Training, Extension and Awareness Creation: three forms of communication-based interventions.

Meanings are in people

Training, Extension and Awareness Creation are all forms of change-oriented communication in which a sender or source conveys messages to one or more receivers with the explicit purpose of establishing a change in the knowledge, attitudes and, ultimately, the behaviour or practices of those receivers. A simple model of the communication process is given in the diagram below.

The SMCRE-model of communication

• a source or sender, for example, may have a problem in translating or encoding a thought or idea into a proper message that his intended receivers are able to understand. Scientists, policy makers (and computer freaks) often use so much jargon that they come up with messages that a layman cannot really be expected to understand;
• a source may also select a wrong channel to convey his messages to the respondents that he wants to reach. Real life examples are numerous, for example of projects that spent thousands of US dollars on producing brochures and leaflets with texts and illustrations that their client-population did not understand or misinterpreted because they were either illiterate or not used to ‘reading’ photographs and illustrations. The classic example, however, is that of the medical team that used a one-foot large model of a mosquito to explain the dangers of malaria in an African village. Their explanation met with a lot of grinning and joking from their audience, which the medics did not understand until somebody in the group reassured them by pointing at the model and saying ‘Don’t worry about our health. We have never seen so large a mosquito in this area’;
• while, finally, senders and receivers may not always use communication as the two-way process, in which senders and receivers change roles constantly, that it is meant to be. This can easily happen in cultures where it is considered impolite to speak to or enter into a discussion with a higher-up after he has spoken, let alone to contradict him. There are for example many communities and societies in which women, even if they are present, are not expected to speak out in public. The same holds for communities where the village elders take the major decisions and the common people are expected to do what the elders have decided. In those cases feedback is at best partial, because it came from the men or the village elders only. If he does not take care, the sender can in those cases never establish whether or not his messages effectively reached the women or the common people that he probably intended to reach in the first place.

Apart from the above, however, there is a communication problem that is very often overlooked, especially in situations where the sender desperately wants to change the knowledge, attitudes or practices of his receivers. In such situations the sender may be so eager to make the receivers change that he does not notice that the latter are using an entirely different ‘language’ or ‘key’ in decoding the messages that he encoded. The following are examples:

• a village level agent in a dairy development project is visiting a farmer in one of his villages. The agent is convinced that the widespread introduction of zero-grazing practices is an excellent way to modernise dairy keeping in the area and, without further checking, bombards the farmer with enthusiastic messages about what he could or should do to get a zero-grazing system on his farm as soon as possible. The farmer, however, is not at all amused. His perception of dairy development is that you should stay away from it as far as possible. He has heard too many stories about milk collectors or co-operatives who cheat on farmers trying to sell their milk, in the end leaving them with a big loss rather than a decent return on their investments in a zero-grazing system. What he wants to invest in are his pyrethrum and sunflower enterprises.

The above shows that ‘development’ may mean entirely different things to different people and that they may use different ‘languages’ or ‘keys’ to encode and decode messages concerning the best way to achieve it. Of course the agent in the above case could have found out by first of all exploring and discussing this farmer’s particular development needs and preferences. His failure to do so, which was caused by his own enthusiasm for zero-grazing, led to the classical situation of an extension worker either coming up with the solution for a problem that the farmer does not have, or with a wrong solution for a problem that the farmer does have.
• The designers of a livestock development scheme have come to the conclusion that their programme needs a strong credit component to enable farmers to purchase the materials and inputs associated with the improved livestock production practices that their programme recommends. They have worked this out by establishing village-based credit co-operatives in their programme area and are now finding that only limited numbers of farmers are prepared to actually join these. At first the programme managers thought that this was because the farmers rejected their programme’s recommended practices and improved technology, but no: discussions with non-adopting farmers soon showed that the problem was not in the recommended improved practices, but in the credit co-operatives. Basing themselves on earlier experiences the majority of farmers associated ‘co-operatives’ with ‘giving the rich and powerful ample opportunities to monopolise a development programme’ and ‘associations from which the common man had nothing to expect’. The situation only improved after the programme introduced a credit-scheme that enabled farmers to take out individual rather than collective loans.

