A Learning Approach to Community Agroecosystem Management

Full text

Chapter 10. Interactions between Agroecosystems and Human Communities
Page 1
A LEARNING APPROACH TO COMMUNITY AGROECOSYSTEM MANAGEMENT
Clive Lightfoot, Maria Fernandez, Reg Noble, Ricardo Ramírez, Annemarie Groot, Edith
Fernandez-Baca, Francis Shao, Grace Muro, Simon Okelabo, Anthony Mugenyi=
Farmers, local extension workers and NGO field staff play increasingly more important roles in
‘community based’ agriculture and natural resource management projects or programs. Ideas about priority
problems and how they might be solved are expected to come from the community. A bottom-up, participatory
approach to project design and implementation is the operational hallmark of these projects.
Suddenly, communities rife with conflicts over the exploitation of farmland and natural resources are
expected to work together to conserve nature. Suddenly, farming systems that degrade the soil and pollute water
resources are expected to become ecologically sound. Suddenly, government and non-government institutions
that have had little experience working together are asked to form partnerships.
While no one doubts the desirability of these changes, little time or resources are given to bring them
about. Project participants are given no time to understand the perspectives of different communities about
agroecosystems and their management. Indeed, little effort is given to finding out who the stakeholders are, let
alone time for negotiating concerted action in the management of agroecosystems.
No one should really be surprised when project evaluators report that most farmers are not participating
in the project and that little will continue after the project ends. Equally we should not be surprised when the
expected farming or conservation improvements have not been realized. Farmers are often not impressed with
the impact of so-called ’improved' technologies. They complain that funds are attached to technological fixes
that are inappropriate. Little effort is given to the development of knowledge systems for ecologically sound
agriculture. Traditional knowledge about ecologically sound practices is rarely documented in a manner that is
useful to other farmers. Project participants are rarely plugged into the growing international knowledge system
of organic, ecological or alternative agriculture.
There is little room in projects to learn and change. External monitoring and evaluation, the main
opportunities for adjustments, usually provoke defensive attitudes in which mistakes are hidden rather than
learned from. As local people do not have the capability or responsibility for evaluation, valuable lessons go
unlearned. As local people remain isolated from external knowledge networks more appropriate technologies go
unused.
To complicate matters further, many African nations are decentralizing and privatizing much of their
public sector agriculture support services. District level staff are now asked to respond to farmer demands and
form partnerships with other service providers to meet those demands. The logic behind these policies is not only
to save government money through sharing tasks and narrowing responsibilities; but also to provide better
targeting of services and more efficient services. Building viable inter-institutional partnerships is hard, slow
work. Moreover, responding to farmer demands requires considerable flexibility and dynamism of those
organizations. How to create farmer demand for services and how to form viable partnerships is rarely a subject
of study. There are few success stories and best practices to build on. In these circumstances the challenge
confronting donors, central and local government officers, and project participants is to invent their own ways of
working. This is partly because local conditions and complexities require a level of on-site innovation that
cannot be satisfied by emulation of 'best practices'. This is not to say that the proverbial wheel must be
reinvented everywhere, but best practices do need to be adapted to local conditions or better still, re-invented by
local people. A capacity to re-invent and innovate is essential to partnership building and community progress in
agroecosystem management.
In this chapter we describe how a learning approach provides communities, local government and
agriculture service providers with opportunities to learn their own way through to better partnerships and better
management of agroecosystems. We describe an organizational structure for learning, a process for learning and
several key instruments to facilitate learning. We conclude with a look at what progress has been made in the
areas of community development of agroecosystem management strategies, farmer demand for agriculture
support services, formation of partnerships, and capacity for local innovation. Our conclusion ends with a brief
look at the constraints to further development of a learning approach to community-level agroecosystem
management
= In C. Flora (ed) Interactions between Agroecosystems and Human Communities. Advances in Agroecology Series, CRC
Press/Lewis Publisher. USA. 2000

Chapter 10. Interactions between Agroecosystems and Human Communities
Page 2
A LEARNING APPROACH
A learning approach builds joint capacity among community members, field level development workers
and service providers for local on-site innovation. Learning facilitates innovation in the way local people work
together and how they assess the performance of their partnerships and their agroecosystem management
strategies. Enhanced innovative capacity sets the stage for improving the management of agroecosystems and the
effective demand by farmers on agricultural support services. It also sets the stage for handing over more
responsibilities to local actors at every stage of the project cycle from design through evaluation.
The learning approach developed here draws on four lines of research. Research in the area of farmer
participatory development provides a great deal of experience in how to engage farmers in research and
development projects (Korten, 1980; Chambers, 1997; Pretty et al., 1995). Insights gained from research on
learning systems and soft systems provides a second foundation for this work (Checkland and Scholes, 1990;
Bawden, 1991; Daniels and Walker, 1996). Operational details have been greatly informed by research in area of
agricultural knowledge and information systems analysis (Engel and Salomon, 1994; Ramírez, 1997 and
multiple stakeholder management in forestry and in protected area management (Borrini-Feyerabend, 1996;
Daniels and Walker, 1996; Ramírez, 1999). On the biological side, operational details have been informed by
research in the areas of agroecosystem analysis (Conway, 1985; Altieri, 1989; Lightfoot et al., 1993; Lightfood
and Noble, 1993). We have woven the research methods of agricultural knowledge and information systems
assessment with the research methods of agroecosystems analysis to capture both the learning about the way
stakeholders are organized to respond to complex situations and the agroecological aspects (Conway, 1985;
Altieri, 1989; Lightfoot et al., 1993; Lightfoot and Noble, 1993).
This research provided the theoretical and methodological inputs into the development of a learning
approach that has engaged the International Support Group (ISG) and its local partners in Kenya, Uganda and
Tanzania for the past three years (ISG, 1999; DSS, 1999; Shao, Mlay and Muro, 2000). This development
attempted to insert a learning approach into the on-going development activities of a broad range of
organizations at community, district and national levels. It is from these experiences that we draw examples to
illustrate three dimensions of a learning approach. The first dimension described here is organizational. It
permits a comparison of organizational structures between research and development projects. Process is the
second dimension. This dimension elaborates a process for learning. Instruments for learning make up the third
dimension. These instruments facilitate our learning about:
 communities future visions of agroecosystem management and opportunities for their realization
 partnerships and alliances needed if communities’ are to realize their visions
 negotiations to build partnerships and alliances for action
 reflecting on agroecosystem management and partnership performance.
FIRST DIMENSION: ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE FOR LEARNING
Even though organizational linkages in research projects and in development projects vary enormously,
there are common patterns. Common patterns are, of course, over simplifications, but they do make it easier to
make the kind of comparisons shown in Figure 1. Here the organizational linkages in research and development
projects are top down. Many research projects build direct links between researchers working at the national
level, whether in a university or government research organization, and farmers. On-farm experiments are found
in many agriculture projects. Development projects, in contrast, involve extensionists from national and district
levels and sometimes local NGOs. Development projects work directly with groups of farmers. In both cases
there are few lateral links at the different levels. Where there are lateral links, they tend to be between research
and extension at the district level and increasingly between NGOs and extension where the former are engaging
the latter in their projects. In the growing number of community based natural resources management projects,
things are different. Here one finds linkages built among all relevant stakeholders at the local, regional and
national level. These project tend to follow a participatory action learning approach to development (Röling and
Wagemakers, 1998).
A learning approach forges lateral links among organizations and groups at each level and between
levels. Over time these linkages can result in the development of informal inter-institutional learning coalitions.
Local or village level learning coalitions need to bring together farmer self-help groups, community based
organizations, and local government authorities. District level inter-institutional learning coalitions need to bring
together representatives from non-government organizations, government research and extension agencies, local
government authorities, and private sector agricultural service providers. A similarly composed inter-institutional
coalition is also needed at the national level. The learning approach framework also requires that different levels
link together. Local coalitions benefit greatly from linkages with district level organizations. District and
national level organizations wishing to respond to community demands benefit greatly from linkage with local
learning coalitions. Opportunities occur from time to time within projects and within the operations of local

