SARM requires recognition of the alternative development strategies that could be followed, the appropriate organizational implementation arrangements, the roles and functions of the various actors involved and the different levels where intervention may be required.
When deciding on the development strategy to pursue for SARM there are the following three, distinct but interrelated, development thrusts that can be considered (after Norman 1991, Norman and Douglas 1993): (1) � prevention thrust; (2) policy thrust; and (3) corrective thrust.
There is a consensus that, whenever possible, priority must be given to protecting and sustaining the productive capacity of land not yet degraded. This calls for a prevention thrust approach where the strategy is one of preventing soil degradation by enabling farm households to adopt land use enterprises, field level technologies and farm management practices that yield short-term production benefits (i.e. are financially attractive) while being conservation effective (i.e. maintain or enhance soil productivity). The prevention thrust approach is based on the assumption that it is technically possible to use land productively in the short-term, while at least maintaining (sustaining) the land's long-term productivity for use by future generations. There is a growing body of evidence from research and extension project case studies to validate this assumption. The prevention thrust approach involves the following (Douglas 1994):
Because the emphasis of this SARM thrust is on promoting appropriate land uses and developing conservation effective technologies, it relies primarily on the use of agronomic and biological methods for ensuring sustainability. It is thus an approach that has at its heart the encouragement of better land husbandry rather than just soil conservation.
As shown in chapter 7, there is more to solving the problems of soil degradation than just the development of improved technical recommendations. As that chapter made clear the adoption of particular improved technologies may require changes within the policy and institutional support environment in which farm households operate. Experience suggests that an approach with a policy thrust will be required as a key element in most (if not all) SARM programmes.
A policy thrust approach can be important not only in preventing soil degradation arising in the first place but also in helping to stop it, once it has developed. It involves designing and implementing policies that (Douglas 1994):
Whereas the ideal is to prevent soil degradation from occurring in the first place, in many agricultural areas the processes of degradation will already have had an adverse impact on soil productivity. It then becomes necessary to consider adopting a corrective thrust strategy where the primary emphasis is to correct the current non-sustainable situation. This to be done by removing the underlying causes, adopting improved practices designed to stop further degradation, and where appropriate taking specific measures with the intention of restoring the soil to a productive condition. The corrective thrust strategy has some parallels with the past physical planning approach to soil conservation in that it may involve (Douglas 1994):
To be successful any recommendations arising out of the adoption of a corrective thrust approach must be based on an understanding of the underlying causes of the soil degradation (which may be due to farmers' socio-economic circumstances rather than the bio-physical properties of the land). The major failing of the conventional approach to soil conservation (top-down physical planning) was to ignore the cause and merely treat the visible symptoms of degradation (e.g. gullying).
The above categorisation of the key strategies is simplistic because the three thrusts are not necessarily mutually exclusive. For example, policies can help or hinder either, the use of appropriate farm management practices to prevent soil degradation, or the development of suitable corrective measures. Also in areas where some degradation has occurred the need may be for immediate corrective measures, backed up with appropriate preventative measures to maintain and enhance the soil's productive potential. Consequently, a combination of the three strategies is likely to be required to maximize the effectiveness of an individual project or programme. Each situation will be different hence the key to success will depend on recognising what the primary emphasis should be for a particular project or programme, and in getting the correct balance between the different thrusts.
Successful implementation of the above strategies is intrinsically linked to the identification and development of (Norman and Douglas 1993): (1) relevant improved technologies; and (2) relevant policies and support systems.
Included under the heading of improved technologies will be new crop, livestock and tree enterprises (specifically ones that better match the characteristics of the land), as well as improved field level management practices for existing farm enterprises. The term relevant signifies that improved technologies must match, or conform to, the bio-physical and socio-economic circumstances of those expected to adopt them. The identification and development of relevant improved technologies has usually been the responsibility of researchers and planners, with extension workers responsible for their dissemination. However there is increasing project experience which shows that the greater the direct involvement of the farmers in this process, the higher the probability will be that the technologies are not only technical improvements, but also acceptable (relevant) to the intended adopters. There is also growing acknowledgment of the fact that farmers are themselves technical innovators and have often developed their own relevant improved technologies with little if any assistance from "development experts."