The above situation can, again, be interpreted as one in which senders and receivers have different perceptions of and give different meanings to an idea or concept. In this case the concept of ‘co-operatives’ had different meanings for the programme administrators and the farmers.

The intervention circle.

Training, extension and awareness creation are communication-based interventions that aim to bring about changes in an existing situation. Not, to be clear, in the situation of the trainer, the extension agent or the administrator who is responsible for initiating the intervention process, but in that of the party at which the programme is directed: its ‘intended beneficiaries’, ‘clients’ or ‘target group’.
 

The intervention circle above shows the elements that all intervention programmes have in common:

• they are directed at a certain target group;
• they are initiated to achieve certain goals and objectives;
• and offer the target group certain services and facilities to reach these;
• for which the programme uses a certain approach and methodology;
• and organises its activities in a certain manner.

The circle's usefulness as an instrument to quickly analyse an intervention programme or, as will be discussed below, a communication programme depends on the way in which the various elements in the circle are being described. Descriptions should be as precise and detailed as possible, especially those of the target group and of the goals or objectives of a programme. For example:

• 'the farmers' is not a good description of a target group. Depending on its location a farming population may be made up of large, medium and small farmers; farmers who keep cattle and those that do not; male farmers and female farmers; farmers that have access to irrigated land and those that have not; farmers that need credit to participate in a development programme and those that can afford to buy inputs and materials themselves; et cetera. A good intervention programme adapts its approach and methodology, its programme offerings and its programme organisation to the specific target group at which it is directed and the intervention circle should show this;
• goals and objectives in the diagram should be described in terms of the changes that a programme wants its target group members to make in their knowledge, attitudes and/or practices. A description like 'the programme objective is to introduce improved husbandry practices in the area' is not specific enough and should be rephrased in, for example, 'the objective of the programme is to have 20% of the target group members inoculate their animals against rinderpest by the end of programme year 2, 50% at the end of year 3 and 75 % at the end of year 4'.

• if there is a conflict between the two, the clients of an intervention programme will often seek to satisfy their short-term interests to the detriment of their long-term ones;
• and they will seek to satisfy their personal interests, rather than collective ones. This holds in particular for programmes in the area of Livestock and Environment Interactions where policy makers and programme administrators propose measures to reduce environmental hazards. Farmers often flatly reject such measures because they imply changes that go against their personal interests. In such cases it sometimes helps to include additional incentives in the Programme Offerings, like financial ones, that may persuade farmers to do what is in the collective interest, rather than their own.

The intervention circle was originally designed for analysing communication and extension activities. Its original configuration looked as follows:

In principle the intervention circle above works in exactly the same manner as the one shown earlier. In the context of this chapter, it is easy to see that the target groups for a training programme differ from those in extension and public awareness programmes, as it is also clear that an awareness programme that is directed at rural populations will differ from one that is intended for urban areas. The more detail and precision there is in the descriptions of a programme's intended target group and the goals or objectives that it wants to reach, the easier it is to describe the messages, the communication means and media and the programme organisation that are most suitable to effectively communicate with this group.
 

Awareness Creation at Policy Level

Background

Overall there is an increasing concern for the impact of human activities on the environment. In this respect the popular perception is that livestock production and processing are associated with negative environmental effects, whereas the positive functions of livestock are often neglected, such as the conversion of pastures and wastes into high quality food and their contribution to sustainable crop cultivation and food security. The focus on symptoms of environmental degradation rather than on the actual causes has resulted in many biased and different views amongst the public and policy makers.

A more balanced overview of Livestock – Environment Interaction is presented in "Livestock & the Environment, finding a balance" and "Livestock & the Environment, issues and options". Based on these reports the toolbox has been developed as a means and source of information to assess issues and options in a given situation.