Chapter 10. Interactions between Agroecosystems and Human Communities
Page 3
governance for dialogue between organizations at all levels as well as, though less frequently, for dialogue
between levels. However, without commitment and resources of individuals within the organizations concerned
to continue to meet and learn, little progress will result. Infrequent, random consultations or workshops are not
enough to sustain a learning approach. Moreover, without a clear process for learning and instruments to
facilitate learning, little progress can be made. It should not be forgotten that organizations seek new linkages,
not for the abstract notion of learning, but to pursue their own goals. Linking and negotiating are awkward, time-
consuming efforts; but the organizations have come to realize that there is no better alternative, especially in the
decentralization age. These are the second and third dimensions to be discussed next. While the organization for
learning can be started within projects, they must move from project to project in order to increase their skills
and sustain themselves.
Figure 10 - 1. Linkages between participants in research, development and learning settings.
SECOND DIMENSION: PROCESS FOR LEARNING
Our description of a learning approach opened by defining the organizational context required for
learning about the process for learning. A number of elements were considered critical to effective joint
learning:
 face to face accountability and group pressure to favour community influence
 farmer led analysis, visioning and planning
 reflection and adaptation of the instruments of learning
Our process for learning has five distinct phases as shown in Figure 2. The learning process allows the partners
to analyze the performance of the partnerships, and find out where there is room for improvement. In this sense,
“learning” embraces a process of reflection in terms of the partnerships and the agroecosystem behavior and
performance.
The first phase starts at the local level with farmer self help groups and community-based organizations
learning about the agroecosystems in their areas and how they were managed thirty years ago and today.
Viewing from the past local people vision how they would like to change their agroecosystems in the future. The
desired changes formed the basis to identify the resources, services and support needed to realize their future
visions. Local learning about better ways to manage agroecosystems is enhanced by interactions with district and
national level extensionists and researchers.
These visions and the requirements of community members are presented to district level organizations
in the second phase of the learning process. In this phase communities' demands for agricultural support services
are matched with the services offered. It also provides an opportunity for community members visions to be
informed by district level extensionists and researchers. Thus local and district level organizations learn which
services match demands and what new services should be created to meet demands. Where demands go unmet
policy issues are raised of interest to national level policy makers.
Local
govt
Local
govt
Local
govt
NGO
NGO
Private
sector
Private
sector
research
research
extension
extension
farmers
Farmer
groups
Community based
organizations
NATIONAL
DISTRICT
LOCAL
research
develo
p
ment
learnin
g

Chapter 10. Interactions between Agroecosystems and Human Communities
Page 4
Figure 10 – 2. Phases in the process of learning
When the resources, services and support available match the community's requirements, there is a
basis for negotiating partnerships between community members and public or private sector groups, entities or
enterprises. In this phase the community and local organizations learn to develop partnerships that will increase
the community's access to resources, services and support required to realize their future visions of how their
agroecosystem should be managed. Providing opportunities for private and public services to present the
objectives and mandate of their own organization and the constraints they face has proven an important aspect
for the negotiation of a good partnership.
Following rounds of negotiations between partners, concerted actions occur. Action, the
implementation of improved agroecosystem management strategies, is the fourth phase in the learning process.
The hallmark of these actions is that:
 they are directed towards a vision of the future fashioned by local people
 local people are key actors in the implementation of the actions, and
 indicators of performance are established as the partnerships are negotiated
These performance indicators are used to facilitate reflection, the fifth and last phase in the learning
process. After action or implementing projects, partners at local and district level need to reflect on the
performance of their partnership and the performance of the agroecosystem management strategies. After
reflection district and local level organizations again revisit the community’s future visions of how
agroecosystems should be managed and what service partnerships are needed. Changes are made as a result of
what has been learned and another cycle is started. Learning is a continuous process that has no end as indicated
in Figure 2.
THIRD DIMENSION: INSTRUMENTS FOR LEARNING
Learning instruments facilitate each phase of the learning process. These instruments help the learners
answer key questions. Each phases of a learning process has its own specific set of key questions.
Phase I:
• Visioning future agroecosystem management strategies and the resources needed to implement them.
• What is the current status of your agroecosystem in comparison with the past?
• What would we like to see our agroecosystem look like in the future?
• Who do we need to partner with to realize our vision?
Phase II:
• Community members’ requirements are matched with accessible resources, services and or support.
• What opportunities do the communities have to gain access?
• What new opportunities need to be created?
Phase III:
• Providers and communities negotiate partnerships.
• What conditions facilitate the negotiation of effective partnerships?
REFLECTION on
actions taken and
partnership
performance VISIONING on
future
agroecosystem
management
PLANNING on
matching farmer
demands with
services provided
NEGOTIATING
new
partnerships
ACTION on
projects

