten-
tion to research and dissemination, and to enable an expansion in scope to
include innovations beyond the farm level;
● introducing structural and procedural changes to reduce transaction costs;
● using zonation for the purpose of dissemination and marketing of products;
● strengthening the incorporation of socio-economic aspects into the
research program; and
● increasing the participation of farmers.
These recommendations clarified AHI’s purpose in developing and testing
methodological innovations for integrated natural resource management and
supporting their institutionalization within the NARIs. It also encouraged an
expanded focus of INRM to address issues that manifest themselves or require
interventions beyond the farm level. The program was given a one-year (2001)
transition period to refocus its activities in response to the demands of reviewers
282 Annex II
and key AHI stakeholders. The transition period was marked by the involve-
ment of resource persons more experienced in “process-oriented” research to
assist in charting out major areas of concentration in the next phase of AHI.
Phase III (2002–2004)
With experience gained through focused efforts in benchmark sites, and the
greater confidence evident among participating institutions, farmers, and other
stakeholders, the AHI entered its third phase. Defining features of the new
mandate included:
● stronger integration across disciplines, including social science;
● expansion of the scale and scope of activities to include INRM at water-
shed level;
● integration of technological and other forms of innovation at watershed
and district levels; and
● emphasis on decision-making processes as a foundation for the selection
and application of technologies to suit specific socio-economic and bio-
physical situations expected to help in setting priorities and improving the
focus of AHI activities.
During Phase III, a host of methodological innovations to harmonize interac-
tions among local interest groups at landscape level were developed and tested.
These innovations included efforts to enhance the equitability of technology
dissemination and access, to foster collective action in pest control and soil
and water management, to enhance the compatibility of trees with different
landscape niches, and to integrate livelihood improvements with improved
management of resources. They also included efforts to adapt the Landcare
approach to the eastern Africa region.
Parallel initiatives were also undertaken during this phase with NARI man-
agers, to support them in facilitating processes of self-led institutional change
as a means of enhancing the impact orientation of research. This initiated a
regional assessment of participatory research initiatives to derive “best prac-
tices,” and a series of national level workshops and pilot experiences at local
research stations to design and test institutional innovations to mainstream such
practices within national agricultural research institutes.
Phase IV (2005–2007)
The major focus of the fourth and final phase reported on in this volume was
to scale out lessons and approaches through district institutional innovations,
and to institutionalize the INRM approach within partner NARIs and other
institutions in the region. Key targets for Phase IV included:
Annex II 283
● further development of the watershed approach, focusing on enabling
collective action and integrating biophysical, social, and economic and
market dimensions of farm and landscape management;
● use of experiences and methods from the pilot sites combined with infor-
mation from wider syntheses to derive good practices and methods for
development agencies;
● research to understand linkages and dynamics between vulnerability, pov-
erty, livelihood strategies, economic growth, and NRM;
● provision of relevant and timely information to district and national devel-
opment actors and decision-makers; and
● dissemination of “how to” information for INRM, with follow-up
mentoring for institutional change in select research institutions in the
ASARECA region.
Emphasis was also placed in Phase IV on knowledge management, including
the documentation of past lessons and active learning, and on institutional
innovation for broader uptake of lessons learnt.
AHI at present (2011)
While this book does not present work carried out by AHI after 2007, the pro-
gram has a number of ongoing activities under the rubric of the Eastern Africa
Programme of ICRAF – with the Regional Coordinator of AHI also coordi-
nating ICRAF’s work in the region. Ongoing projects which have either been
developed under the AHI umbrella or include AHI as a major component
include:
● An initiative funded by IDRC, covering Ethiopia and Uganda, on “Going
to Scale.” The project aims to further enhance the adaptive management
capacities of rural communities for sustainable land management and
devolve AHI approaches to national agricultural research institutes.
● A project funded by IFAD, covering Kenya, Uganda, and Tanzania,
on “Enabling Rural Transformation and Grassroots Institution Building
for Sustainable Land Management (SLM), Increased Incomes and Food
Security.” The project aims to strengthen local institutions as key struc-
tures in implementing effective SLM by smallholder farmers.
● An EU/IFAD funded project on “Evergreen Agriculture” in eastern and
southern Africa. The initiative aims to scale up agroforestry-based con-
servation agriculture for improved nutrition, income, and environmental
resilience in the region.
ANNEX III
AHI benchmark sites
Areka site
The Areka site is located in the south-central highlands of Ethiopia, the home
of sedentary Wolaita farmers. The area is a mixed crop–livestock system with
a high diversity of staple and cash crops (enset, wheat, maize, barley, sor-
ghum, sweet potato, Irish potato, faba bean, field pea, and horticultural crops).
Livestock are grazed in a large communal grazing area or in semi-communal
fenced plots. Despite the diversity of enterprises characterizing the system,
landholdings are extremely small (0.74 and 0.26 hectares on average for high
and low wealth categories, respectively) and the area is subject to chronic food
deficits. Unique to this site are a large number of landless families who earn a
living as sharecroppers or through petty trade.
Key NRM challenges in this site included: a) enhancing the productiv-
ity and returns from crop, livestock, and tree components without further
exacerbating system nutrient decline; b) arresting water resource degradation
and resource conflicts through more optimal land management practices and
improved governance; and c) increasing the viability of agriculture (through
intensification and value addition) as a pathway to food security.
Ginchi site
The Ginchi benchmark site is located in the Western Shewa Zone, Ethiopia,
home to the Oromo ethnic group. It is a mixed crop–livestock system that is
more extensively managed than other sites. The system is very limited in bio-
mass. Indiscriminate cutting of remnant trees and contiguous forest stemming
largely from prior land reforms and from regime change, and the resulting
ambiguity in tenure systems (Bekele, 2003), as well as failure to invest in NRM
Annex III 285
practices with delayed returns due to perceived tenure insecurity, have con-
tributed to large areas of landscape devoid of vegetation and with very low
nutrient stocks. This has placed increased burden on women and children who
must walk long distances to gather firewood, and negative impacts on soil
nutrients due to the sharp increase in the use of dung for fuel in recent decades
(Omiti et al., 1999). Loss of tree cover and cultivation of Eucalyptus around
springs have led to the degradation of springs, the sole source of water for both
humans and livestock. Yet the tendency for humans and livestock to share
common watering points has made water quality more of a concern than water
quantity in the minds of local residents.
High-value crops such as Irish potatoes and garlic are grown on fenced
homestead plots, while extensive outfield areas are used almost exclusively for
barley production and livestock grazing. Valley bottoms are used exclusively
for livestock grazing. While all land is officially owned by the government,
individuals have de facto ownership over all land in the watershed. Yet man-
agement is collective in certain spatial and temporal niches. Households own
outfield areas on both sides of the catchment, cultivating one side and leaving
the other for grazing during the rainy season. The side of the catchment that
is left for grazing is done so by all households with contiguous plots, enabling
free movement of livestock by those households owning land in the area.
Valley bottoms are grazed year-round, with access during the cropping season
restricted to those households owning plots of land in these areas. During the
dry season, outfields and valley bottoms are open access resources. This sce-
nario makes systems innovation very challenging, requiring collective action
not only among households living within the watershed but involving others
who graze their livestock in the area.
The key challenges for integrated NRM included: a) intensifying pro-
duction (of crops, livestock, and trees) while ensuring sustainable nutrient
management in the system; and b) reversing water resource degradation by
fostering positive synergies between trees, soil conservation structures and
water in micro-catchments. Furthermore, seasonal open-access grazing makes
investments in afforestation and soil conservation structures in the outfields
challenging, as cattle can easily destroy such investments. Site teams and local
leaders have highlighted this as a key challenge for this site, and targeted local
negotiations and integrated policy and technological innovations as avenues for
innovation.
Kabale site
The Kabale benchmark site is located in Kigezi highlands of southwestern
Uganda, home to the Bakiga ethnic group. The area is characterized by high
population density, steep cultivated slopes, fragmented landholdings, land
shortages, and adequate rainfall. This site is also a mixed crop–livestock sys-
tem with a relatively small livestock component. Communal grazing areas are
286 Annex III
negligible, making zero grazing a necessity, and free grazing – where it does
occur – a source of conflict due to crop damage. In addition to limited num-
bers of livestock, enterprises include Irish potatoes and vegetable crops in the
valley bottoms, and cereals (sorghum, maize, wheat, finger millet), pulses, and
bananas on the hillsides. Trees are few and declining in number, a trend which
has been exacerbated in recent years as a result of the high demand for wood
from a nearby gin distillery.
Key NRM challenges in this site have included: a) integrating technologi-
cal innovation with improved natural resource governance to minimize the
incidence of conflict emanating from small landholdings, limited economic
opportunities, and gender inequalities; b) improving incomes from small and
fragmented landholdings through soil fertility management, diversification, and
value addition; and c) managing the dependency syndrome, acute in this site
due to a high density of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and com-
munity-based organizations (CBOs) with short-sighted support strategies.
Kapchorwa site
Kapchorwa District is located on the slopes of Mt. Elgon in eastern Uganda.
The district has a total population of 193,510 as per the 2002 population and
housing census. The district population growth rate is at 4.33 percent which
is high compared to the national average of 3.3 percent. The district has three
ecological zones: lowlands (33 percent), which are almost deserted due to
insecurity caused by cattle rustling; highlands (34 percent), which are heav-
ily settled and cultivated; and forest (33 percent), which is a protected area.
Agriculture is the main economic activity, engaging over 82.1 percent of the
working population. The primary crops are maize, bananas, coffee, beans,
wheat, barley, sunflower, and vegetable crops, with 82.1 percent of households
living from farming.
The district is also home to the Mt. Elgon National Park, established as a
Crown Forest in 1930. Management of the area within and surrounding the
park has been subject to the whims of shifting government policies on forest
management, changes which have affected most severely the native Benet eth-
nic group who have occupied the moorlands inside the park for the past 200
years. These changes have also negatively affected conservation in the area, as
park officials and local residents alike have exploited the loosely guarded pro-
tected area under the current land tenure arrangement and ambiguity of rights
of adjacent communities.
Key challenges include equitable resource access given histories of ethnic
conflict (cattle raiding); managing resources sustainably within the buffer zone
of the national park given the history of displacement and conflict; and limited
quality of and access to support services due to a sparse NGO presence, limited
coordination among sectors, and weak civil society.