Both, the reports and the toolbox have been designed to contribute to solving one of today’s most crucial dilemmas in agriculture: how to find a balance between a fast growing demand for food and the need to sustain the natural resource base of land, water, air, and biological diversity. As such they are important sources of information for the creation of more public and political awareness about Livestock – Environment interactions in the context of policymaking, program planning, implementation, monitoring and evaluation. Information is presented in the toolbox in a format designed to assist policy makers in getting a more balanced view.

One option for increasing the awareness of policy-makers of the issues is to organise a national workshop, based on the toolbox with the objective not only of creating more awareness but also of assisting with assessment of the actual situation in the country. For the purpose of introducing participants to the issues and to the toolbox, a PowerPoint presentation has been developed. More details on how to use the toolbox are presented in a manual, which includes a structure diagram. The following text describes suggestions for the format of a national workshop.

National Workshop

These suggestions describe the format for a national workshop to be organised in the context of the overall objective of mitigating negative and enhancing positive livestock environment interactions, in view of an increasing demand for animal products and an increasing pressure from population growth and livestock activities on the natural resource base.

1. Workshop objectives

• helping policy makers to recognise livestock – environment interactions in the various production systems and areas
• awareness creation of potential benefits of mitigating negative and enhancing positive interactions
• helping policy makers to see the benefits of making the tools and skills available for addressing livestock – environment interactions in a defined area

• to identify areas and livestock production systems of concern
• to identify situations where there is a potential to mitigate negative and enhance positive livestock environment interactions
• to prepare a proposal for a detailed assessment of systems or environmental factors in areas with a potential for change by using the toolbox and implementing its suggested options

Core participants in the workshop should be policy makers from ministries / departments of:

• livestock production
• crop cultivation
• forestry
• environment
• land use planning
• rural development
• urban development
• planning

4. Organisation

A National Research Organisations could organise the workshop. As an organisation it has a more neutral position in relation to the subject, will have the facilities and can provide the necessary moderators and supportive staff to organise the workshop. Specialists could prepare and present introductions on the subject for the workshop.

5. Workshop Program

5.1 Introduction

- Objectives and workshop program

• Livestock and environment by a livestock specialist describing different forms of livestock production and their relationship to crop cultivation and the environment.
• Environment and livestock by an environmentalist describing livestock production compared to agriculture and other uses of natural resources in relation to the environment.
• Structure and mode of operation of Toolbox by a resource person with experience in using the toolbox

Teams of participants will use the toolbox to identify areas with a potential to enhance the positive interactions of livestock on the environment and / or to mitigate negative impacts. In general such a potential is greatest in areas where there is growth in livestock production or where there is a crisis due to degradation of the environment.

In view of future interventions it may be logical to review the situation by administrative area (region, district) or area under special authority (municipality, watershed, large-scale irrigation schemes, etc.).

A detailed assessment requires the involvement of stakeholders, while options to enhance positive and / or mitigate negative interactions in general require additional investment and / or an increase in production costs. Therefore, it is recommended to select at this first stage those areas where there is some guarantee that tools and skills be made available to assist farmers and communities to invest in new farming practices and adjust community natural resource management to assure their participation.

Results of this exercise will include a listing of areas that require a more detailed assessment. This assessment can not be performed at central level but should be done at area level by planning officers, sector specialist responsible for the area and by stakeholders. This will require time allotment and means to perform such a task.

5.3 Discussion and Conclusions

Results are discussed, trying to draw up an action list as follows:

• Is there the political will amongst policy makers to allocate tools and skills for a more detailed assessment at area level?
• Which sectors should participate and contribute?
• Who will take the lead for follow-up activities?
• If follow-up agreed, in which area(s), how to organise?

The discussion may result in conclusions, but participants may also need more time for reflection and consultation with their departments. In that case a date and an agenda for a next meeting should be fixed.
 

Livestock Environment Interaction Assessment at Area Level

Background

Recent changes in government organisation have resulted in decentralisation of planning and program implementation to sub-national levels: districts, water shed management authorities, etc. Consequently the centre relies increasingly on information and communication with the lower levels of administration for its policy making and planning of measures to guide development.