Chapter 10. Interactions between Agroecosystems and Human Communities
Page 5
Phase IV:
• Partners design strategies of action around areas of mutual interest and implement their plans
Phase V:
• Performance is reflected upon.
• What indicators will allow us to learn whether the improved agroecosystem management practices
and the newly negotiated partnerships are performing well or not?
In the following section we give a brief description of learning instruments useful for visioning,
planning, negotiating and reflecting on the phases of our learning process. Each instrument is described and
illustrated by examples from work done in Ghana, Tanzania Uganda and Peru.
LEARNING INSTRUMENTS FOR FUTURE VISIONING OF AGROECOSYSTEM MANAGEMENT
Maps are instruments that help communities learn how the quality, quantity and use of the
agroecosystems that they manage have changed over the past thirty years and to visualize how they would like to
manage and use them in future. Matrices can be used to organize the information so that required resources,
services and support can be used to identify the partnerships that will be needed to make the envisioned changes.
At the end of Phase I a series of maps and matrices is available which provides information on the present state
and intended future state of natural resources as well as on the changes that need to be made and the kinds of
partnerships that can help bring them about.
Maps facilitate learning as they allow different groups or farmers, with different interests, to visualize
how the agroecosystem has changed both for the better and the worse over the last thirty years. They also allow
community members to discuss with each other and with outsiders, frequently government extensionists and
researchers, what they would like to see their agroecosystems look like in twenty years time. These maps use
local categories for characterizing farmland, forests, grazing areas, swampland and rivers, and other water
resources. They also include major landmarks like community boundaries, roads, houses and other infrastructure.
They indicate the major species of crops, livestock, fish, and trees. The map of the future is a vision of all the
new roads, houses, markets, water supplies and other infrastructure communities would like to see. New
agroecosystems management strategies for the forests, croplands, grass and swamplands are represented on the
completed map.
Matrices can help organize the information on the present state of natural resources and contrast it with
the changes needed to put improved management strategies into place. Working from the present and future
vision maps for each change proposed, farmers identify the resources, services and support they will need to
implement each change. Then a clear link is established between a requirement and kind of partnership needed to
realize the improved agroecosystems management strategy.
Figure 10-3 Agroecosystem map of the present situation, Soroti District, Uganda (Source: DSS 1999)

Chapter 10. Interactions between Agroecosystems and Human Communities
Page 6
Figure 10-4 Agroecosystem map of the future vision, Soroti District, Uganda (Source: DSS, 1999)
The example of agroecosystem maps in Figures 3 & 4, prepared by farmers from Soroti District in
Uganda, clearly shows an intention to intensify agroecosystem management in the future (DSS, 1999; ISG,
1999). The present scattered farms with small plots of root crops and few animals and almost no trees will in
future be replaced with more intensive farms having a more diverse array of crops, including coffee and upland
rice, zero grazing cattle operations, fish ponds and citrus orchards. Note that the expected rise in population is
represented by a need for more houses, a school, a market place and bigger roads. The changes in the croplands
noted on the map are captured in a matrix of future changes and the partners needed to bring them about.
Table 10-1 Future changes in agroeocosystem management and key partners, Soroti District, Uganda
(Source: DSS 1999)
Natural
Resource Changes Management Partners for Implementing Changes
Soil erosion control measures, farm
land consolidation Community, local government, Dept. of Agriculture
extension agents, NARO
Crop land
Introduce coffee, citrus, upland rice
and fish ponds UCA, local government, Dept. of Agriculture Extension,
Dept .of Forestry, seed suppliers, credit institutions,
marketing agents
Grazing
land Introduce improved pasture species,
better livestock health, more zero
grazing,
Community, local government, Dept. of Agriculture
Extension, Veterinary services, NARO, credit institutions
Wetlands Conservation areas, water dam
construction for irrigation Community, NEMA, NGOs, local council, Lands &
Survey, Dept. of Agriculture Extension, credit
institutions, marketing agents
The matrix, in Table 1, shows that grazing lands are to be rehabilitated by the introduction of improved
pasture species and the intensity of grazing reduced by an increase in zero grazing operations. The wetlands are
to be designated as conservation areas with irrigation facilities to enhance productivity.
The matrix indicates that a wide array of partners will be needed to provide the necessary support and
services. In addition to government services, there is a demand for seed suppliers, credit services and marketing
agents as well. The matrix also makes clear that to implement some changes groups of community members will
need to form partnerships with each other. For example, conservation of wetlands, management of grazing lands,
and the building of soil erosion measures all require intra-community partnerships.

Chapter 10. Interactions between Agroecosystems and Human Communities
Page 7
Figure 10-5 Future vision for the community of Colpar in 1998 (Source: Fernandez-Baca and Fernandez
2000)
As in the case of Soroti District, communities in the Quilcas District, Peru used participatory mapping
to identify their desired future. Men and women’s groups constructed their separate visions and these were then
joined to arrive at a common future vision for the community as a whole. Figure 5 shows the future vision of the
community of Colpar in 1998. The vision is of improved livelihoods achieved by way of sustainable agricultural
production, good infrastructure and tourism. The vision proposes that strong community organization and a clear
development is critical to arriving at the vision. However, stronger organization and a clear plan depend on
building capacity at family and community levels so that the over time, the elected authorities will be capable of
facilitating collaboration among organizations present in the community. They will also need to be effective in
negotiating partnerships with government and non-governmental support and service organizations outside of the
community.
Future visioning can be used not only as a tool to identify requirements for resources, services and
support, but also as a tool to monitor shifts in priorities over time. Table 2 compares the visions of Colpar with
that of Quilcas. The visions of these two neighboring communities are similar. For both Quilcas and Colpar, 1)
strong community organizations, 2) sound and sustainable resource management and 3) infrastructure that
facilitates physical and social well being, communication and networking among communities and with the
market are the main components of the visions. However, priorities have shifted over the years. As goals are met
through innovations and changes in strategy, new and more refined priorities become part of the vision. Table 2
compares the future visions of two communities in the District at two-year intervals between 1996 and 2000.
As with other participatory methods, these kinds of learning instruments can easily be misused.
Preparing maps of future visions can easily be hijacked by one or another interest group. For example, there are
only so many people who can physically be involved in drawing a map, so the task should be carried out by
small groups of farmers with common interests. It is important to be sure that as many perspectives as possible
are taken into account. Women’s interests are more likely than not to be issues as they often use natural
resources differently from men and they are often not included in community consultations.
Caution should also be applied to farmers’ visions of better ways to manage agroecosystems. Farmers’
ideas are not always ecologically sound. Ecological soundness is sacrificed not only out of lack of knowledge
but also out of a calculated trade off between utilization and conservation. Balancing these trade-offs is a very
difficult act for desperate communities. Community visions of how agroecosystems might be managed in future
benefit greatly from the exchange of information and ideas within the community as well as with extension
officers and researchers.