The formulation of relevant policies requires an ability to reconcile differences between the welfare priorities of individual farm households and the political and development priorities of governments and donor agencies. It also means resolving potential conflicts between meeting short term goals (e.g. satisfying a households immediate subsistence food needs, or ensuring the political popularity/survival of a government), and securing long term objectives (e.g. an individual household making provision for old age care/children's inheritances, or a government seeking to conserve the nation's natural resource base).
Responsibility for policy development and promulgation usually rests with senior government officials and politicians. Experience shows that in order to ensure policies are relevant there must be an effective `feedback' mechanism between the policy makers and those directly affected by them. This provides a means whereby policy makers can be made aware of the actual effects (i.e. are they conservation effective, neutral or negative; who bears the costs, who gets the benefits) of implementing existing policies and the likely consequences of any policy changes. Such feedback may be transmitted through formal government channels or through the informal channels that operate within the community and political circles.
Whereas SARM is ultimately dependent on what individual farm households do within the boundaries of their farm plots this may be helped or hindered depending on what support systems are available to them. In some cultural communities there may be traditional support systems that can be relied upon to provide help when required for specific farming activities. For instance within many extended families or clans there are informal arrangements for households to share tasks and draft animals during land preparation, similarly there may be informal `loans' of food, cash, seed and farm implements between individual households, on a reciprocal need basis. In some communities there is a tradition of neighbouring households coming together as informal work groups to share laborious activities, such as terrace construction.
In development planning it has been usual to promote more formal support systems, typically those established and run by the government, other development agencies (e.g. NGOs) and the private sector. Obvious examples would be government run agricultural and forestry extension services, project management units, and government and private sector produce markets and input supply systems. It is clear that for such support systems to be relevant then they must address the constraints and opportunities of those they claim to support (individual households and farming communities). For instance extension messages must be appropriate to both the bio-physical and socio-economic circumstances of the target audience, credit programmes should be low risk and not increase farmers indebtedness, and on-farm tree planting programmes should offer farmers a wide choice of species (preferably multi-purpose) rather than a restricted choice of conventional forest trees (i.e. not just timber and/or fuelwood species).
Experience shows that in order to be considered as relevant formal support systems must take into account the nature and operation of existing traditional support systems. It is the responsibility of the former to ensure that there is no conflict with the latter. What is needed is for formal support systems to build on, and enhance, traditional support systems, rather than as has often been the case in the past undermine them. The appraisal and development of formal support systems has usually been the responsibility of `expert' planners, with their plans and recommendations implemented through various government, and donor backed, development projects and programmes. There is growing recognition that actively involving the intended beneficiaries in the appraisal and development (participatory planning) will result in more appropriate support systems, i.e. relevant to the local situation.
Key organizational issues that need to be addressed when implementing a SARM project will include:
Several different groups of people or "actors" are involved in SARM. These can be distinguished according to their different roles and functions (Table 10.). The principal actors are those individual households and rural communities engaged directly in agriculture. They play the most critical role in that they are ultimately responsible for implementing improvements to the productivity and sustainability of their farming systems. It is also increasingly recognised that they have a critically important role to play in appraising and modifying improved technologies developed by outside `experts', as well as being technology developers and innovators in their own right.
For farmers to function successfully as implementors a variety of other actors are required in a supporting role. In the past `top down' approach to agricultural development the function of government extension staff and NGO field workers, at the grass roots level, was to transmit (disseminate) extension advice to farmers. With the recent recognition of the importance of `bottom-up' development it is clear that such grass roots workers have a key role to play in promoting a two way flow of information between farmers on the one hand and researchers, development planners and policy makers on the other. There is still a need for them to continue to function as extension advisers and farmer trainers.