Annex III 287
Lushoto site
Lushoto District is located in the West Usambara Mountains of northeast-
ern Tanzania. The district is home to the Wasambaa and small numbers of
Wapare ethnic groups and migrants from other areas of Tanzania. The pilot
watershed covers an area of 6,006 hectares and spans the Baga and Bumbuli
Wards, six villages and a population of 13,163 (Meliyo et al., 2004). The land-
use system is relatively intensified and involves the cultivation of cash crops
in the valley bottoms, staple crops and tea on the hillsides, and small live-
stock holdings. From the 1950s onward, a number of afforestation programs
designed to reduce pressure on State forest while contributing to conservation
and livelihood goals were initiated, resulting in a dramatic increase in tree
cover within farmland.
Challenges to INRM in this site have included: a) intensifying production
of crops, livestock, and trees while ensuring sustainable nutrient management
in the system; b) reversing water resource degradation by fostering positive
synergies between trees, soil conservation structures, and water in micro-catch-
ments; and c) managing environmental degradation stemming from cultivation
from steep hillsides and mountain tops, and damage caused by rapid movement
of water across the landscape (e.g., burial of fertile valley-bottom soils).
References
Bekele, M. (2003) Forest property rights, the role of the state and institutional exigency:
The Ethiopian experience. Ph.D. Thesis, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences,
Uppsala. pp.220.
Meliyo, J.L., A. Mansoor, K.F.G. Masuki, J.G. Mowo, L. German, and R.S. Shemdoe
(2004) Socio-economic and biophysical characteristics of Baga Watershed in Lushoto
District, Tanzania. AHI Site Report No. 1; Lushoto Benchmark Site, Tanzania.
Omiti, J.M., K.A. Parton, J.A. Sinden, and S.K. Ehui (1999) Monitoring changes in landuse
practices following agrarian de-collectivisation in Ethiopia. Agriculture, Ecosystems and
Environment 72: 111–118.
ANNEX IV
Key AHI publications
Peer-reviewed journal articles
Amede, T., A. Stroud, and J. Aune (2004) Advancing Human Nutrition Without Degrading
Land Resources through Modeling Cropping Systems in the Ethiopian Highlands. Food
and Nutrition Bulletin 25(4): 344–353. United Nations University, Tokyo.
Barrios, E., R.J. Delve, M. Bekunda, J.G. Mowo, J. Agunda, J. Ramisch, M.T. Trejo,
and R.J. Thomas (2006) Soil Quality Indicators: A South–South Development of a
Methodological Guide to Integrate Local and Scientific Knowledge. Geoderma 135:
248–259.
Campbell, B., J. Hagmann, A. Stroud, R. Thomas, and E. Wollenberg (2006) What Kind
of Research and Development is Needed for Natural Resource Management? Water
International 31(3): 343–360. International Water Resources Association, Montpellier.
German, L. (2006) Moving Beyond Component Research in Mountain Regions:
Operationalizing Systems Integration at Farm and Landscape Scales. Journal of Mountain
Science 3(4): 287–304.
German, L., S. Ayele, and Z. Adimassu (2008) Managing Linkages Between Communal
Rangelands and Private Cropland in the Highlands of Eastern Africa: Contributions
to Participatory Integrated Watershed Management. Society & Natural Resources 21(2):
134–151.
German, L.A. and A. Keeler (2010) “Hybrid institutions”: Applications of common property
theory beyond discrete property regimes. International Journal of the Commons 4(1). Online
at: http://www.thecommonsjournal.org/index.php/ijc/article/view/108/95.
German, L., B. Kidane, and R. Shemdoe (2006) Social and Environmental Trade-Offs
in Tree Species Selection: A Methodology for Identifying Niche Incompatibilities in
Agroforestry. Environment, Development and Sustainability 8: 535–552.
German, L., H. Mansoor, G. Alemu, W. Mazengia, T. Amede, and A. Stroud (2007)
Participatory Integrated Watershed Management: Evolution of Concepts and Methods
in an Ecoregional Program of the Eastern African Highlands. Agricultural Systems 94(2):
189–204.
Annex IV 289
German, L., W. Mazengia, H. Taye, M. Tsegaye, S. Charamila, and J. Wickama (2009)
Minimizing the Livelihood Trade-Offs of Natural Resource Management in the Eastern
African Highlands: Policy Implications of a Project in “Creative Governance.” Human
Ecology 38(1): 31–47.
German, L., J.G. Mowo, and M. Kingamkono (2006) A Methodology for Tracking the
“Fate” of Technological Innovations in Agriculture. Agriculture and Human Values 23:
353–369.
German, L. and H. Taye (2008) A framework for evaluating effectiveness and inclusiveness
of collective action in watershed Management. Journal of International Development 20:
99–116.
German, L., H. Taye, S. Ayele, W. Mazengia, T. Tolera, M. Tsegaye, K. Abere, K. Bedane,
and E. Geta (2008) Institutional Foundations of Agricultural Development in Ethiopia:
Drawing Lessons from Current Practice for Agricultural R&D. Quarterly Journal of
International Agriculture 47(3): 191–216.
German, L., G. Villamor, S. Velarde, E. Twine, and B. Kidane (2009) Environmental
Services and the Precautionary Principle: Using Future Scenarios to Reconcile
Conservation and Livelihood Objectives in Upper Catchments. Journal of Sustainable
Forestry 28(3): 368–394.
German, L. and A. Stroud (2007) A Framework for the Integration of Diverse Learning
Approaches: Operationalizing Agricultural Research and Development (R&D) Linkages
in Eastern Africa. World Development 35(5): 792–814.
Kaluski, D.N., E. Ophir, and T. Amede (2001) Food Security and Nutrition: The Ethiopian
Case for Action. Public Health Nutrition 5(3): 373–381.
Masuki, K.F.G., J.G. Mowo, T.E. Mbaga, J.K. Tanui, J.M. Wickama, and C.J. Lyamchai
(2010) Using Strategic “Entry Points” and “Linked Technologies” for Enhanced
Uptake of Improved Banana Germplasm in the Humid Highlands of East Africa. Acta
Horticulturae 879(2): 797–804.
Mazengia, W., D. Gamiyo, T. Amede, M. Daka, and J. Mowo (2007) Challenges of
Collective Action in Soil and Water Conservation: The Case of Gununo Watershed,
Southern Ethiopia. African Crop Science Conference Proceedings 8: 1541–1545. African Crop
Science Society, El-Minia, Egypt.
Mowo, J.G., L.A. German, M.N. Kingamkono, and K.F. Masuki (2010) Tracking the
Spillover of Introduced Technologies: The Case of Improved Banana Germplasm in
North-eastern Tanzania. Acta Horticulturae 879(2): 695–704.
Mowo, J.G., B.H. Janssen, O. Oenema, L.A. German, J.P. Mrema, and R.S. Shemdoe
(2006) Soil Fertility Evaluation and Management by Smallholder Farmer Communities
in Northern Tanzania. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 116(1–2): 47–59.
Mowo, J., C. Opondo, A. Nyaki, and Z. Adimassu (2010) Addressing the Research–
Development Disconnect: Lessons from East and Central African Highlands. Development
in Practice 20(8): 1000–1012.
Sanginga, P. C., R.N. Kamugisha, and A.M. Martin (2007) The Dynamics of Social
Capital and Conflict Management in Multiple Resource Regimes: A Case of the South-
western Highlands of Uganda. Ecology and Society 12(1): 6. Online at: http://www.
ecologyandsociety.org/vol12/iss1/art6.
Sanginga, P.C., R. Kamugisha, A. Martin, A. Kakuru, and A. Stroud (2004) Facilitating
Participatory Processes for Policy Change in Natural Resource Management: Lessons
from the Highlands of Southwestern Uganda. Uganda Journal of Agricultural Sciences 9:
958–970. National Agricultural Research Organization, Kampala.
290 Annex IV
Books
Adimassu, Z., K. Mekonnen, and Y. Gojjam (2008) Working with Communities on Integrated
Natural Resources Management. Ethiopian Institute of Agricultural Research (EIAR),
Addis Ababa. 134p. ISBN: 978-99944-53-23-8. Online at: http://www.kef-online.at/
en/r4d-news/thiopien-working-with-communities-on-integrated-natural-resources-
management.html. Volume includes 13 separate chapters not listed here.
Amede, T., L. German, S. Rao, C. Opondo, and A. Stroud (eds) (2006) Integrated Natural
Resource Management in Practice: Enabling Communities to Improve Mountain Livelihoods and
Landscapes. Kampala, Uganda: African Highlands Initiative. Volume includes 63 separate
chapters not listed here.
Hurni, H. and J. Ramamonjisoa (eds) (1999) African Mountain Development in a Changing
World. Antananarivo, Tokyo and Nairobi: African Mountain Association, the United
National University and the African Highlands Initiative. 332p. ISBN: 3-906151-33-6.
Volume includes 19 separate chapters not listed here.
Book chapters1
Amede, T. (2003) Pathways for Fitting Legumes into the Farming Systems of East African
Highlands: A Dual Approach. In: Waddington, S. (ed.), Grain Legumes and Green Manures
for Soil Fertility in Southern Africa: Taking Stock of Progress, pp. 21–30. Soil Fert Net and
CIMMYT-Zimbabwe, Harare.
Amede, T. and R. Kirkby (2004) Guidelines for Integration of Legumes into the Farming
Systems of East African Highlands. In: Bationo, A. (ed.), Managing Nutrient Cycles to Sustain
Soil Fertility in Sub-Saharan Africa, pp. 43–64. Academic Science Publishers, Nairobi.
Amede, T. (2003) Opportunities and Challenges in Reversing Land Degradation: The
Regional Experience. In: Amede, T. (ed.), Natural Resource Degradation and Environmental
Concerns in the Amhara National Regional State: Impact on Food Security, pp. 173–183.
Ethiopian Soils Science Society, Addis Ababa.
German, L., S. Charamila, and T. Tolera (in press) Managing Trade-Offs in Agroforestry:
From Conflict to Collaboration in Natural Resource Management. In: Klappa, S. and
D. Russell (eds), Transformations in Agroforestry Systems. Berghahn Books.
German, L.A., B. Kidane, and K. Mekonnen (2008) Watershed Management to Counter
Farming System Decline: Towards a Demand-Driven, System-Oriented Research
Agenda. In: Menon, S.S.V. and P.A. Pillai (eds), Watershed Management: Concepts and
Experiences, pp. 71–86. ICFAI University Press, India.