Chapter 10. Interactions between Agroecosystems and Human Communities
Page 8
Table 10-2 Desired future visions of two communities in the District of Quilcas Peru (Source: Fernandez-
Baca and Fernandez, ISG/Grupo Yanapai 2000)
Quilcas 1996 Colpar 1996
 Close coordination between the Municipal and
Community authorities so that tasks are well
defined and organization is improved.
 Conserved soils and irrigated areas within the
community to increment and diversify
agricultural production.
 Improved management of natural resources,
reforestation, soil conservation and improved
production through the use of organic
fertilizers.
 Design and implementation of an integrated
agroforestry and pastoralist system. Conserved
fauna.
 Reservoirs for small irrigation of vegetable
gardens and forage crops, for drinking water
and for fish farming
Quilcas 1998 Colpar 1998
 Member families in better socioeconomic
condition
 Good roads and an irrigation system.
 Member families have the capacity to
industrialize agricultural products
 Greater interest on part of financial institutions
to support the District Development Plan.
 Interinstitutional collaboration board
strengthened by agreements on common goals
and distribution of responsibilities among
members.
 Sustainable agricultural production based on a
solid community organization for land use
 Access to basic infrastructure by all member
families
 Capacity building opportunities for human
development
 A plan to stimulate ecotourism as a means to
improve the livelihood of member families in
operation
Quilcas 2000 Colpar 2000
 Improved soil conservation by way of
infiltration ditches, reforestation and pasture
management
 Community animal production unit operating at
full capacity and fish farm implemented
 Irrigation system established irrigation so that
every family can have a small vegetable garden.
 Inter-community boundary conflicts resolved
 Rules established for use of communal grazing
areas
 Agreement on distribution of responsibilities
with the District Authorities
 Erosion protection through reforestation,
terraces and infiltration ditches
 Strong and solid community organization
 Irrigation infrastructure forage and vegetable
production
 Improved livestock production
 Organic agriculture production increased
 Better elementary education
 Negotiations for the establishment of an
agricultural school.
 Increased land areas under community
management
 Pre-Hispanic remains restored and functioning
fish farm to attract tourism
 Roads that connects Colpar with neighboring
communities of Llacta and Casacancha
 A parabolic antenna to improve communication
 Sanitation infrastructure in the town center
LEARNING INSTRUMENTS FOR CLARIFYING REQUIREMENTS, PARTNERSHIPS AND
RESPONSIBILITIES
A series of tables can be used as learning instruments to help communities set out their requirements for
services and support. The demands of the community are sorted into three categories: community’s requirements
that match the services and support offered; requirements that can be met by creating a new service, and
requirements that cannot be met. In a second table, the responsibilities and actions needed to make services
already offered available to the community are explored. Later, the new services needed, the partnerships that
can leverage them and the responsibilities this will entail are organized. The use of tables facilitates learning by
helping to put the vision of the community and their requirements in a format that facilitates joint study and
discussion with potential partners and service providers. These kinds of instruments guide partners and service
providers into making decisions about how they will respond to the communities in their quest for improved
agroecosystem management.

Chapter 10. Interactions between Agroecosystems and Human Communities
Page 9
Table 10-3 Response capacity to farmer requirements, Kilosa District, Tanzania (Source: Shao, Mlay and
Muro 2000)
Requirement matches
existing service New service is needed
to meet requirement Requirement cannot be met
Advice on formulation and
monitoring of by-laws on the
management of natural
resources
Introduce improved pastures, livestock
breeds, cattle immunization, treatment
dips, market improvements, cattle
transfer permits and guaranteed
grazing areas.
Monitoring and Control of
deforestation and forest burning;
Assistance with tree planting.
Training of pastoralists on
improved livestock Identify new cash crops to be
introduced into different
agroecosystems
Improved availability of seeds.
Advice on proper use of land Training on appropriate sustainable
technologies that fit local
environment.
Monitor proper use of water
sources.
Training to ensure gender
issues are properly addressed
at village level and at work
places
Advice on how to form farmer
production groups,
Training on formation of co-operatives
Provision of financial assistance for
inputs, working tools and farmer
training.
Tables 3, 4 and 5 from Kilosa District in Tanzania illustrate how farmers, NGOs and government
extension officers at local and district levels responded to farmer demand for services to meet their future visions
for agroecosystem management (Shao, Mlay and Muro, 2000). Services that matched farmers’ requirements tend
to be those offered by on-going NGO and government extension programs that provide advice or training.
Farmers also required advice and training in areas that was currently not covered by present offerings. New
services were to be created in training in appropriate technologies and the formation of cooperatives and self
help groups. NGOs and government extension services also agreed to create services for the introduction of
improved livestock production and cash cropping. The requirements relating to deforestation, water use and
improved germplasm went unfulfilled, as did the demand for credit.
Table 10-4 Improving services that match farmer requirements, Kilosa District, Tanzania (Source: Shao,
Mlay and Muro 2000)
Service matching requirements Division of responsibilities Actions to be taken
Training of pastoralists on:
improved management of
grazing lands and
production and
maintenance of improved
livestock breeds
Training
Help establish
livestock production
groups (CBO's)
Demarcation of
grazing lands,
Training program on raising
good/productive livestock
Program on establishment of
livestock production groups
Program to determine and demarcate
available grazing land and water
resources for livestock in grazing
areas
Table 4 illustrates how farmers, NGOs and government extension officers of Kilosa District in Tanzania
proposed that the training of pastoralists on improved livestock production could an effective means of reaching
farmers’ future visions. The Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives already offers training to pastoralists.
However, in order for the pastoralists to be able to use the training received, land demarcation and group
organization is necessary. Thus the actions to be taken include not only the delivery of the training program, but
also the facilitation of groups among pastoralists and the negotiation of a plan to demarcate available grazing
land and water resources.
Table 10-5 Characteristics of breeding service in response to farmer requirements, Kilosa District,
Tanzania (Source: Shao, Mlay and Muro 2000)
New service New partners New responsibilities and actions
Breeding and
multiplication of
improved
livestock
Livestock keepers NGOs
District Councils
Researchers
Central Government
Research on improved pastures and livestock breeds
Repair and construction of cattle dips/spray races
Strengthening of markets for purchase and sale of improved
livestock.
Issuance of livestock transfer permits