However it is as important that they also function as a conduit for transmitting area specific information back to the researchers, planners and policy makers on the constraints under which farmers operate, the acceptability of specific recommendations, and the impact of particular development activities and policies.
The functions of other key supporting actors will be as purchasers of surplus farm production and suppliers of purchased inputs. In some countries this supporting role will be played by government sponsored marketing agencies, in others it will be the role of private traders and commercial companies, or it may be that both the government and private sector will have a role. The same mix may hold true for the provision of credit where the actors may be government credit services, formally established banks and credit unions, or money lenders in the informal private sector.
Other groups of actors will play a facilitating role. Their function is not to directly support the field level implementors but to facilitate the work of the supporting actors. For instance research workers have a key role to play in developing improved technologies that can be transmitted to farmers via the extension services. The function of development planners is to design the necessary support systems and to identify the additional (project) investment needed for their establishment.
Senior government officials (and sometimes donor agencies) have a role to play in formulating the necessary policies that enable the support systems to operate and under which the farmers will implement the improvements. Politicians as legislators will determine the geo-political priorities of specific development programmes, the legal framework in which conservation effective development can take place and the proportion of the government's budget to be allocated to the agricultural sector. Lastly where there is a need for outside investment to support the activities of the implementors, then government finance departments and donor agencies have an important role to play by providing the necessary funds.
In the past those actors with a facilitating role have often had little direct contact with the field level implementors, hence have typically functioned in a `top down' manner. It is clear that there needs to be more interaction between these facilitators and the implementing farmers, to ensure the former perform their functions in ways that are appropriate to the needs and circumstances of the latter.
Not only is it necessary to recognise that there are many different actors involved in SARM but that intervention will be required at a variety of different levels, namely:
Ultimately land degradation needs to be combatted where it occurs, hence SARM depends on appropriate intervention at the individual farm or field level. The priority requirement for intervention at this level is that it should enable currently non-sustainable farming systems to be changed into conservation effective ones. However before individual farm households may be in a position to improve on their current land management practices the technical and/or policy environment in which they operate may first require changing through intervention at a higher level. Table 8 provides a summary of the different intervention levels according to the different actors, the activities they would expect to engage in, and what are considered key prerequisites for successful intervention.
Table 7. Roles and functions of the `actors' in sustainable agricultural resource management
Role |
Functions |
Actors |
Planning |
Appraisal |
Individual farm households |
Implementing |
Implementors/technology adopters |
Individual farm households |
Supporting |
Transmitters (disseminating information to and
from farmers)Extension advisers/farmer trainers |
Government extension staff (generalists and
subject matter specialists) |
Input providers/produce purchasers |
Government marketing agencies | |
Credit providers |
Government credit services | |
Facilitating (providing the potential means) |
Information providers |
Government and NGO subject matter
specialists |
Technology developers |
Research workers | |
Support system designers |
Planners | |
Policy formulators |
Senior officials in government departments and donor agencies | |
Legislators |
Politicians/State legislative body (senate, house of representatives, parliament, general assembly etc) | |
Fund providers |
Government finance departments and donor agencies |
Table 8. Levels of intervention in sustainable agricultural resource management
1. FARM/FIELD LEVEL
Actors |
Activity/Intervention |
Key Prerequisites |
Individual farm households Male/female household members |
Identifying, developing and implementing field level technical improvements in order to change their existing farming systems by: i. participating with other farm households in identifying and solving farm/land management problems of common interest; ii. engaging with others (farmers, extension workers, researchers etc) in participatory technology development; iii. adopting conservation effective farm management practices; iv. switching to alternative crop, livestock and/or tree enterprises that are both productive and sustainable; v. sharing information and experience through informal contacts and farmer-to-farmer training/exchange visits. |