German, L., W. Mazengia, W. Tirwomwe, S. Ayele, J. Tanui, S. Nyangas, L. Begashaw,
H. Taye, Z. Adimassu, M. Tsegaye, F. Alinyo, A. Mekonnen, K. Aberra, A. Chemangeni,
W. Cheptegei, T. Tolera, Z. Jotte, and K. Bedane (2008) Enabling Equitable Collective
Action and Policy Change for Poverty Reduction and Improved Natural Resource
Management in the Eastern African Highlands. In: Mwangi, E., H. Markelova, and
R. Meinzen-Dick (eds), Collective Action and Property Rights for Poverty Reduction: Lessons
from a Global Research Project, pp. 11–12. CAPRi, Washington, D.C.
German, L., W. Mazengia, W. Tirwomwe, S. Ayele, J. Tanui, S. Nyangas, L. Begashaw,
H. Taye, Z. Adimassu, M. Tsegaye, S. Charamila, F. Alinyo, A. Mekonnen, K. Aberra,
A. Chemangeni, W. Cheptegei, T. Tolera, Z. Jotte, and K. Bedane (in press) Enabling
Equitable Collective Action and Policy Change for Poverty Reduction and Improved
Natural Resource Management in the Eastern African Highlands. In: Mwangi, E.,
Annex IV 291
H. Markelova and R. Meinzen-Dick (eds), Collective Action and Property Rights for Poverty
Reduction. Johns Hopkins and IFPRI, Baltimore and Washington, D.C.
Masuki, K.F.G., J.G. Mowo, S. Rao, R. Kamugisha, C. Opondo, and J. Tanui (2008)
Improving Smallholder Farmers’ Access to Information for Enhanced Decision Making
in Natural Resource Management: Experiences from South Western Uganda. In:
Bationo, A., B.S. Waswa, J. Okeyo, and F. Maina (eds), Innovations as Key to the Green
Revolution in Africa: Exploring the Scientific Facts. Springer, Dordrecht.
Meliyo, J.L., K.F.G. Masuki, and J.G. Mowo (2007) Integrated Natural Resources
Managament: A Strategy for Food Security and Poverty Alleviation in Kwalei Village,
Lushoto District, Tanzania. In: Bationo, A., B. Waswa, J. Kihara, and J. Kimetu (eds),
Advances in Integrated Soil Fertility Management in Sub Saharan Africa: Challenges and
Opportunities, pp. 781–785. Springer, Dordrecht.
Mowo, J.G., S.R. Shemdoe, and A. Stroud (2007) Interdisciplinary Research and
Management in the Highlands of Eastern Africa: AHI Experiences in the Usambara
Mountains, Tanzania. In: M.F. Price (ed.), Mountain Area Research and Management:
Integrated Approaches, pp. 118–130. London: Earthscan.
Working papers
Amede, T., Bekele, A., and Opondo, C. (2006) Creating Niches for Integration of Green
Manures and Risk Management through Growing Maize Cultivar Mixtures in the
Southern Ethiopian Highlands. AHI Working Papers No. 14.
Amede, T., T. Belachew, and E. Geta (2001) Reversing the Degradation of Arable Land in
the Ethiopian Highlands. Managing Africa’s Soils No. 23. IIED, London.
Amede, T., T. Belachew, and E. Geta (2006) Reversing Degradation of Arable Lands in
Southern Ethiopia. AHI Working Papers No. 1.
Amede, T. and R. Delve (2006) Improved Decision-Making for Achieving Triple Benefits
of Food Security, Income and Environmental Services through Modeling Cropping
Systems in the Ethiopian Highlands. AHI Working Papers No. 20.
Amede, T. and R. Kirkby (2006) Guidelines for Integration of Legumes into the Farming
Systems of the East African Highlands. AHI Working Papers No. 7.
Amede, T. and E. Taboge (2006) Optimizing Soil Fertility Gradients in the Enset (Ensete
ventricosum) Systems of the Ethiopian Highlands: Trade-offs and Local Innovations.
AHI Working Papers No. 15.
Amede, T., A. Stroud, and J. Aune (2006) Advancing Human Nutrition without Degrading
Land Resources through Modeling Cropping Systems in the Ethiopian Highlands. AHI
Working Papers No. 8.
Beyene, H. and T. Mulatu (1999) A selection of diagnostic and characterisation studies
conducted between 1986 and 1994 at Ginchi and Nzaret, Ethiopia. AHI Technical Report
Series No. 8. Nairobi, Kenya: African Highlands Initiative.
Braun, A.R., E.M.A. Smaling, E.I. Muchugu, K.D. Shephherd, and J.D. Corbett, (eds)
(1997) Maintenance and Improvement of Soil Productivity in the Highlands of Ethiopia,
Kenya, Madagascar and Uganda: An Inventory of Spatial and Non-spatial, Survey and
Research Data on Natural Resources and Land Productivity. AHI Technical Report Series
No. 6. Nairobi, Kenya: African Highlands Initiative.
David, S. (ed.) (2000) Planning for Farmers’ Seed Requirements: Proceedings of Workshops
at AHI Benchmark Sites in Eastern Africa. AHI Technical Report Series No. 12. Nairobi,
Kenya: African Highlands Initiative.
292 Annex IV
Esilaba, A.O., T. Mulatu, F. Reda, J.K. Ransom, G. Woldewahid, A. Tesfaye, I. Fitwy, and
G. Abate (1999) A Diagnostic Survey on Striga in the Northern Ethiopian Highlands.
AHI Technical Report Series No. 5. Nairobi, Kenya: African Highlands Initiative.
Gachene, C.K.K., C.A. Palm, and J.G. Mureithi (2000) Legume Cover Crop for Soil
Fertility Improvement in the Eastern Africa Region: Report of an AHI Workshop,
18–19 February, 1999. AHI Technical Report Series No. 11. Nairobi, Kenya: African
Highlands Initiative.
German, L. (2006) Approaches for Mountain Regions: Operationalizing Systems Integration
at Farm and Landscape Scales. AHI Working Papers No. 21.
German, L. (2006) Social and Environmental Trade-Offs in Tree Species Selection: A
Methodology for Identifying Niche Incompatibilities in Agroforestry. AHI Working
Papers No. 9.
German, L., S. Charamila, and T. Tolera (2006) Managing Trade-Offs in Agroforestry:
From Conflict to Collaboration in Natural Resource Management. AHI Working Papers
No. 10.
German, L., B. Kidane, and K. Mekonnen (2005) Watershed Management to Counter
Farming Systems Decline: Toward a Demand-Driven, Systems-Oriented Research
Agenda. AgREN Network Paper No. 145.
German, L., B. Kidane, and K. Mekonnen (2006) Watershed Management to Counter
Farming Systems Decline: Toward a Demand-Driven, Systems-Oriented Research
Agenda. AHI Working Papers No. 16.
German, L., H. Mansoor, G. Alemu, W. Mazengia, T. Amede, and A. Stroud (2006)
Participatory Integrated Watershed Management: Evolution of Concepts and Methods.
AHI Working Papers No. 11.
German, L., K. Masuki, Y. Gojjam, J. Odenya, and E. Geta (2006) Beyond the Farm: A
New Look at Livelihood Constraints in the Eastern African Highlands. AHI Working
Papers No. 12.
German, L., W. Mazengia, S. Ayele, W. Tirwomwe, J. Tanui, H. Taye, L. Begashaw,
S. Nyangas, A. Chemangeni, W. Cheptegei, M. Tsegaye, Z. Adimassu, F. Alinyo,
A. Mekonnen, K. Aberra, T. Tolera, Z. Jotte, and K. Bedane (2007) Enabling Equitable
Collective Action & Policy Change for Poverty Reduction and Improved Natural
Resource Management in Ethiopia and Uganda. AHI Working Papers No. 25.
German, L., W. Mazengia, W. Tirwomwe, S. Ayele, J. Tanui, S. Nyangas, L. Begashaw,
H. Taye, Z. Adimassu, M. Tsegaye, F. Alinyo, A. Mekonnen, K. Aberra, A. Chemangeni,
W. Cheptegei, T. Tolera, Z. Jotte, and K. Bedane (2008) Enabling Equitable Collective
Action and Policy Change for Poverty Reduction and Improved Natural Resource
Management in the Eastern African Highlands. CAPRi Working Paper No. 86. IFPRI,
Washington, D.C.
German, L., A. Stroud, C. Opondo, and B. Mwebesa (2004) Linking Farmers and Policy
makers: Experiences from Kabale District, Uganda. UPWARD Participatory R&D
Sourcebook. CIP, Manila.
German, L., H. Taye, S. Charamila, T. Tolera, and J. Tanui (2006) The Many Meanings
of Collective Action: Lessons on Enhancing Gender Inclusion and Equity in Watershed
Management. AHI Working Papers No. 17 and CAPRi Working Paper No. 52.
Himmelfarb, D. (2007) Moving People, Moving Boundaries: The Socio-economic Effects
of Protectionist Conservation, Involuntary Resettlement and Tenure Insecurity on the
Edge of Mt. Elgon National Park, Uganda. AHI Working Papers No. 24.
Annex IV 293
Mowo, J., B. Janssen, O. Oenema, L. German, P. Mrema, and R. Shemdoe (2006) Soil
Fertility Evaluation and Management by Smallholder Farmer Communities in Northern
Tanzania. AHI Working Papers No. 18.
Nderitu, J. H., R.A. Buruchara, and J.K.O. Ampofo (1997) Relationship Between Bean
Stem Maggot, Bean Root Rots and Soil Fertility: Literature Review with Emphasis
on Research in Eastern and Central Africa. AHI Technical Report Series No. 4. Nairobi,
Kenya: African Highlands Initiative.
Opondo, C., L. German, A. Stroud, and E. Obin (2006) Lessons from Using Participatory
Action Research to Enhance Farmer-Led Research and Extension in Southwestern
Uganda. AHI Working Papers No. 3.
Opondo, C., P. Sanginga, and A. Stroud (2006) Monitoring the Outcomes of Participatory
Research in Natural Resources Management: Experiences of the African Highlands
Initiative. AHI Working Papers No. 2.
Opondo, C., A. Stroud, L. German, and J. Hagmann (2003) Institutionalising Participation
in East African Research Institutes, Ch. 11. PLA Notes 48. IIED, London.
Salasya, B.D.S and S. Ajanga (1999) A Selection of Diagnostic and Characterisation Studies
Conducted Between 1986 and 1995 in Western and Central Highland Areas of Kenya.
AHI Technical Report Series No. 9. Nairobi, Kenya: African Highlands Initiative.
Stroud, A. (2006) Transforming Institutions to Achieve Innovation in Research and
Development. AHI Working Papers No. 4.