Chapter 10. Interactions between Agroecosystems and Human Communities
Page 10
Table 5 illustrates how farmers and their partners brainstorm new services needed to meet farmers’
requirements. The table guides the participants into making decisions about which partners are needed to create
the new service and how responsibilities will be shared among the partners. In Kilosa District, farmers, NGOs
and government extension officers brainstormed a new service in the breeding of improved livestock to meet
farmers' requirements. All involved realized that in order to establish this service a complex of partnerships
would have to be formed. Partnerships would have to involve NGOs, national and local government authorities,
researchers and the livestock keepers themselves. A concerted effort among partners will be required to carry out
the array of new responsibilities in research, infrastructure, marketing and regulation the participants decided
were necessary if the effort is to be successful.
Inevitably, in any attempt to respond to farmer requirements in their effort to improve their strategies
for agroecosystem management, some demands cannot be met. If these are critical to the realization of future
visions, they become matters for policy. In our example credit to help farmers introduce new crops for the
market place or for improving pastures on their grazing lands was not available. The farmers convinced the
district and local government extension officers present that this lack of credit was a matter of concern to policy
makers. Farmers would need to plant more cash crops if they were to increase income sufficiently to reverse
practices such as overgrazing. In addition, they would need credit if they were to improve pastures as part of a
strategy to reverse the degradation of their grazing lands. The government officers agreed to take this policy
matter to the attention of higher levels of government.
The use of learning instruments can be limited or enhanced by the context in which they are used.
Community requirements often go beyond what government can provide, so the participation of other potential
partners from the NGO and private sector is vital. For the morale of all participants, farmers and government
officials alike, it is important to avoid a situation where most of the farmers' demands go unmet. There is often a
tendency in multi-stakeholder sessions for service providers, particularly those from government, to become
defensive if their services are criticized. So, both farmers and service providers should adopt a learning attitude
and see these sessions as an opportunity to learn which services are not meeting farmers’ requirements and
which new services might be more useful. The way communities manage their agroecosystems will change as
their resource base improves. So will their requirements for support and services. It is therefore prudent for
service providers to maintain a fair amount of institutional dynamism so that they can respond to the changing
requirements of farmers and communities.
LEARNING INSTRUMENTS FOR CLARIFYING CHARACTERISTICS OF SUCCESSFUL NEW
PARTNERSHIPS
The learning instrument to aid communities and service providers develop a set of attributes essential
for successful partnerships. Ideas are generated in brainstorming sessions in which farmers and service providers
recall the reasons why good partnerships worked and bad partnerships failed. The underlying reasons for success
and failure become attributes around which to negotiate and build partnerships that work.
The table facilitates learning as it helps participants come up not only with attributes of successful
partnerships but also with ideas of what negative things can happen if a partnership is not constructed on the
basis of them. Participants also identify the positive results of strengthening the attributes identified. The
completed table guides communities and service providers to choose the criteria and conditions that are most
relevant to a specific partnership. Knowing what might happen if either partner does not fulfill the conditions or
help strengthen the identified attributes helps reinforce commitment to the partnership. The attributes and
outcomes will be used as criteria with which to assess the success of partnership.
Table 6, illustrates the kind of ideas farmers, NGOs and agriculture extension officers came up with
using this simple table (Shao, Mlay and Muro, 2000). The number and range of ideas makes it easy for each of
partners to select some conditions and criteria that need to be improved in their partnership. Trust partners and
communication between partners, transparency in decision-making, and awareness building were agreed to be
the most critical attributes of partnerships. The participants agreed that without trust between partners the
services might not even be requested or accepted. Communication between partners was also considered crucial
since one-way top down directives do not result in sustainable partnerships or effective learning.

Chapter 10. Interactions between Agroecosystems and Human Communities
Page 11
Table 10-6 Attributes of successful partnerships and outcomes of developing them (Source: Shao, Mlay
and Muro 2000)
Attributes Negative outcomes if not developed Positive outcomes if developed
Trust between farmers and
service providers Services will not be readily accepted Successful service delivery
Co-operation between farmers
and service providers Refusal to accept new technologies;
poor participation Proper joint implementation
Services delivered at the right
time Service delivered late is not worth
using Services delivered on time can be
used when and where intended
Awareness creation Community not involved in
development planning activities Knowledge of development
programs in their community
Knowledge of services needed
according to capability Lack of good environment for good
service deliveries Plans that are acceptable to all
partners
Defining clear roles of each
partner Poor relationship between partners Efficient and proper action by all
partners involved
Communication amongst
partners Top down directives Sustainable commonly agreed
plans
Transparency during planning
and implementation Unimplemented directives and orders Trust between partners
Participation in decision making Refusal to implement and, poor
participation Mutual benefits for partners
Awareness creation of services Unclear/unwillingness to implement
plans Information/knowledge spread to
all
In Quilcas District, Peru, farmers from Colpar used a table to assess the status of relationships they had
with government and non-governmental organizations that already had a presence in the District. This exercise
was carried out to better understand what each support organization or service provider had to offer and to begin
to evaluate where partnerships could be strengthened. First a list of institutions was made of institutions
considered to be important to local development priorities, and the purpose of each entity was described. Then
the present status of the relationship was described taking into account the following criteria:
 The degree of respect they show to the community and for its interests
 The real contribution they make to the local development efforts
 Their potential they have for long-term support
The results of the assessment are given in Table 7. Community authorities used this assessment to
design a strategy for strengthening partnerships with those organizations whose agendas would contribute most
to reaching the communities future vision.
This kind of instrument is less prone to misuse than some of the others. Nevertheless some caution is
necessary in developing good attributes and outcomes. One source of bias occurs when the consequences of
negative outcomes do not effect both partners equally. It is important to good partnerships that both positive and
negative outcomes should equally effect both partners. Since a partners response to negative outcomes or
positive benefits to a partnership can change over time criteria need to be revisited.