i. The social, cultural, political and institutional environment must be conducive to the involvement of individual households in the participatory development process. ii. It must be socially and culturally possible for both men and women (separately and/or together) to participate in and benefit from the development process. iii. There must be a `basket' of available technologies from which farm households can identify and choose those they consider best match their needs and circumstances. The technologies within the `basket' should be simple, low cost, productive, maintainable, low risk, flexible, and conservation effective. iv. The physiological, management and conservation requirements of the land use enterprises engaged in by a farm household should conform to the `qualities' of the land resources available. v. The returns from investing in conservation effective farming must be financially attractive (profitable) with regard to the short term subsistence and/or cash needs of a farm household. vi. There must be socially and culturally appropriate mechanisms in place for facilitating and promoting farmer-to-farmer training and information exchange. |
Grassroots extension workers |
Working with different homogeneous groups of farm households (recommendation domains) in order to: i. provide information on appropriate alternative/improved technologies and train/advise farm household members on their adoption; ii. inform researchers, planners and policy makers about the constraints under which farmers operate, the acceptability of specific recommendations, and the impact of particular development activities and policies; iii. promote and facilitate farmer-to-farmer training and exchange visits; iv. assist farmers and research workers with participatory technology development. |
i. Grass roots extension workers should have the training and aptitude to work with farmers in a participatory manner. ii. There must be a holistic land husbandry extension message to disseminate, i.e. with the conservation dimension an integral component of any improved agricultural production oriented practices. iii. Extension workers must have the capability to recognise different target groups of farmers (on the basis of differences in their circumstances) and to tailor their advice accordingly. iv. Grassroots extension workers should be broad generalists rather than narrow commodity specialists i.e. should have a basic knowledge of all the component enterprises of the farming systems in the locality and not just one or two of the main crops. v. Grass roots extension workers should be in a position to use their expertise in a consultancy capacity, i.e. offering advice and information that complements farmers indigenous knowledge rather than just passing on externally formulated recommendations. |
Research workers |
On farm research to develop and appraise area specific improved conservation effective agricultural technologies by means of: i. participatory technology development in which farmers take the lead with researchers in a supporting role; ii. on farm adaptive research with researcher managed and farmer implemented trials; iii. trials conducted on farmers fields which are researcher managed and researcher implemented. |
i. Research workers should have the training, aptitude and interest to work with farmers in conducting research in a participatory manner. i. Research should focus on solving what farmers perceive to be problems. ii. Research workers should respect and value farmers own knowledge and involve them actively in the design (i.e. in deciding what to test, and how, where and when to do it) and appraisal of all on farm research. On farm trials should be simple in design, low risk and the results meaningful to both participating and neighbouring farmers. |
2. COMMUNITY/VILLAGE LEVEL
Actors |
Activity/Intervention |
Key Prerequisites |
Community leaders/village elders |
Acting on behalf of the farming community with regard to: i. consensus decision making and entering into agreements with development agencies operating within the boundaries of the village; ii. taking the lead in initiating and supporting community level participatory planning, appraisal and monitoring activities; iii. organization and promotion of agreed communal conservation activities and community based village land use management plans. |
i. Those in leadership positions to be held in respect by the other members of the community. ii. Those in leadership positions to understand and accept community level participatory development. iii. Community level participatory development activities should not be perceived as undermining the influence and prestige of those in leadership positions. iv. The support of local politicians, traditional leaders and others with a position of influence at the community level for the implementation of conservation effective land management practices at the individual farm and/or communal level. v. Community based conservation/development plans should conform to the perceived interests and concerns of those with positions of influence within the community. |
Extension and development workers (government and NGO) |
Individual grassroots generalist extension/community development workers (as appropriate working with specific subject matter specialists) to: i. work in a participatory manner with interested farm households, and community level user, common interest and womens groups, from within a specific village (or small group of adjacent villages); ii. disseminate information on improved technologies/alternative land use practices and provide the technical support required to facilitate their adoption; iii. provide technical and administrative assistance/training for the establishment and operation of local community level agricultural and natural resource management related `peoples' organizations. |
i. Community level extension and development workers must believe in what they are doing, show dedication and commitment to the work and be sensitive to the social and cultural norms of the communities in which they operate. ii. Grass roots extension/community development workers should have the training to facilitate community capacity building. iii. Maintenance of the morale of community level extension and development workers requires favourable terms and conditions of service as well as ensuring they have the funds and skills to deliver the services required from them. |