It is assumed that the centre has

• defined an area of concern
• requested officers at area level to do a detailed assessment by making use of the toolbox according to an approach of stakeholder participation.
• methods and skills are available for this exercise.

In specific cases it may be necessary to identify interventions specifically addressing Livestock Environment issues. Results of the assessment can then be used to formulate a programme proposal for such interventions.

The procedure is composed of the following major steps

• Team formation
• Awareness creation in the area
• Assessment by using the toolbox
• Identification of options with stakeholders
• Integration of options in ongoing programs or formulation of a specific program

1. Team formation

At the area level a multi-disciplinary team is formed. Core members are:

• livestock subject matter specialist
• environmental / natural resource management specialist
• agriculture subject matter specialist
• planning officer
• extension officer

Training on the use of the toolbox by an officer familiar with the use of it.

In the procedure the team are also responsible for awareness creation and communication with stakeholders and the public in the area of concern

2. Awareness creation at area level

Public awareness creation is the first step.

From the beginning the area staff should be involved in the preparation of information for awareness creation as they are best placed to describe the specific conditions and situation in the area.

They may still require an input from policy makers / researchers to explain the government concerns, e.g. a radio interview with a high official.

In general, stakeholders and the public are well aware of the principal impacts of livestock production on the environment and the underlying causes.

Awareness creation should therefore build on this common knowledge and focus on

• need for change
• willingness of government to participate
• prospects that positive impacts can be enhanced and negative be mitigated
• procedure that will be followed:
• assessment by team of local specialists, selection of cases
• identification of options with stakeholders through PRA
• integration of options into existing procedures for policy making, program planning, implementation, monitoring and evaluation.

Dissemination of information could be by public media such as radio and TVor in newspapers including the names of centres where people can get more information.

A useful method is to provide information through interviews and meetings. Dissemination of information is the first step in communication with the public and stakeholders.

Communication is two way, however, and one should be prepared to receive and respond to questions, comments and requests for more information. The public extension service could play the role of communication centre for individual stakeholders and the public, the co-ordinating desk (i.e. planning office) for local organisation and enterprises / industries.

Along with the implementation of the programme the extension service and the co-ordinating desk will keep their function as communication centre to create more awareness and assist in the communication with stakeholders, the public and the media.

Remarks

If the strategy is to prepare issues and options for consideration in existing procedures of participatory policy making and program planning then the responsibility to respond to reactions from stakeholders and the public can be shared with those responsible for these procedures.

If the strategy is to prepare for an intervention specifically on Livestock – Environment interactions then the team should be prepared to take all responsibility.

3. Assessment using the toolbox

3.1. Systems

Before using the toolbox members should first agree upon the principal livestock production systems in the area of concern. Next they look for similarities between actual systems and those described in the toolbox. Actual systems may very well be combinations of toolbox systems. The users should then proceed by considering all the toolbox systems in that combination.

To identify the relevant livestock systems they can make use of their own knowledge and insight and of information they are familiar with from programme reports, studies, research etc.

Development trends

If the area is subject to rapid change, this can result in changes in the types of stakeholder involved and in an increase or a decrease of

• livestock production in association with crop cultivation or other uses / functions of the environment
• competition between livestock production with crop cultivation or other uses / functions of the environment

Results:

• livestock production systems identified
• related stakeholders and communities identified
• overview of underlying causes and changes in and between livestock production systems
• insight into dynamics and diversification in farming and use of natural resource base.

The environmental risks and benefits by system are assessed through reviewing the matrix on risks and benefits in the toolbox. Principal aspects of concern are:

• impact of livestock production on environment
• contribution of livestock to sustainable crop cultivation

- per system a series of environmental risks and benefits

3.3. Underlying causes

Next step is to review per system the underlying causes by environment factor and their corresponding matrix on Driving Force – State – Response.