Chapter 10. Interactions between Agroecosystems and Human Communities
Page 12
Table 10-7 Assessing the value of partnerships to reach the future vision, Quilcas District, Peru (Source:
Fernandez-Baca and Fernandez 2000)
Key Institutions Purpose Present status of relationship
Community families They are the ones that give impulse to
local development Very active
Community of Quilcas Organises access to resources and is
the legal representative for Colpar
community to the government
Respects Colpar’s autonomous
development efforts
District of Quilcas Is responsible for public services
within the area designated. Little coordination and unclear
division of responsibilities with
the community
Interinstitutional coordination
board A space for dialogue and negotiation
among institutions working in the
area
Although efforts are under way,
the space has not been
consolidated
Ministry of Agriculture
PRONAMACH Has provided ideas for soil
conservation and reforestation that
are being implemented by the
community on its’ own.
Has withdrawn from community
Ministry of Health Responsible for district health
services Has interest but very few
resources
Ministry of Education Responsible for education and
schools Provide support to the Parents’
education group
Commercial agriculture
establishments (local and
regional)
Source of external inputs and advice
for agricultural sector Prioritizes advice and inputs for
conventional production systems
NGOs
(Grupo Yanapai, SEPAR) Follow local development process
and provides support to local
organizations and technical advice
They are accepted by community
as far as they provide support and
are transparent in their objectives
Research Institutes
(INIA, CIP) Source of alternative technologies
and scientific knowledge At present, provide support for
agricultural experiments
LEARNING INSTRUMENTS FOR REFLECTING ON AGROECOSYSTEM PERFORMANCE
Learning instruments that allow partners to reflect on how their partnerships are performing and on how
their actions are effecting the 'sustainability' of their agroecosystems utilize both indicators and scoring. In both
cases, the initial task is to develop indicators for assessing performance. In addition a scale on which to score
each indicator is required. Indicator scoring facilitates learning, as plotting the scores graphically demonstrates
clearly to farmers and their partners where matters are improving and where they are not. Clear visual graphs and
charts immediately direct the participants’ attention to where progress has been made and where it has not. Clear
graphs provoke discussions on the all-important issue of what might be done to improve poor performance. Clear
graphs also facilitate transparent decision making, which is especially needed when deciding to change a course
of action or terminate a partnership.
When assessing the performance of agroecosystems management strategies, it is important for farmers
to choose indicators that not only make sense to them, but also are easy for them to measure. With regard to the
performance of agroecosystem management strategies farmers are interested in answers to questions like:
 How much more profit does the farm make for every dollar invested?
 How much more productive is the farm?
 How much more diverse is the farm?
 How much more recycling is going on?
Note that farmer indicators assess economic as well as ecological dimensions. The profitability of the
new agroecosystem management strategy assesses economic efficiency. Ecological dimensions are assessed
through determination of increases in biological production, bio-diversity and recycling of biological wastes.
Scoring for economic efficiency uses a simple profit-cost ratio. Scoring for biomass production capacity uses the
weight of biomass produced by all species. Recycling of biological wastes is scored using the number of
recycling flows, and species diversity uses the number of species cultivated or collected. Performance scores for
these four indicators are plotted in a simple four-way kite graph. It is important that each indicator is arranged on
an increasing scale of improvement so that the larger the kite formed the better the performance. Farmers find it
easier to use scores where the larger number indicates better performance.

Chapter 10. Interactions between Agroecosystems and Human Communities
Page 13
Figure 10 – 6. Four way kite graph of agroecosystem management performance indicators from
Mampong District Ghana. (source: Prein, Ofori and Lightfoot, 1993).
Figure 6 shows how a group of farmers from the Mampong District in Ghana assessed the performance
of their 'future' agroecosystem management strategy after one year of implementation (Prein, Ofori and
Lightfoot, 1993). The farmers' future vision of an improved agroecosystem management strategy included the
rehabilitation of a previously neglected wetland area through improving water flow and impounding water in a
small pond. The pond provided sufficient water to stock fish and irrigate newly established vegetable plots.
Wastes from all the animals were recycled to the pond and vegetable plot to substitute for chemical fertilizer.
After one year, with savings on external inputs, increased products going to market, increased meat and
vegetables being consumed at home, and increased internal recycling of wastes, farm gross and net incomes
went up by 50%. Cash profits rose to $8 return on every dollar invested. On the ecological side species diversity
increased to 24 species, biomass capacity to 1.4 tons per hectare and waste recycling flows from five to sixteen.
LEARNING INSTRUMENTS FOR REFLECTING ON PARTNERSHIP PERFORMANCE
When assessing performance of partnerships it is important for partners to choose the indicators from
the attributes developed for building and negotiating the partnership. Transparency in decision making, trust
between partners, access to information, awareness building and mutual benefits are all criteria that make good
performance indicators for partnership performance. Once indicators are chosen a scale on which to score
performance is developed. Given the subjective nature of most partnership indicators, performance is often only
seen as good, okay, or bad. At a very basic level performance can be scored with just these three levels.
However, better feedback is provided when more levels of scoring are used. Each partner scores the other.
Farmers score the performance of the service provider on the delivery of an agreed service, while service
providers score the performance of farmers on the responsibilities they agreed to take on in the partnership. Thus
the instrument captures the perspectives of each partner. Once the scoring has been done, both the positive scores
and, more importantly, negative scores should be reflected upon by all partners.
Moreover, visualization, and so documentation, ensure a transparency that helps in decision making.
This is particularly true when projects are not working well because of poor relationships between partners.
Understanding the perceptions of others often helps partners to discover that others are not satisfied with the way
they are working. Such understanding can be the start of negotiating desired changes better to meet expectations
in future, or the start of a mutual decision to end the partnership.
After one
y
ea
r