Stroud, A. (2006) Understanding People, Their Livelihood Systems and the Demands and
Impact of Innovations. AHI Working Papers No. 13.
Stroud, A. and L. German (2006) A Framework for the Integration of Diverse Learning
Approaches: Operationalizing Agricultural Research and Development (R&D) Linkages
in Eastern Africa. AHI Working Papers No. 23.
Stroud, A. and J. Hagmann (2006) Shared Experiences of an ASARECA Programme:
Key Challenges for Institutions to Operationalise INRM from Ecoregional and NARS
Perspectives. AHI Working Papers No. 5.
Stroud, A. and R. Khandelwal (2006) In Search of Substance: “State of the Art” of
Approaches, Strategies and Methods for Improving Natural Resource Management and
Livelihoods. AHI Working Papers No. 6.
Stroud, A., E. Obin, R. Kandelwahl, F. Byekwaso, C. Opondo, L. German, J. Tanui,
O. Kyampaire, B. Mbwesa, A. Ariho, Africare, and Kabale District Farmers’ Association
(2006) Managing Change: Institutional Development under NAADS: A Field Study on
Farmer Institutions Working with NAADS. AHI Working Papers No. 22.
Tanui, J. (2006) Incorporating a Landcare Approach into Community Land Management
Efforts in Africa: A Case Study of the Mount Kenya Region. AHI Working Papers No. 19.
Tukahirwa, J.M. (1999) Diagnostic and characterisation studies conducted from 1945 to
1995 in southwestern Uganda. AHI Technical Report Series No. 10. Nairobi, Kenya:
African Highlands Initiative.
Wickama, J.M. and J.G. Mowo (2001) Indigenous nutrient resources in Tanzania. Managing
Africa’s Soils No. 21.
AHI Working Papers available online at:
www.worldagroforestry.org/projects/african-highlands/archives.html#wps
294 Annex IV
Methods guides
Barrios, E., M. Bekunda, R. Delve, A. Esilaba, and J. Mowo (2000) Methodologies for
Decision Making in Natural Resource Management: Identifying and Classifying Local
Indicators of Soil Quality. Eastern Africa Version. Online at: www.ciat.cgiar.org/
downloads/pdf/isq_contents.pdf.
German, L., B. Kidane and S. Charamila with W. Mazengia, S. Ayele, and T. Tolera (2007)
Niche-Compatible Agroforestry: A Methodology for Understanding and Managing
Trade-Offs in Tree Species Selection at Landscape Level. AHI Methods Guides C1.
German, L., W. Mazengia, S. Charamila, H. Taye, S. Nyangas, J. Tanui, S. Ayele, and
A. Stroud (2007) Action Research: An Approach for Generating Methodological
Innovations for Improved Impact from Agricultural Development and Natural Resource
Management. AHI Methods Guide E1.
German, L., K. Mekonnen, J.G. Mowo, E. Geta, and T. Amede (2006) A Socially-Optimal
Approach to Participatory Watershed Diagnosis. AHI Methods Guide B2.
German, L., J. Mowo, M. Kingamkono, and J. Nuñez (2006) Technology Spillover: A
Methodology for Understanding Patterns and Limits to Adoption of Farm-Level
Innovations. AHI Methods Guide A1.
German, L., A. Stroud, G. Alemu, Y. Gojjam, B. Kidane, B. Bekele, D. Bekele,
G. Woldegiorgis, T. Tolera, and M. Haile (2006) Creating an Integrated Research
Agenda from Prioritized Watershed Issues. AHI Methods Guide B4.
Mekonnen, K. (2009) Watershed Management. In: M. Nigussie, A. Girma, C. Anchala, and
A. Kirub (eds), Improved Technologies and Resource Management for Ethiopian Agriculture: A
Training Manual, pp. 289–296. RCBP-MoARD, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
AHI Methods Guides available online at:
www.worldagroforestry.org/projects/african-highlands/archives.html#mgs
AHI briefs
Stroud, A. (2003) Program Brief.
Theme A – strategies for systems intensification
Amede, T. (2003) Restoring Soil Fertility in the Highlands of East Africa through
Participatory Research. AHI Brief A1.
Amede, T. (2003) Differential Entry Points to Address Complex Natural Resource
Constraints in the Highlands of Eastern Africa. AHI Brief A2.
Stroud, A. (2003) Linked Technologies for Increasing Adoption and Impact. AHI Brief A3.
Amede, T. (2004) Boosting Human Nutrition through Land Use Modelling: An Alternative
to Biofortification. AHI Brief A4.
Amede, T. (2004) Soil Fertility Decision Guide Formulation: Assisting Farmers with
Varying Objectives to Integrate Legume Cover Crops. AHI Brief A5.
Amede, T. (2007) Soil and Water Conservation through Attitude Change and Negotiation.
AHI Brief A6.
Annex IV 295
Theme B – institutional innovations for R&D
Chemengei, A., S. Nyangas, W. Cheptegei, J. Tanui, F. Alinyo, and L. German (2007)
Co-Management is About Cultivating Relationships. AHI Brief B7.
German, L. and A. Stroud (2004) Integrating Learning Approaches for Agricultural R&D.
AHI Brief B4.
German, L., A. Stroud, and E. Obin (2003) A Coalition for Enabling Demand-Driven
Development in Kabale District, Uganda. AHI Brief B1.
German, L., W. Tirwomwe, J. Tanui, S. Nyangas, and A. Chemengei (2007) Searching for
Solutions: Technology-Policy Synergies in Participatory NRM. AHI Brief B6.
Opondo, C., L. German, S. Charamila, A. Stroud, and R.K Khandelwal (2005) Process
Monitoring and Documentation for R&D Team Learning: Concepts and Approaches.
AHI Brief B5.
Tanui, J., A. Chemengei, S. Nyangas, and W. Cheptegei (2007) Rural Development and
Conservation: The Future Lies with Multi-Stakeholder Collective Action. AHI Brief B8.
Stroud, A. (2003) Self-Management of Institutional Change for Improving Approaches to
Integrated NRM. AHI Brief B2.
Stroud, A. (2003) Combining Science with Participation: Learning Locally and Generalizing
Regionally. AHI Brief B3.
Theme C – integrated watershed management
German, L. (2003) Beyond the Farm: A New Look at Livelihood Constraints in the
Highlands of Eastern Africa. AHI Brief C1.
German, L. (2006) Environmental Service Rewards in ECA: “Environmental Signatures”
and Scenario Analysis to Minimize Trade-Offs. AHI Brief C3.
German, L., B. Kidane, R. Shemdoe, and M. Sellungato (2005) A Methodology for
Understanding Niche Incompatibilities in Agroforestry. AHI Brief C2.
Theme D – advancing impact
German, L. (2004) Adding Nuance: The Role of Constructivist Inquiry in Agricultural
R&D. AHI Brief D3.
German, L. and A. Stroud (2004) Social Learning in Regional R&D Programs. AHI Brief D2.
Mowo, J., L. Nabahungu, and L. Dusengemengu (2007) The Integrated Watershed
Management Approach for Livelihoods and Natural Resource Management in Rwanda:
Moving Beyond AHI Pilot Sites. AHI Brief D5.
Tanui, J. (2003) What about the Land User? An African Grassroots Innovation for Livelihood
and Environment (AGILE) Approach. AHI Brief D1.
Tanui, J. (2005) Revitalizing Grassroots Knowledge Systems: Farmer Learning Cycles in
AGILE. AHI Brief D4.
Theme E – strengthening local institutions and equity
Ayele, S., A. Ghizaw, Z. Adimassu, M. Tsegaye, G. Alemu, T. Tolera, and L. German
(2007) Enhancing Collective Action in Spring “Development” and Management
through Negotiation Support and By-Law Reforms. AHI Brief E5.
296 Annex IV
Begashaw, L., W. Mazengia, and L. German (2007) Mobilizing Collective Action for
Vertebrate Pest Control. AHI Brief E3.
German, L. (2003) Watershed Entry: A Socially-Optimal Approach. AHI Brief E1.
German, L., S. Charamila, and T. Tolera (2005) Negotiation Support in Watershed
Management: A Case for Decision-Making beyond the Farm Level. AHI Brief E2.
Mazengia, W., A. Tenaye, L. Begashaw, L. German, and Y. Rezene (2007) Enhancing Equitable
Technology Access for Socially and Economically Constrained Farmers. AHI Brief E4.
Theme T – training briefs
AHI (2005) Training Course on System Optimization Based on Demand, Markets and the
Resource Base. AHI Brief T1.
AHI (2005) Training Course on Participatory Integrated Watershed Management. AHI
Brief T2.
AHI (2005) Training Course on Tracking Technology “Spillover.” AHI Brief T3.
AHI (2005) Facilitators’ Course on District Institutional Collaboration for Integrated
Livelihoods and Conservation. AHI Brief T4.
AHI (2005) Workshop on Self-Led Institutional Learning and Change for NARS and
NPPs. AHI Brief T5.
AHI Briefs available online at:
www.worldagroforestry.org/projects/african-highlands/archives.html#briefs
Conference proceedings
Adimassu, Z., K. Mekonnen, and B. Gorfu (2011) Understanding and Managing Complexities
in Integrated Natural Resources Management at Watershed Scale: Lessons from the
Central Highland of Ethiopia. Proceedings of the “International Conference on Ecosystem
Conservation and Sustainable Development,” February 10–12, 2011, Ambo University,
Ethiopia.
Amede, T., H. Assefa, and A. Stroud (eds) (2004) Participatory Research in Action:
Ethiopian Experience. Proceedings of a Participatory Research Workshop, June 12–17,
2002. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia: Ethiopian Agricultural Research Organisation and African
Highlands Initiative. 144 p.
Masuki, K.F.G, R. Kamugisha, J.G. Mowo, J. Tanui, J. Tukahirwa, J. Mogoi, and E.O. Adera
(2010) Role of Mobile Phones in Improving Communication and Information Delivery
for Agricultural Development: Lessons from South Western Uganda. Paper presented in
“ICT and Development – Research Voices from Africa,” March 22–23, 2010, Makerere
University, Uganda.
Masuki, K.F.G., H.A. Mansoor, J.G. Mowo, A.J. Tenge, J.M. Wickama, J. Mogoi, and
J. Tanui (2009) Institutional Approach to Grassroots Communities’ Engagement in
Natural Resource Management in the Northeastern Tanzania: Entry Point to Forging
Partnership in SLM. Paper presented at the “25th Soil Science Society of East Africa,”
December 7–11, 2009, Moshi, Tanzania. Proceedings in preparation.