Results

• per system insight into the major factors causing changes in environmental risks and benefits

With the results obtained the team should be able to select the most relevant systems and / or areas and stakeholders involved for further consideration.

Results from the assessment should be verified with stakeholders at farm and community level through consultations and PRAs.

The objective is to come to a shared view on environmental risks / benefits and the underlying causes.

These sessions serves in the meantime as a preparation for the discussion on policy and technology options to mitigate the negative and enhance positive livestock environment interactions, the next step.

Results

- systems and stakeholders identified and prepared for discussion on options
 

4. Identification of options with stakeholders

As with the production systems, first the present ideas amongst team members and stakeholders should be assessed, before comparing them with those suggested by the toolbox. It is not recommended to work the other way round as it can easily result in choosing options that are not fully understood / shared by stakeholders and communities.

Identification of options with stakeholders and communities through PRA.

There are policy (including institutional), technicaland training options.
 

From options to action.

Options now become proposals to be considered in participatory policy making and program planning. Within the planning actions in programmes, indicators and means for monitoring and evaluation should be incorporated.

Getting the needed support may require again an effort of awareness creation addressed to responsible officers of organisations supervising and funding the various programmes that could / should participate. This may require again support from authorities at higher level.

In specific cases it may be necessary to have interventions specifically addressing Livestock Environment issues. Results of the assessment can then be used to formulate a project proposal for such interventions i.e. by using the EU guideline for Project Cycle Management.

Results:

• positive impacts of livestock on the environment enhanced and negative impacts mitigated by producers and processing industry with support from communities, programs, institutions and services
• an organisational frame work for monitoring and adjusting activities according to developments
• indicators identified for monitoring and evaluation

The Virtual Research and Development Centre on Livestock and Environment Interactions

The Virtual Centre of the Livestock, Environment and Development Initiative provides local, regional and national communities and authorities with alternative technologies and their policy requirements for land-livestock-food systems that meet their short term needs for food, forage, fibre, and fuel as well as long term needs for environmental services; and provide policy decision-makers with the knowledge they need in order to develop and promulgate policies that encourage the development and use of sustainable land-livestock-food systems. Further information can be found at: http://lead.virtualcenter.org

The functions of the Virtual Centre are:

• to assist in capacity building in developing countries and function as a “clearing house”, disseminate results and provide baseline information and resource intelligence;
• to facilitate international pilot development programmes among research and development institutions and individuals, and assist in carrying out additional studies on livestock environment issues;
• to provide support to decision-making on livestock-environment issues, support mainstreaming of livestock and environment issues in donor operations, and assist in the formulation in national action plans.

Participatory Learning and Action Collection

The IIED Resource Centre is a unique service for those seeking practical information and support on all aspects of research on participatory methodologies with a particular focus on their application and integration into institutional structures. Further information can be found at:  http://www.iied.org/resource/index.html

This expanding collection includes material on all major aspects of participatory approaches from around the world. The documentation consists mainly of unpublished literature, case studies and reports, and features material in more than ten languages. New items are added to the collection every month.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Agenda Building Concept in Policy Making

The concept of agenda building in policy making combines methods of Participatory Rapid Appraisal and stakeholder participation in decision making and implementation in a context of a changing world and changing role of government. As such it can very well serve to get livestock – environment issues addressed in politics and practice.

The foreword, the explanation of the agenda building concept and preface presented below are from the brochure "A concern and a dream". This brochure is a translation of the brochure "Een droom en een zorg" , a description of the agenda building concept applied in a illustrative case, published by the Netherlands Ministry of Agriculture, Nature Management and Fisheries (LNV) in 1998. The English version will be available by the end of December 1999. An electronic version on a website is in preparation.

Distribution: Netherlands Ministry of Agriculture, Nature Management and Fisheries.  http://www.minlnv.nl/international/
International Agricultural Centre, Wageningen, the Netherlands. http://www.iac-agro.nl/

The foreword and explanation of the agenda building concept can also be viewed as an Acrobat file by clicking on the icon.