Local businessmen, traders and merchants |
Providing farm households with: i. a locally available supply of production inputs for purchase (improved seed, fertiliser, pesticides, veterinary medicines etc); ii. a market, at the `farm gate', for cash crops, and produce (including livestock and forest products) surplus to the household's subsistence requirements. |
i. An economic and political environment in which private individuals can engage in commercial activities (buying and selling) within the communities in which they live. ii. There must be a sufficiently developed infrastructure to enable business men, traders and merchants to move goods into and out of the area. iii. Market developments must make the buying and selling of surplus crop, livestock and tree production a profitable exercise. iv. Market opportunities should stimulate investment in conservation effective agricultural enterprises. v. Individual households should have the cash resources available to purchase external farm inputs. |
Local artisans/skilled workmen |
Providing individual farm households and communities with: i. locally available technical services (carpentry, blacksmithing, thatching, brick laying etc); ii. technical skills within the community for the construction and maintenance of community level infrastructure (schools, roads, bridges, protected water sources etc). |
i. A social, cultural and political environment in which private individuals can be paid to provide skilled services within the communities in which they live. ii. The communities in which artisans and skilled workmen live must have the ability to pay for their services. |
3. DISTRICT/REGIONAL LEVEL
Actors |
Activity/Intervention |
Key Prerequisites |
District/Regional Councils |
In pursuit of its political and administrative functions at the district/regional level to: i. formulate and implement conservation effective development policies specific to the needs and circumstances of the district/region; ii. create an appropriate institutional framework for the coordination and prioritisation of agricultural development/natural resource management activities amongst the different agencies (government and NGO) operating within the district/region. |
i. Devolution of decision making responsibility to the district/regional councils. ii. Interdisciplinary cooperation and collaboration between the district/regional offices of national government line departments. iii. Commitment of the district/regional politicians to promoting conservation effective agricultural development. iv. Stability (continuity of staff and policies) within the district/regional administrative bureaucracy. |
District/regional level heads of government technical line agencies |
Overall supervision of the extension and development activities of the line agency undertaken within the district/region including: i. formulation and implementation of development proposals and technical work programmes for (or within) the district/region; ii. supervision of all technical and administrative staff working at the district/regional and community/village levels; iii. liaison with the district/regional council and coordination of activities with other development agencies engaged in related programmes within the district/region; iv. implementation of national policies and programmes within the context of the needs and circumstances of the district/region; v. informing senior officials and policy makers of experience with, or likely impact of, implementing national policies and programmes within the district/region. |
i. Heads of district/regional level line agencies must be familiar with the concepts and procedures of participatory development and supportive of their staff working in a participatory manner at the community level. ii. Extension and development support agencies at the district/regional level must have the financial and skilled human resources to deliver the services required of them. iii. There must be an institutional framework at the district/regional level that permits inter-disciplinary cooperation/collaboration between the various extension/development agencies operating within the district/region. iv. There must be effective linkages with extension workers operating at lower intervention levels and senior officials and policy makers at the higher level to permit the two way flow of information concerning the implementation of participatory upland conservation and development activities. |
Heads of district/regional level NGO offices |
Similar to the activities/interventions of the heads of district/regional level government technical line agencies except area of responsibility restricted to the communities/geographic area in which the NGO is working. |
i. The political and development agenda of the NGO should not bring it into conflict with other development agencies in the district/region. ii. The NGO should have technical expertise and experience in participatory natural resource management and not just social welfare/community development. |
Project/Programme Managers |
Similar to the activities/interventions of the heads of district/regional level government technical line agencies except area of responsibility restricted to the geographic area of the project/programme. |
i. Project management should be clear about their objectives and have realistic targets to aim for. ii. Responsibility for day to day decision making in respect to project implementation has to be delegated to project managers. iii. The project beneficiaries should play an active role in project management (eg participatory monitoring and evaluation/replanning). |