Masuki, K., J. Mowo, R. Kamugisha, A. Tibingana, E. Adera, J. Tanui, J. Tukahirwa, and
J. Mogoi (2009) Rural Information and Communication System and its Implication
to Landcare Movement in Eastern Africa. Presented at the “Fourth Biennial Landcare
Conference,” July 12–16, 2009, Limpopo, South Africa. Proceedings in preparation.
Annex IV 297
Mekonnen, K. and Z. Adimassu (2009) Watershed Management Approach for NRM:
Experiences and Lessons from Galessa, Central Ethiopia. In: Alemu, A., S. Yifredew,
A. Mekonnen and M. Kassie (eds), Sustainable Land Management and Poverty Alleviation,
pp. 182–190. Proceedings of a workshop held from May 18–19, 2009, CRDA Training
Center, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
Mogoi, J., J. Tanui, D. Catacutan, R. Kamugisha, and K. Masuki (2010) A Report on the
“National Landcare Workshop,” Hotel Des Mille Collines, Kigali, Rwanda, June 2010.
Nairobi: African Highlands Initiative.
Mowo, J.G., R.S. Kurothe, M.N. Shem, N.L. Kanuya, and L. Dusengemungu (2007)
Adopting the Integrated Watershed Management Approach in Rwanda. In:
R.W. Njeru, D.M. Kagabo, T. Ndabamenye, D. Kayiranga, P. Ragama, P.Y.K. Sallah,
D. Nkeabahzi, A. Ndayiragije, L. Ndiramiye, G. Night, S.O.S. Akinyemi, N. Kanuya,
M.C. Bagabe, and J. Mugabe (2007), Sustainable Agricultural Productivity for Improved
Food Security and Livelihoods, pp. 497–506. Proceedings of the “National Conference on
Agricultural Research Outputs,” March 26–27, 2007, Kigali, Rwanda.
Mowo, J.G., H. Masoor, K.F.G. Masuki, and J. Meliyo (2009) Influence of Eucalypts on
selected soil properties and maize growth in the highlands of northeastern Tanzania.
Paper presented at the “25th Soil Science Society of East Africa,” 7–11 December, 2009,
Moshi, Tanzania. Proceedings in preparation.
Mowo, J.G., L.N. Nabahungu, L. Dusengemungu, and S. Sylveri (2007) Opportunities for
Overcoming Soil Fertility Constraints to Agricultural Production in Gasharu Watershed,
Southern Province, Rwanda. In: R.W. Njeru, D.M. Kagabo, T. Ndabamenye,
D. Kayiranga, P. Ragama, P.Y.K. Sallah, D. Nkeabahzi, A. Ndayiragije, L. Ndiramiye,
G. Night, S.O.S. Akinyemi, N. Kanuya, M.C. Bagabe, and J. Mugabe (2007), Sustainable
Agricultural Productivity for Improved Food Security and Livelihoods, pp. 506–514. Proceedings
of the “National Conference on Agricultural Research Outputs,” March 26–27, 2007,
Kigali, Rwanda.
Tanui, J., A. Chemangei, and J.G. Mowo (2007) Enabling Negotiation and Conflict
Resolution for Area Wide Planning: The Case of Collective Action for Watershed
Management. In: R.W. Njeru, D.M. Kagabo, T. Ndabamenye, D. Kayiranga, P.
Ragama, P.Y.K. Sallah, D. Nkeabahzi, A. Ndayiragije, L. Ndiramiye, G. Night, S.O.S.
Akinyemi, N. Kanuya, M.C. Bagabe, and J. Mugabe (eds), Sustainable Agricultural
Productivity for Improved Food Security and Livelihoods, pp. 515–524. Proceedings of the
“National Conference on Agricultural Research Outputs,” 26–27 March, 2007, Kigali,
Rwanda.
Note
1 This list includes only those chapters not otherwise included in AHI books.
INDEX
ACACIA initiative 222, 227–8, 235;
information provision 267–8
accountability 197, 198
Africa: biodiversity of 1; challenges to local
government 195–7; decentralization
196; poverty and resources 83
African Highlands Initiative (AHI):
benchmark sites 15–16, 17; catalysed
self-led change 257–8; demand-driven
information provision 222; developing
social infrastructure 198; dissemination
of technologies 62–3; district-level work
197; externally mediated dissemination
65–7; fairness of by-laws 189–90;
farmer fora and 264–5; information
provision in NAADS 266–9; integrating
scientific knowledge 132–3; integration
concepts 84–5; intensification 42;
landscape governance 167–8; lessons
from farm systems 47; local voices in
planning process 100; methodological
gaps 155–6; methodological innovations
22–31; origins and phases of 11–14;
output dissemination 30; participation
concept 84–5; participatory integrated
watershed management 83; phases of
16; processes of change 18; progress
of 154–5; publication of knowledge
30–1; scaling up/out 235, 241, 253–4;
supporting institutional change 256,
269–71, 272; value and impact of 31–2;
watershed characterization 98–9
African Landcare Network 232
agricultural extension 200
agricultural research: action research/
learning 250
agriculture: colonial policies 2; core aims 4
research 2–3; see also farms and farmers;
land use
Akiti Alfred 163
Amede, T. 49, 69
Asia 83
Association for Strengthening Agricultural
Research in East and Central Africa
(ASARECA) 11
Atu Yirga Tafu 149
Awasa Agricultural Research Institute 252
bananas 40, 75, 76, 98
banks see financial factors
barley 40
beans 98
biophysical factors; biodiversity 1;
hydrological delineation 86–8;
innovation and 72; local knowledge
132–3; physical capital 2; system
components 85; targeting technologies
for 68–71
Britain see colonialism
by-laws; colonial imposition 199;
common issues 164; community
monitoring 135; deliberative process
215–16; detrimental effects 185, 188–9;
district-level reforms 206–8; district
Index 299
stakeholders 203; enforcement 215;
governing dissemination 66; local level
136, 184, 186–7, 190, 199; mobilizing
collective action 182–3; monitoring
and evaluating reforms 217–20, 222;
multi-stakeholder negotiations 184–5,
186–7, 190–1; negative aspects 219–20,
221; negotiated agreements 172, 178;
participatory diagnostics 211–12;
participatory reforms 27, 183–91; refusal
to abide by 170–1; Rubaya 102–4;
synergies 191; Ugandan reform process
208–10; water quality and quantity 30;
watershed management 93; women and
218–19
cabbages 50, 98
capital see financial factors
Co-Management 2
Coalition for Effective Extension Delivery
264–5
coffee 39, 40, 75
Ethiopia 46; collective action 8–9
adopting technologies 62; difficulties
of 147, 162–6; diversity within
communities 71; governing common
resources 160; institutional innovation
10; lack of 83; learning 24; local
approach to watershed 100–1; local
organization 15, 95; mobilizing 26,
179–83; multiple stakeholders 108;
negotiating divergent interests 169–70;
negotiation of conflicts 30; sabotaging
innovation 91–2; shared needs 53; social
justice and equity 9
Collinson, M. 248
colonialism: agricultural policies of 2;
conservation in 56; imposition of
by-laws 199, 208; local rule 196;
structural constraints from 149–50
communication: about farming systems 47;
community feedback 104–5; diversity
in communities 14; effective strategies
4; feedback 61–2, 151; supporting
innovation 52; supporting negotiations
168–79
communication technology 200;
communities: by-laws and 207, 220–2;
community-based organizations 100;
devolving management to 2; divergent
interests 71, 112, 166–79; external
mediation and 65–6; facilitators
122, 224; factionalism 213; farmer
field schools 53; grassroots demands
263–5; horizontal and vertical links
214–16; hydrological boundaries 88,
89; informal partnerships 233; local
concerns 51, 181; local governance
and 196; long- and short-term benefits
152–3; model outputs 46; participation
155, 211–12, 220–2; participatory
monitoring 133–9; sharing biases 77;
telecentres for information 224–7;
village-level by-law reform 184, 186–7,
190–1
community-based organizations 100, 230
conflict resolution 52; balanced concessions
172; bottoms lines and win-wins
175–7; destructive land use 108; early
dissipation 203; eucalyptus and springs
111; implementing agreements 172,
173; language use 172, 174; local
indicators 137; mediators/facilitators
170–1, 175; multi-stakeholder
negotiations 142–5; negotiation support
169–79; resolution mechanisms 93;
resource management 1, 88; sequential
negotiations 170–1; transboundary 83
conservation: decentralized approaches 2;
economic incentives 6; exclusionary
efforts 5; financing 63–5; identifying
hot spots 96–7; innovation without
degradation 77–9; isolated structures
86–8; linking with production
enhancement 56–60, 61; livelihoods
and 4; see also natural resource
management
conservation organizations: multi-
institutional partnerships 229–34
Consultative Group on International
Agricultural Research (CGIAR) 4, 11,
246–7
corruption: by-law enforcement 185, 188,
190, 212–13
crabs 132
crops: access to seeds 42; benchmark
sites 17; by-laws 104; cash 70, 75;
complementary cycles 58; complex
technologies 39; crop-livestock systems
79; ECA systems 39–41; effect of
eucalyptus 129; enset-based systems
46–7; entry points for innovation 48;
horticultural 39; impacts of technologies
75; improving varieties 38; income
types 98; integrated planning 120;
intensification of systems 41–3; legumes
300 Index
cover 69; local seed delivery systems 24;
multiplying seeds 66, 67; optimization
modelling 45; production improvement
s 22; social balancing 91; as system
component 85; watershed issues 106,
115–19
cultural factors 5
decision making: collective action 9, 100;
community participation 155; devolving
to lowest level 206–8; empirical
research inputs 128–30, 132–3; farmer
representation 204–6; institutional
structures of 10; local knowledge
130–3; local level 197–8; within local
sphere 196; watershed management 84;
see also by-laws; policy-making
democracy: farmer representation 204–6;
local districts and 197–8; vertical
integration 201–3
development: agricultural research and 154;
interaction with research 29; social and
political factors 159–60
development agencies 4, 80; divergent
interests 160; failure to “scale
up” 240; and institutional change
272–3; mobilizing action 181; poor
coordination 197; support governance
reforms 195; watershed diagnosis and
planning 112
developmental units 180
diseases and illness: improvement
management 22; local cures 39;
population density and 40; waterborne
30; see also pest control
dissemination of innovation: adoption
barriers 72; barriers to 74; by-law and
66–7; community sharing 77; externally
mediated 65–7; farmer research groups
63–5; farmer-to-farmer 71, 72, 74,
79; gendered patterns 76; identifying
patterns of 73–7; participatory
monitoring 135, 138; policy task forces
214; predicting adoption 68; scaling
out 242, 244–5, 251–5; spillover 73;
strategic partnerships for 251; support
for 61–3; targeting systems and clients
67–71; tracking spread 72–3
diversification: linked technologies 58
education 30
energy use 94
enset 46–7
entry points see under innovation
environment see conservation; natural
resource management
equity and social justice: access to
technologies 24; by-laws 185, 188–90;
dissemination of innovation 71, 135,
138; participation 8; perception of 138;
watershed management 153
Ethiopia: Ameya spring 173, 176; Areka
field day 252–3; barley systems 40;
benchmark sites 15–16; birth of AHI
11, 13; by-laws for dissemination
66–7; champions of change 270;
communal grazing 165–6; controlling
mole rats 55–6; crop-livestock systems
40; enset-based systems 46–7; entry
points for innovation 49; equity
perceptions 138; evaluating institutional
change 258–60; evidence of soil loss
129–30; farmers field schools 54;
Galessa watershed 202–3; Gununo
watershed 87; history of land reforms
149, 151; institutional change 262–3;
landscape-level entry points 126–7;
linked technologies 59, 60; market-led
agriculture 41–2; mobilizing collective
action 182; nursery management 164–5;
participatory monitoring 135, 138;