Chapter 10. Interactions between Agroecosystems and Human Communities
Page 14
Figure 10-7 Assessment of two projects using partnership quality indicators (Source: Shao, Mlay and
Muro 2000)
VERY
GOOD
GOOD
AVERAGE
BAD
VERY
BAD
TRUST INFORMA-
TION SUCCESS MUTUAL
BENEFIT
In Kilosa District, Tanzania farmers assessed the performance of the partnerships they were involved in.
Of the two projects assessed, the dairy goat project was a success story and while the honey bee one was a
failure (Shao, Mlay and Muro, 2000). To assess these two projects (Figure 7), farmers chose four indicators:
trust, information access, technical success and mutual benefit. They also developed a five point scoring scale as
follows: very bad, bad, average, good, very good. The dairy goat project succeeded because it was technically
viable, farmers were given good information on the project and on goat rearing technology both before and
during the project, and farmers felt they had benefited greatly from the project. Farmers felt the service providers
had benefited as well, but farmers did not develop more that an average amount of trust for the service provider
during the project. Farmers felt that while they had received adequate information during the implementation of
the honeybee project, the partnership failed. It failed because raising bees was difficult technically, farmers were
able to produce very little, and so they did not benefit much. Lastly, throughout the project the partners were not
able to build trust for each other.
Perhaps more than any of the other learning instruments, scoring partnership performance raises
emotions and heated debates. Sometimes debate is a good thing and sometimes it is not. A common, and useful,
debate occurs over the choice of what are the most important indicators. Men and women may propose different
indicators because each may have different concerns as regards agroecosystems management. Other groups
within a community will have specific interests and so will suggest particular indicators. Time spent negotiating
agreement on indictors is useful as it helps forge understanding between disparate groups.
Unhelpful debates often arise from the subjectivity of scoring. When highly subjective indicators are
scored using 'feel good' scales, the learning instrument can break down in needless heated argument. When this
happens it is best to revisit the indicator and scoring scale rather than pursue an agreed assessment. However,
one has to be careful about suppressing perceptions. This is particularly true in the assessment of partnerships.
Partnerships are based on relationships that often work on perceptions. Each partner scores partnership
performance because all partners want to discover how the others appreciate their contribution to the common
effort.
Dairy goat project
Honey bee project

Chapter 10. Interactions between Agroecosystems and Human Communities
Page 15
CONCLUSIONS
The learning approach in agroecosystem management improvement is based on the view that equal
partnership between rural communities and private and public sector organizations and entities can increase
opportunities for insuring environmental sustainability and dignified livelihoods for those who manage marginal
and degradable land areas. The learning approach focuses on enhancing community capacity to require
resources, services and support from government and other service providers. With a clear vision of what their
future should look like and supported by information of what is needed to achieve that vision, community
members are in a better position to present their case to district authorities and other potential partners. However,
this is not just about the community asking, it is also about service providers responding. Instruments that can
help community members and service providers work together on a response to farmer identified requirements
have been exemplified here.
The use of the instruments presupposes that potential partners, community members and service
providers have been convened. District authorities are often the most appropriate convenors if the task is to
determine which of the requirements that farmers have match with existing services, what new services need to
be created, and what requirements will have to go unmet. Moving from knowing what to do to doing something
about it requires that organizations (government and non-government) have the dynamism needed to pick up
needed new services by dropping old and unwanted ones. Many local governments are not prepared to put the
necessary effort, time and resources into getting consensus within their organizations to make the required
changes. Local government managers are often unclear about just how flexible their organizations and are too
insecure of their own employment to risk changing or dropping services or enter into the kinds of new service
partnerships that farmers are demanding.
Progress has been made in changing attitudes, realizing the necessity of partnerships, and developing
partnership formation skills. The creativity and knowledge of communities regarding agroecosystem
management often surprise agricultural service providers at district level who hitherto thought of small-scale
farmers as backward and resistant to modern agriculture. For their part farmers have changed their attitude
towards government as well. Farmers now realize that funds are no longer available for handouts and free inputs
as in the past. They are more aware that officials face their own difficulties of understaffing and insufficient
financial resources. All concerned recognize the need to build partnerships.
It has become clear that there is no going it alone in agroecosystem management. Government, farm
communities, and service providers must work together in partnerships. Some progress has been made in the
development of instruments for building partnerships. There are instruments for identifying potential partners,
and there are instruments that can help communities and service providers to work together to develop clarify
roles and responsibilities for each partner. Then there are instruments for identifying the attributes of desired
partnerships and conditions that can be negotiated. Finally, there are instruments available for reflecting on
partnership performance. The development of these instruments represents one area of local innovation that has
occurred as a result of using the learning approach.
Progress in enhancing capacity for local innovation is another important effect of working with a
learning approach. The ability of local people to invent ways of doing things that work in their contexts is vital to
community progress in agroecosystem management. Local capacity to develop learning instruments that
facilitate consultations at community or district level that take people beyond the 'talk-shop' has emerged.
Operational procedures for when, where and how consultations should take place and who should be there are
being prepared. Capacity to invent ways of visualizing, recording, and documenting what has been learned from
the use of the learning instruments is increasing. Documentation not only captures outputs for all to see but also
insures transparency. Transparent impact assessments and decision making practices are vital if investors,
whether they be local governments, charities or donors are to became more committed.
Progress on developing a learning approach for improved agroecosystem management, where
partnerships between communities, local government, and service providers are necessary, faces many
constraints. In the offices of the local government and service providers constraints are everywhere. Officers are
not prepared to pay the high transaction costs of establishing learning frameworks. It takes time, effort and
resources for the concerned organizations to meet and develop learning instruments and agree on the appropriate
operational process for learning. It takes time and effort to build enough consensus within the organization to
support a learning approach; this is particularly true where departments within an organization are warring with
each other. Finding the necessary funds to support the learning process is another constraint as sharing the
budget across organizations is difficult. Government agencies are seldom willing to allocate their scarce funds to
NGOs or even buy the services of NGOs for what are seen as low priority activities like staff learning.