Subject matter specialists |
Operating out of a district/regional office and engaged in: i. providing grass roots extension workers with subject specific advice and technical backup; ii. assisting as resource persons on in-service training programmes for grass roots extension workers; iii. participating as disciplinary specialists in participatory rural appraisal and planning teams. |
i. Ability to work in an interdisciplinary manner with other subject matter specialists. ii. Ability to `hand over the stick' when working in a participatory manner with farmers. iii. Senior officers must ensure the subject matter specialists have the funds, facilities and skills to deliver the services required from them. |
Research station staff |
On-station research for the development and testing, under controlled conditions, with regard to: i. potential new technologies and farming practices; ii. breeding and selection of new crop and livestock varieties; iii. screening of potential multi-purpose trees and shrubs. Information source with regard to: i. past research and work on-going elsewhere in the country applicable to local upland conservation and development opportunities and constraints; ii. access to the information services of the International Research Centres and other international bodies. |
i. On-station research should be formulated in response to problems and concerns identified at the farm level. ii. There should be strong institutional links between research institutes and extension departments to ensure the activities of the former take account of the needs and experience of the latter. iii. On-station research should be comprehensible to visiting farmers and extension technicians. iv. On-station research results should be subject to on-farm verification before dissemination. v. Research staff should be aware of past research conducted by their institute as well as work undertaken elsewhere in the country. vi. District/regional level research institutes should be able to access information available at the international level. |
Business/trading community |
Supporting the production activities of farming households through the development, by private traders and commercial companies, of the wholesale and marketing infrastructure at the district/regional level on which the community level businessmen, traders, and merchants depend. |
i. An economic and political environment in which the private business sector can support and compliment government development activities. ii. The political will to ensure that short term market opportunities do not lead to unsustainable exploitation of the natural resources (soil, vegetation, water etc) of the district/region. iii. Both public and private sector large scale commercial development activities should be subject to full social cost benefit analysis and environmental impact assessment. |
4. NATIONAL LEVEL
Actors |
Activity/Intervention |
Key Prerequisites |
Senior government officials |
Creating the appropriate environment nationally in which participatory upland conservation and development activities can take place at the farm, community, district and regional level by such measures as: i. formulating national agriculture development and natural resource management policies; ii. drafting enabling legislation; iii. framing national conservation strategies and land use plans. |
i. Stability of political regime and government administrative bureaucracy. ii. A relationship of trust between senior government officials and their `political masters'. iii. An effective institutional mechanism for advising senior officials as to the grass roots impact of development policy decisions taken at the national level. iv. Political support for the participatory development process at the community level. |
National and sector planners |
Formulation of: i. a development plan for the overall national economy (typically a five-year plan); ii. individual development plans for specific sectors of the national economy (agriculture, forestry, industry, communications etc). |
i. Short term economic development proposals to be in conformity with national long term natural resource management requirements. ii. National and sectoral development plans to allow for flexible implementation at the community level in conformity with concepts and principles of participatory development. iii. The agricultural sector (and upland conservation and development in particular) to have a high profile within national economic development priorities. iv. Planning for individual sectors to recognise the interactions with other sectors of the national economy. v. Nat'l and sector development plans to be formulated on the basis of sound knowledge of the nations natural and human resources. |
Senior technical officers (STOs) |
Based at the ministry/departmental headquarters and involved in: i. providing overall technical supervision of the work of the district/ regional subject matter specialists and grassroots extension and development workers; ii. providing research and extension workers in one part of the country with information on promising technologies and development approaches used successfully elsewhere, either within the country or in another country under similar bio-physical and socio-economic circumstances; iii. advising senior policy makers and development planners on the technical requirements for, and practical feasibility of, meeting specific national development objectives. |