porcupine control 139–40; problem
solving 177–8; seeing possibilities in
149; soil fertility 41; sustaining effort in
147–8; trees of Ginchi 107; watershed
issues 90, 97, 115–17, 125
Ethiopian Institute of Agricultural
Research 150–1
eucalpytus 129
external facilitators 8
faith institutions 95
families and kinship 93
farmer field schools 52–4, 79
farmer research groups: dissemination
of technologies 63–5; respecting
knowledge of 60–1
farming systems research 248
farms and farmers: action research 18; AHI
lessons 47; components 6; conditions
for willingness 183; confidence of 30,
48; conservation linked to production
56–60, 61; dialogues among 53;
divergent interests 169–79; early
innovators 78; empowering 217; entry
points for innovation 48–51; experience
Index 301
and perceptions of 77; experimentation
79; expert information 226; facilitating
initiative 151–2; farmer-to-farmer
sharing 24, 71, 72, 74, 79; feedback
from researchers 47; finding security
and confidence 149–52; gender 43, 67,
105–6; household decision units 42;
household resources 45, 46, 50, 59,
68; improved agronomic practices 50;
information provision 222–8; innovation
process 38; integrated planning 124;
intensification 41–3; interest groups
49; knowledge of technologies 22;
learning cycles 205; links to policy
makers 29, 264–5; long- and short-term
benefits 22, 57–8, 153; methodological
innovations 23–5; monitoring progress
66; multi-institutional partnerships 230;
optimization models 44–7; participatory
approaches 8, 12, 43–4, 134, 278;
perception of equity 138; productivity
constraints 22; representation at
district level 204–6; seeing possibilities
149; short- and long-term concerns
12; social/thematic groups 22, 43,
57, 67; stimulating innovation 5; as
systems 6; taking risks 51; watershed
characterization 93–5; watershed entry
points 125–6; see also crops; livelihoods;
livestock; stakeholders
Farrington, J. 240
feedback: conflict negotiation 172;
information provision 223; stakeholder
dialogues 110
fertilizers: chemical 41; dung 6; impacts of
technologies 75; water run-off 115–19
financial factors: access to 22; conservation
incentives 6; constraints on
innovation 48; coping strategies 94;
experimentation 63–5; government
support 42; household incomes 50;
income from crops 97–8; institutional
support and 41; local institutions 95;
micro-credit systems 64–5; watershed
characterization 94
fisheries 4
Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO):
classification system 96; farmer field
schools 52
food security: cash income and 42;
daily nutritional allowances 45; local
knowledge 39; modelling approach 44,
45; nutrition deficits 47
forestry and trees: agricultural 27;
benchmark sites 17; core aims 4;
sustainable management 2
fuel wood 58
gender: barriers for dissemination 74–5;
capturing diverse voices 105–6;
constraints on innovation 48; crop
selection 51; farmer groups 22,
43, 67; household demographics
45; monitoring and evaluation
138; outcomes of by-laws 218–19;
patterns of exchanges 76; watershed
characterization 95
German, L. S. 74, 132, 188
global positioning systems 96
governance: landscape processes 27;
watershed management 25; see also
local and district governance; state
governments
Gündel, S. 241
Hagmann, J. 4
Hardin, Garrett: The Tragedy of the
Commons 160–1
Holetta Agricultural Research Centre
(HARC) 150–1, 254
housing 30, 95
human resources 272
implementation: advertising activity 251; of
negotiated agreements 172, 173, 177–8;
phases of 164–5; vertical integration 202
individuals: collective action and 9;
investing in communities 207
information provision 200; access
30; challenges to 268; district
demand-driven 222–8; flow of 223;
institutionalized in Uganda 266–9;
needs protocol 224; publication of AHI
knowledge 30–1; quality assurance
227–8; radio 255; sharing with policy
makers 263; systems approach 28;
telecentres and ICT infrastructure
224–9, 267; wireless phones 227
innovation: action research 21–2; all
aspects of 52; demonstrations 251–2,
253; effectiveness 244; efficiency of
244; entry points 48–51, 58, 125–6;
evidence of performance 270; farm-
level constraints 52; implementation
challenges 148–54; incentives
273; information provision 222–8;
302 Index
institutional structures 10–11; linked
technologies 56–60, 61; linking farm
and district 234–5; local 207; local
knowledge experimentation 55–6;
opting in/out 91; piloting 258–9,
271; regional teams 15; scaling up/out
241–2, 250–5; sustainability 244; trade-
off analysis 46; watershed management
85, 125–6; without degradation 77–9;
see also dissemination of innovation;
technologies; Institut des Sciences
Agronomiques du Rwanda 257, 260–1
institutional change: agricultural research
250–1; catalysed self-led 257–63;
commitment 272; defining scaling out
241–2; evidence of 262; grassroots
catalyst 263–5; inadequate resources
253–5; internal catalyst 265–9;
methodological gaps 271–4; ownership
of initiatives 269; partnerships 254–5;
potential of innovations 243–5; recent
drives for 249; scaling up/out 5, 241–2,
244–5, 250–5, 274; self-led 28, 255–7;
support for 269–71; sustaining research
and dialogue 273–4; institutional
learning and change (ILAC) initiative
246–7
institutions: agricultural 52, 200;
developing local governance 195–7;
development of 23; external 152,
153; formal and informal 207; of
higher learning 255; innovation
10–11; learning organizations
245–7; limited support from 41;
local 53; local dissemination 67, 72;
mapping stakeholders 202; models for
governance 192; multi-institutional
partnerships 229–34; R&D teams and
4; regional 15; synergies 5; Integrated
Agricultural Research for Development
(IAR4D) 198–9, 249
Integrated Conservation and Development 2
integrated natural resource management:
AHI achievements 22–31; by-laws 207;
collective governance of 160; common
property 83; fairness of by-laws 189–90;
farm-level 38–9; informal partnerships
233; information provision 223, 224;
institutionalizing 30; key aims of
3–5; links to poverty 83; local and
national policies 12–13; local concerns
19, 192–3; managing interventions
259; mobilizing collective action
179–83; multi-institutional partnerships
229–34; multi-institutional processes 28;
negotiations 5; new approaches 198–9;
participation 8; social and political
factors 159–60; watershed common
resources 94; watersheds 9–10; working
implementation 32; see also landscape
management; watershed management
integration: component 6–7, 84–5; concept
of 6, 84–5; constructivist 7; optimizing
6–7; seeking synergies 85; synergies 7
intensification: defined 41; linked
technologies 58
International Agricultural Centres (IARCs)
11
International Development Research
Centre: demand-driven information
provision 222
intervention 98, 259; phases of 136–7
Iran 39
irrigation 17, 39
ISNAR program 247
Jacobs, R. L. 241
Joint Forest Management 2
Kapchorwa District Landcare Chapter 164,
231–2
Kelly, V. 42
Kenya: early phases of AHI 11, 13; farmer
field schools 53; intensification 42;
maize-beans systems 40
khat 39
Kirkby, R. 69
Kissa Peter 164
knowledge: access to 4; communication
technology 200; farmer learner
cycles 205; gaps in 85; local 55–6,
131; scientific data 128–30; scientific
validation 55; use for decision-making
29; see also information provision;
learning; training
Kotter, J. P. 246
La Rovere, R. 32
labor 41
land use: changes 1; economic interests
and 159–60; images and maps of 96,
97; insecurity of 149; intensification 41;
owners’ resistance 178; population and
40; size of landholdings 47, 94; spring
degradation 167; tenure policies 42;
watershed management 84, 88
Index 303
Landcare International 232
landscape management: AHI focus on
14; co-management policies 175;
components of 6; governance 38;
inadequate collective action 162–6;
institutional model 192; participatory
governance 25; relation to watershed
114; watershed complexity and 152–3;
watershed issues and 92
language: information provision 222, 225
Latin America 83
law see by-laws
leadership 52; identifying 100; supporting
institutional change 256; watershed
planning 113
learning: agenda 20; collective action
and 24; cross-disciplinary 4; cycles
205; demonstrations and shows 66;
experiential 256; institutional change
249–50; as key aim 4; libraries 66; loops
242, 243; multi-stakeholder platforms
232; organizations 245–7; participatory
action 19; regional teams 15; research
comparisons 21–2; synthesis of lessons
259; see also information provision;
training
legumes: Ethiopia 47; socio-economic
criteria 68–71; soil fertility and 49
libraries 66
livelihoods: by-law restrictions 185,
188; client-centred approach 5; and
conservation 4; improvement without
degradation 77; intensification and 42;
pests and diseases affecting 94; related
improvements 30; strategies 79–80;
sustainable approaches 198–9; see also
farms and farmers
livestock: benchmark sites 17; by-law
affecting 219–20; by-laws affecting 103;
communal grazing 165–6; complex
technologies 39; conflicts over 178;
crop-livestock systems 79; ECA systems
39–41; free grazing 88, 91, 99, 165,
167; holdings 168; improved feeds 58;
integrated planning 120; intensification
of systems 41–3; landscape processes
27; legume cover crops 70; linked
technologies 60; optimization modelling
45; overgrazing 41; as system component
85; watershed issues 94, 106, 115–19
Lobo, C. 240
local and district governance: in benchmark
sites 95–6; benefits for community
22; buy-in and goal setting 212–13;
challenges to 195–7; democratic
process and 197–8; developmental
units 180; diversity within 14; farmer
representation in 204–6; informal
partnerships 233; information provision
222–8; methodology 14–16; mobilizing
collective action 179–81, 181–3, 183;
multi-institutional partnerships 229–34;
multilevel policy reforms 210–22;
participatory approaches 43; policy
dialogue 214–17; policy innovations
28; public service delivery 199–201;
researchers isolated from 192; resource
policies 12–13; responsive by-law
reforms 206–8; role in mobilizing
community 112; scaling out 235; social
infrastructure 198; supporting adaptive
management 4–5; sustainable policy
innovations 234; Uganda’s by-law
process 208–10; vertical integration
201–3; watershed management 93–4,
100–2; see also by-laws; policy making
Lockwood, H. 241
maize 40, 46, 47, 75, 98
mapping 96, 97
markets: benchmark sites 17; information
provision 222, 224; informed decisions
and 50; innovations 23; lack of outlets
12; limited access to 40; linking farmers
to 18; multi-stakeholder platforms 232;
supporting innovation 52; synergies 5;
technology impetus 61
Meinzen-Dick, R. 245–6
methodology: action research 16, 18–22;
farm-level innovations 23–5; gaps in
191–2; innovations in 22–31; landscape
scales 84; patterns of dissemination
73–7; priorities for future 155–6;
process documentation 141–7; questions
of 14; regional aspects 14–16; scaling up
241–2; watershed management 25–7;
mining, colonial 2
mole rats 55–6, 130–1
monitoring and evaluation: “before” and
“after” 138; by-law reforms 217–20,
222; community participation 133–9;
local indicators 134–7; negotiation
support 169; Outcome Mapping
techniques 146; participatory 25,
217–20, 222; phases of intervention
136–7; process documentation 141–7;
304 Index
R&D team level 140–2; supporting
change 254; of technological