Chapter 10. Interactions between Agroecosystems and Human Communities
Page 16
A more difficult set of constraints to grasp is the complexity of relationships between local and central
government and donors. There are questions of confidence. Central managers often doubt local capacities.
Donors often attach heavy-handed control over funds for fear of local misuse. There are questions of
empowerment. District governments, while empowered to decide, often wait for 'go-signals' from the center and
donors. Then, there are questions of interpretation. Central governments and donors may say fund allocation is a
local decision, but their veto on budgets undermines this interpretation from the point of view of the local staff.
Technical assistance is often viewed in a similar fashion. Centers may say technical matters are local decisions
but the insistence on providing technical advisors contradicts this affirmation. It is very rare for a local initiative
or innovation to override those of the technical advisory team. Learning approaches that facilitate and rely on
local innovation cannot thrive if local decisions are not respected.
Learning approaches thrive in situations where the learners want to learn and where the learners bestow
legitimacy on the convenors of multi-organization coalitions. Learning approaches cannot be imposed in a top-
down fashion by project implementers. Rather, those wishing to support learning approaches should seek
invitations from the learners to facilitate learning. They should get mandates from the learners. Ideally, the
learners should own the funds for learning as well as the responsibility for making progress. Meeting these
'ideals', however, is difficult both within special projects and within regular work programs of centralized
organizations.
Special projects have the ability to implement actions and get participants working. They are, however,
less able to respond to participants changing needs, and they rarely have mandates to give up economic control
of the project to the participants. They are not equipped to support local innovation, especially where technical
advisors are preoccupied with doing things a specific way. Although building a learning space into on-going
development agency work avoids many of the weaknesses of projects it does have its own problems.
Undoubtedly, costs in time and money are small when the learning activity is substituted for existing
consultations or evaluations, and when it is spread out over a long time frame. Certainly the learners can
empower the facilitators and bestow legitimacy on the process. However, a learning activity is almost impossible
to package so that human and financial resources can be allocated to it. Although monitoring and the
measurement of impact need to be tailored to local processes, we are convinced that the learning approach opens
new opportunities to take control of agroecosystem management improvement processes.

Chapter 10. Interactions between Agroecosystems and Human Communities
Page 17
REFERENCES
Altieri, M. A, Agroecology: The Science of Sustainable Agriculture, Westview Press, Boulder, 1989.
Bawden, R. J., Systems thinking and practice in agriculture, Journal of Dairy Science, 74, 2362, 1991.
Borrini-Feyerabend, G., Collaborative Management of Protected Areas: Tailoring the Approach to the Context,
IUCN, Gland, Switzerland, 1996.
Chambers, R., Whose Reality Counts? Putting the First Last, IT Publications, London, 1997.
Checkland, P. and Scholes, J., Soft Systems Methodology in Action, John Wiley and Sons, Chichester, UK, 1990.
Conway, G. R., Agroecosystems analysis, Agriculture Administration Vol. 20, 31, 1985.
Daniels, D. and Walker, G., Collaborative learning: improving public deliberation in ecosystem-based
management, Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 16, 71, 1996.
DSS, Proceedings of a Orientation Exercise in Linked Local Learning, July 2-3, 1999, Soroti, Uganda, mimeo,
DDS, Soroti, Uganda, 1999.
Engel, P. H. and Salomon, M., RAAKS a participatory action research approach to facilitating social learning for
sustainable development, in Systems-Oriented Research in Agriculture and Rural Development, Papers
of AFSRE International Symposium, Montpellier, France, 1994.
Fernandez-Baca, E. and Fernandez, M. E., Evaluando la Sostenibilidad de las Estrategias de Desarrollo de
Comunidades Rurales, Final Project Report to Red de Investigación en el Manejo de Sistemas de
Producción (RIMISP), mimeo, Amersfoort, Netherlands: ISG, 2000.
ISG, East African Seminar: Developing a Framework for Linked Local Learning, Project Final Report to
DANIDA, mimeo, ISG, Amersfoort, Netherlands, 1999.
Korten, D., Community organization and rural development: a learning process approach, Public Administration
Review 40, 5, 1980, p. 480.
Lightfoot, C., Dalsgaard, J. P., Bimbao, M., and Fermin, F., Farmer participatory procedures for managing and
monitoring sustainable farming systems, Journal of the Asian Farming Systems Association, 2 (2), 67,
1993.
Lightfoot, C. and Noble, R., A participatory experiment in sustainable agriculture, Journal for Farming Systems
Research and Extension, 4 (1), 11, 1993.
Prein, M., Ofori, J., and Lightfoot, C., Research for the Future Development of Aquaculture in Ghana, ICLARM
conference proceedings 42, ICLARM, Manila, Philippines, 1993.
Pretty, J., Guijt, I., Scoones, I., and Thompson, J., A Trainer's Guide for Participatory Learning and Action,
IIED, London, 1995.
Ramírez, R., Participatory learning and communication approaches for managing pluralism: implications for
sustainable forestry, agriculture and rural development, Pluralism and Sustainable Forestry and Rural
Development Conference, December 9-12, 1997, Rome, 1999, p. 117.
Ramírez, R., Understanding farmers’ communication networks: combining PRA with agricultural knowledge
systems analysis, IIED Gatekeeper Series No.66, IIED, London, 1997.
Röling, N. G. and Wagemakers, M. A., eds, Facilitating Sustainable Agriculture: Participatory Learning and
Adaptive Management in Times of Environmental Uncertainty, Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge, UK, 1998.
Shao, F., Mlay, E., and Muro, G., eds., Proceedings of a District Multi-Stakeholder Workshop on Linked Local
Learning, June 12-16, 2000, Mikumi, Kilosa, Tanzania, mimeo, FANRM, Dar es Salaam, Tanzania,
2000.