i. STOs to be familiar with concepts and procedures of participatory development and able to provide technical backstopping to those at the district/regional level. ii. STOs to be open to new ideas, from within and outside the country, on techniques and approaches to upland conservation and development. iii. STOs to be in a position to influence/advise senior policy makers and development planners. iv. STOs to have funds, facilities and technical knowledge to provide the required technical guidance. |
National NGOs |
NGOs (indigenous and national offices of international NGOs) engaged in: i. promoting/supporting community level development initiatives in one or more districts/regions; ii. lobbying politicians and senior government officials; iii. fund raising at the national and international level. |
i. The political and development agenda of the NGO should not bring it into conflict with the national government. ii. The NGO should have technical expertise and experience in participatory natural resource management and not just social welfare/community development. iii. Management of the NGO should be in the hands of experienced personnel with a reputation for honesty and openness (transparency). |
State legislature (senate, house of represen-tatives, parliament etc) |
As the body from which the government gets its mandate to govern it is ultimately responsible for: i. the political prioritisation of national development according to economic sector and geographic location; ii. passing enabling legislation for the development and conservation of the nations natural resources; iii. approving the financial allocation of the government's budget (revenue and development) to different development programmes, administrative districts and regions, and government ministries, departments and institutions. |
i. Ability to balance short term political considerations with the obligation to provide for the long term welfare of the present and future generations. ii. A strong political commitment to promoting participatory upland conservation and development. iii. A broad non-agricultural tax base that can sustain agricultural development and natural resource management programmes from government revenue resources. |
5. INTERNATIONAL LEVEL
Donors/international development agencies (including international NGOs) |
Facilitating participatory upland conservation and development within countries by: i. providing external funds (on a grant or loan basis) for investment in appropriate projects and programmes; ii. financing technical assistance such as international experts, in-country training and overseas fellowships; iii. disseminating information on innovative technologies and alternative development approaches; iv. publishing technical bulletins, guideline manuals, and studies of the reasons for success or failure of soil conservation projects; v. sponsoring (national and international) workshops and conferences for technical specialists and high level colloquiums and seminars for senior policy makers. |
i. Projects and programmes promoting participatory upland conservation and development requires that donors and international development agencies be able to sustain financial and technical assistance support over the long term. ii. The participatory development process requires that donors and international development agencies allow projects and programmes to be implemented in a flexible manner so as to accommodate the different development priorities and needs of individual communities. iii. Donors and international development agencies should respect the expertise and experience of the countries they seek to assist and offer external advice and technical assistance sensitively rather than imposing it as a condition of any grant or loan. iv. International experts must have skills and expertise not available in the recipient country and must be sensitive to the social and cultural norms and aspirations of their counterparts. |
International Research Centres (IRCs) |
Promotion and coordination of strategic research on a commodity, disciplinary and/or agro-climatic zone basis by means of: i. for those centre's with their own research stations primary field research (researcher managed and researcher implemented trials); ii. assisting the research efforts of National Research Centres through the provision of funds, technical expertise, training, information and improved planting material/germplasm; iii. collaborative research programmes where several countries conduct similar trials under the supervision/guidance of an IRC and share the results for the mutual benefit of all. |
i. The IRC research programmes should compliment, not duplicate, the work conducted by National Research Centres. ii. Effective linkages and exchange of results between the strategic research of the IRCs and applied research at the national level. iii. Strategic research to be undertaken within the context of a holistic farming systems development perspective i.e. IRC research workers should be aware that their results ultimately have to be meaningful within the realities of farm household circumstances at the field level. |
International Networks (and interregional projects) |
Linking together countries and/or individual scientists/development workers for: i. information exchange and technology transfer; ii. collaborative research; iii. cooperation in developing and implementing training programmes of common interest; iv. pooling of practical experience and technical expertise. |
i. Network sustainability requires that its members can meet the core funding needs or that a donor is prepared to make a long term funding commitment to the operating costs. ii. The network should be perceived by its members as primarily serving their interests rather than those of an external sponsoring agency. iii. Those responsible for coordinating network activities must have the funds, manpower resources and skills (technical and administrative) to deliver the services required from them. |