dissemination 66; tools for 16; using
scientific indicators 139–40; watershed
management 84
mulching 69, 75
Napier grass 60, 75; by-laws 103
National Agricultural Advisory Services
(NAAS) 251
National Agricultural Research Institute
(NARI) 11
national agricultural research institutes 56
local knowledge initiatives 55
participation 264–5
National Agricultural Research
Organization (NARO) 257, 262–3;
relations with stakeholders 255–6
national agricultural research systems
(NARS); historical perspective of
247–9; self-led change 255
Natural Resource Management Planning
Committees (NRMPC) 102
natural resources: degradation of 41;
livelihood dependence on 1; Ostrom vs
Hardin 160–1; ownership and control
of 2; see also integrated natural resource
management
non-governmental organizations (NGOs):
dissemination of technologies 62;
information provision 226, 228;
multi-institutional partnerships 229–34;
partnerships for change 256; researchers
isolated from 192; nutrition 30
Nyerere, Julius 199
O’Neil, R. J. 39
optimization models 44–7, 78
Ostrom, Eleanor 160–1, 192
oxen 115, 118
parish coordination committees 266
Parish Watershed Committees 100–1
participation: concept of 84–5; diagnostics
and vision 211–12; farm systems 43–4;
identifying problems 55; meaning of 8;
rural appraisal techniques 43; watershed
diagnosis and planning 99–100
participatory action research (PAR) 19–21;
as key aim 4
Participatory Rapid Appraisal 110
Peasants Associations 91
peppers 98
pest control: collective action 108;
improvements 22; integrated pest
management 58; intensification and 41;
landscape processes 27; local knowledge
39, 130–1; mole rats 55–6; see also
diseases and illness; porcupines
planning: capturing local voices 99–100;
diverse voices 104–7; farmer
representation 204–6; integrated 119–21,
122–5; stakeholder-based 107–14
policy-making: access to 4; After Action
Review 217; district-level 199, 216–17;
information sharing 263; innovations 5;
land tenure 42; links between villages
214–16; links to farmers 29; links
with farmers 264–5; local level 198–9;
monitoring and evaluating reforms
217–22; multi-level model 210–11;
participatory by-law reforms 220–2;
participatory diagnostics 211–12; policy
task forces 213–14; sequence 221;
structural constraints for farms 150;
support for adopting innovations 62;
sustainable innovations 234; towards
markets 41; village task forces 102–4
politics: collective action 9; local government
and 195; poorly addressed 159–60; and
technical organizations 271–2
population 1, 39, 40; Ethiopia 46;
household demographics 45, 93;
watershed issues 115–19
porcupines 88, 108, 166; inadequate
collective action 162–3; local
knowledge 130–1; mobilizing action
180; scientific evaluation 139–40
potatoes 54, 98; optimization models 46
poverty and wealth: alleviation pressures
249, 255–6; capturing diverse voices
105–6; farmer groups 43; information
age and 200; limits investment 40–1;
link with resources 83; monitoring
and evaluation 138; watershed
characterization 95
problem solving: Ethiopia 177–8; farmer
research groups 60; linked technologies
57; watershed management 83, 84
public services: local delivery of 199–201
Quality Assurance Committee 267
Reardon, T. 42
research and development: action 16,
18–22, 122; adaptive testing 156;
Index 305
building capacity of 59; building rapport
with farmers 48; by-law compliance
212; catalysts for change 257–8; clusters
114–19, 155–6; coordination of groups
200; deficiencies of inputs 12; design
20; empirical 18, 21–2, 85, 122;
evidence 263–4; feedback from farmers
47; improving participation 247–9;
institutional learning 247; integrated
12, 25, 29; mainstreaming action 273;
multidisciplinary teams 154; outputs and
applications 20; participatory 3, 19–21,
140–2; patterns of dissemination 73–7;
planning 121, 122–5; positive attitudes
towards 30; protocols for clusters
121–2; publication 30–1; validity 21;
watershed management 85; see also
farmer research groups; innovation;
technologies
risks: constructivism 7; entry points to
innovation 51
Rwanda 260–1
Sakharani Mission: conflict negotiation
173; multi-stakeholder negotiations
142–5, 171–2; participatory watershed
diagnosis 109–10; scientific research 129
sanitation 95
savings and credit cooperative societies
64–5
Senge, P. 246
social groups: entry points to innovation
51; modelling from 45; targeting 72;
social justice and equity see equity and
social justice; socio-economic factors
5; barriers to adoption 74; changing
behaviour 137; characterization 93–6;
class constraints 48; developing social
infrastructure 198; dissemination
of technology 62; poorly addressed
159–60; of resource management
12; targeting technologies for 68–71;
watershed management 91–2, 92
soil conservation 2, 30, 39; awareness off
93; by-laws 102–3; erosion and fertility
41, 163–4, 166–7; fertility technologies
11; financial support 64–5; gender
patterns and 76; impacts of technologies
75; integrated planning 122; legume
cover crops 49, 69; linked technologies
57, 60; loss of fertility 1, 2; monitoring
and evaluation 137; population density
and 40; restoring fertility 42; scientific
evidence 129–30; stabilization 58;
structures of 6; as system component
85; watershed issues 87, 115–19; see also
fertilizers; land use
South Africa 196
stakeholders 5; by-law reforms 184–5,
186–7, 190–1; documenting the process
141; drives for change 249; engagement
in planning 100–1; institutional change
and 250–1; institutional mapping 202;
local knowledge and negotiations
131; monitoring negotiation process
142–6; multi-stakeholder platform
230–2; negotiating interests 168–79;
participation in planning 107–14; policy
task forces 213–14
state governments: agricultural ministries
52; decentralized approaches 2; financial
support 42; institutional change 255–7;
resource policies 12–13
Stroud, A. 12
Sudan 40
synergies: form of integration 7; fostering
100
systems approach: AHI and 12;
components 85; conceptualizing 14;
crop-livestock 79; farms as 6; linking
technologies 59; methodological
innovations 23; optimization models
44–7; participatory 43–4; targeting
67–71, 71–2; technology 28
Tanzania: advertising innovations 251;
benchmark sites 16, 17; co-management
policies 175; Department of Research
and Development 257; early phases
of AHI 11, 13; entry point tomatoes
50, 51; evaluating institutional change
258–60; impacts of technologies 75;
inadequate resources 253–5; local
knowledge 39; Nyerere’s by-laws 199;
participatory monitoring 134; Sakharani
Mission 109–10, 129, 142–5, 171–3;
scientific data 129; spring degradation
170–1; watershed issues 90, 97, 125–6
taro 46, 125
tea 39, 98
technologies: access to 4, 24; by-law
effectiveness and 218; conservation
linked to production 56–60, 61;
diversity of 62; entry points 51; linked
6, 57, 78; local 55–6; methodological
innovations 23; problem solving
306 Index
57; problems and governance 189;
relevance to farmers 248; “scaling out”
240–1; solutions from 2; spin-offs 77;
stepwise development 59; synergy with
politicians 271–2; systems approach
28; transfer model 3, 247; watershed
characterization 95; win-win 57; see also
dissemination of innovation; knowledge
teff 51
tomatoes 50, 76, 98, 125–6
The Tragedy of the Commons (Hardin) 160–1
training: access to 22; adopting innovations
254; capacity development 256;
classrooms 53–4; for dissemination
63; facilitators 231; for facilitators 204;
farmer field schools 52–4; hands-on 44;
incentives to change 273
transboundary issues 163
trees and forestry: Ameya spring
negotiation 176, 177; apples 148;
by-laws 104, 188–9, 212; fast-growing
167; Ginchi afforestation 107; integrated
planning 120; landscape-level entry
points 126–7; local knowledge 131;
Sakharani eucalyptus 109–10, 111, 129,
142–5, 171–2; as system component 85;
watershed issues 94, 99, 106, 115–19
Uganda: banana-coffee systems 40;
benchmark sites 16, 17; birth of AHI
11, 13; by-laws 135, 189–90, 208–10;
champions of change 270; district
information provision 225; farmer
links with policy 205–6; farmers
links with policy 264–5; free grazing
189; information provision 266–9;
landscape-level entry points 127; local
by-laws 102–4; Local Government Act
208; mobilizing collective action 181–2;
Mt Elgon National Park 108, 174,
176; multi-stakeholder platform 231–2;
National Strategy for Growth 200;
run-off in Kapchorwa 163–4; watershed
boundaries 90
Uganda Wildlife Authority 176
urban areas: water deficits 83
Veit, P. 197, 198
Village Watershed Committees 100–1, 164
villages see communities
voluntarism: multi-stakeholder partnerships
233
watershed management 39; administrative
boundaries 88–9, 92; AHI focus on 14;
biophysical factors 91, 96–9; by-laws
and 30, 102–3; concept of watersheds
9–10; conservation 30; creating
R&D clusters 114–19; delineation
92; depletion 41; diagnosis and
planning 99–100, 122, 155; drought
resistance 70; empirical research
and 21–2; farm-level entry points
125–6, 127–8; financial support 64–5;
function in agriculture 85; Gununo
field day 252–3; hybrid delineation
88–90; hydrological boundaries
86–8, 92; impacts of technologies 75;
implementation challenges 148–54;
institutions and policies 30; integrated
planning 119–21, 122–5; irrigation
94; issues of 106; landscape-level 114,
126–8, 152–3, 155, 156; larger than
farm level 84; linkages to cope with
change 159; linked technologies 57–8;
local knowledge and 130–3; local
leadership 100–2; methodological
innovations 25–7; minimalist approach
155; mobilizing collective action 181–
3; monitoring and evaluation 133–54;
multi-institutional partnerships 232;
negotiated problem-solving 177–8;
participatory 8, 84–5, 133–9; problems
of 83; rainwater harvesting 38; regional
research 15; resource mapping 110–11;
Rwanda 260–1; scientific date inputs
128–30; social diversity 91–2, 104–7;
socio-economic characterization
93–6; springs 87–8, 107, 132, 150–1,
167, 170–1; stakeholder engagement
100, 107–14; sustaining effort
147–8; technologies for 11; urban
and catchment deficits 83; vertical
integration approach 202–3; weather
forecasting 39
wheat 46
women see gender
World Agroforestry Centre 11
World Bank: capacity development in
Rwanda 261; poverty alleviation 249;
scaling up 241
World Health Organization: daily
nutritional allowances 45
- CitationsCitations0
- ReferencesReferences56
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: This article examines the emergence of local cooperative institutions-watershed partnerships-that resolve collective action problems involved in the management of natural resources. the political contracting approach to institutional supply suggests that watershed partnerships are more likely to emerge when potential benefits outweigh the transaction costs of developing a maintaining new institutions. We analyze the impact of social, political, economic, and ecological features of watersheds that affect benefits and transaction cost on the emergence of 958 watershed partnerships in the more than 2100 watershed in the United States. Our findings demonstrated that watershed partnerships are most likely to emerge in watersheds confronting severe pollution problems associated with agricultural and urban runoff, with low levels of command-and-control enforcement, and containing the resources to offset transaction costs.
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: We provide a synthesis of the papers in the Special Issue, the Communities Ecosystems and Livelihoods component of the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA), and other recent publications on the adaptive capacity of communities and their role in ecosystem management. Communities adapt because they face enormous challenges due to policies, conflicts, demographic factors, ecological change, and changes in their livelihood options, but the appropriateness of their responses varies. Based on our synthesis, three broad categories of adaptive communities are identified. "Powerless spectator" communities have a low adaptive capacity and weak capacity to govern, do not have financial or technological options, and lack natural resources, skills, institutions, and networks. "Coping actor" communities have the capacity to adapt, but are not managing social-ecological systems. They lack the capacity for governance because of lack of leadership, of vision, and of motivation, and their responses are typically short term. "Adaptive manager" communities have both adaptive capacity and governance capacity to sustain and internalize this adaptation. They invest in the long-term management of ecosystem services. Such communities are not only aware of the threats, but also take appropriate action for long-term sustainability. Adaptive co-management becomes possible through leadership and vision, the formation of knowledge networks, the existence or development of polycentric institutions, the establishment and maintenance of links between culture and management, the existence of enabling policies, and high levels of motivation in all role players. Adaptive co-managers are empowered, but empowerment is a consequence of the capacity for governance and the capacity to adapt, rather than a starting point. Communities that are able to enhance their adaptive capacity can deal with challenges such as conflicts, make difficult trade-offs between their short- and long-term well-being, and implement rules for ecosystem management. This improves the capacity of the ecosystem to continue providing services.
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: This article examines four case studies of community - based watershed management with emphasis on their operational decision - making arrangements. All the case studies established community - based regimes as a result of declining resource abundance, but differ in their operational rules, administration, effectiveness, and satisfaction among stakeholders. Even though legally the watersheds are state property, 73% of the villagers consider them communal property. Almost all villagers are aware of the community rules governing use, with 88% voluntarily accepting the rules and over 90% thinking that they are appropriate. Rule violation by members is seen as the greatest threat to continued existence in three of the communities. The communities are compared against seven design principles associated with more robust institutional characteristics for common property resources. In general, as anticipated, smaller watersheds close to the communities with clearly demarcated boundaries and fewer users and with high individual involvement in decision making are more robust.
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: Diagnostic surveys conducted in the mountain district of Lushoto, Northeastern Tanzania revealed a decline in banana (Musa spp.) production largely attributed to deteriorating soil health, soil erosion, low adoption of proven banana technologies, and at least partially, due to a lack of innovative scaling out approaches. Further, most farmers were not practicing soil and water conservation (SWC) because it is labor intensive. Focus group discussions and key informant interviews established that improved tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum), cabbage (Brassica spp.) and banana germplasm were the three most preferred technologies, and hence were considered important entry points. The uptake of these technologies was however different. Banana uptake was slowest because of the high cost of planting material. Limited planting materials were supplied by the African Highland Initiative (AHI) for multiplication using primary schools and farmer research groups. Improved banana technology was linked to SWC technologies that included stabilizing the soil by fodder species and increased manure from well-fed livestock to address the multiple constraints of erosion and declining soil fertility. In this paper, entry points refer to interventions addressing priority needs as identified by farmers, while linked technologies refer to integrated, complementary technologies that holistically address multiple constraints, leading to multiple benefits. Results show that in Lushoto, for example, the increase in farmers adopting improved banana germplasm from the original adopters, who were in direct contact with researchers, was about 1,125% within two years. The study shows that the use of innovative scaling out approaches increases the adoption of technologies that appear expensive and less attractive to farmers.
- [Show description] [Show abstract] [Hide description] [Hide abstract] DESCRIPTION: The highlands of Eastern Africa are characterized by high population densities and tightly coupled interac-tions between adjacent landscape units and users. Effective formal or informal natural resource governance is necessary to mitigate the potential negative social and environmental effects of individuals' behavior. Yet many natural resource management and development problems that require or benefit from collective solutions remain unresolved (German et al. Environ Dev Sustain 8: 535–552, 2006a; German et al. 2006b; German et al. Q J Int Agr 47(3): 191–216, 2008). We argue that many of the more intractable problems in improving governance stem from the trade-offs that underlie them, which may include a loss of livelihood options for at least some households, leading to governance break down. Following a brief introduction to natural resource management and governance in Eastern Africa, we analyze the results of participatory by-law deliberations by distilling the restrictions proposed gover-nance reforms pose to certain local stakeholders. We recommend that future policy for improved landscape governance couple institutional reforms with livelihood alternatives that reduce the burden of good governance on households. Keywords East African Highlands . Governance . Natural resource governance . By-laws . Community-based natural resource management . Ethiopia . Tanzania IntroductionABSTRACT: The highlands of Eastern Africa are characterized by high population densities and tightly coupled interac-tions between adjacent landscape units and users. Effective formal or informal natural resource governance is necessary to mitigate the potential negative social and environmental effects of individuals' behavior. Yet many natural resource management and development problems that require or benefit from collective solutions remain unresolved (German et al. Environ Dev Sustain 8: 535–552, 2006a; German et al. 2006b; German et al. Q J Int Agr 47(3): 191–216, 2008). We argue that many of the more intractable problems in improving governance stem from the trade-offs that underlie them, which may include a loss of livelihood options for at least some households, leading to governance break down. Following a brief introduction to natural resource management and governance in Eastern Africa, we analyze the results of participatory by-law deliberations by distilling the restrictions proposed gover-nance reforms pose to certain local stakeholders. We recommend that future policy for improved landscape governance couple institutional reforms with livelihood alternatives that reduce the burden of good governance on households. Keywords East African Highlands . Governance . Natural resource governance . By-laws . Community-based natural resource management . Ethiopia . Tanzania Introduction
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: The historical emphasis on technological innovation as a pathway to rural development has obscured the institutional foundations of development – in this case, the role of local and external organizations in shaping patterns of benefits capture. Agrarian communities have a host of ways in which they self-organize to buffer themselves from economic hardship, facilitate access to limited resources and foster social cohesiveness. Yet these forms of collective action often remain invisible to development actors. External agricultural research and development organizations also play an important role in structuring development pathways and opportunities for some while marginalizing others. They also tend to create new social structures at the community level, rather than build upon existing social capital to channel its potential as a driver of development. This paper summarizes research on the development and natural resource management functions of local organizations in the highlands of Ethiopia, and on the role of local and external organizations in structuring patterns of opportunity. Three key findings are highlighted, namely: that wealth tends to beget wealth, requiring concerted attempts to support resource-poor households; that local organizations tend to produce more equitable outcomes than external development organizations; and that local organizations for natural resource management (NRM) are deficient, despite the prevalence of local NRM concerns. Implications for agricultural research and development include the need to build upon the strengths of local institutions; make the practices of external development organizations more equitable; minimize the effect of existing wealth on the potential for wealth creation; and strengthen local organizational capacities to address commonly felt NRM concerns.
Recommended publications
Book
As this book goes to press, the Horn of Africa is experiencing one of the worst
food crises and droughts in five decades, with millions of lives in danger. In
times of such crises, attention is naturally focused on the urgent short-term
responses needed to keep people alive. Well-intentioned efforts often fail to
recognize the complex, multidimensional, and long-term causes of hunger,
poverty,... [Show full abstract]
Article
The use of co-investment activities to motivate farmers to carry out sustainable land management is increasingly recognized. Several co-investment efforts have been implemented to combat land degradation and increase agricultural production in the Ethiopian highlands. Nevertheless, these co-investment activities have not been documented. Moreover, the impacts of these activities have not been... [Show full abstract]
Data provided are for informational purposes only. Although carefully collected, accuracy cannot be guaranteed. Publisher conditions are provided by RoMEO. Differing provisions from the publisher's actual policy or licence agreement may be applicable.
This publication is from a journal that may support self archiving.
Learn more