.

\ iC / ^ fI zLi n LA! !h C , / y r
t I

I

|

,

I

L

l'1

a

-

' 1a

+

UNDERSTAI{DING and ENGAGING LOCAL KNOWLEDGE and PRACTICE
Practical Approachesto Natural Resources Researchand Development

illustrated projectexperiences Zanzibar by in

by

Martin T. Walshand Sharon Harvey P.

1997

NaturalResources Institute Universityof Greenwich

CONTENTS

Preface

Chapterl:

INTRODUCTION

x

Chapter 2:

REDEF'INING LOCAL KNOWLEDGE ANI) PRACTICE

3: Chapter

UNDERSTANDINGAND ENGAGING LOCAL KNOWLEDGE AND PRACTICE

Chapter 4:

T]NDERSTANDING AND ENGAGING PROJECT PRACTICE

5: Chapter

CONCLUSION

x

Bibliography

BOXES ACCOMPAI\TYINGTHE TEXT

Box l. I Box 2.I Box2.2 Box2.3 Box2.4 Box 2.5 Box 3.1 Box 3.2 Box 3.3 Box 3.4 Box3.5

T,anzibr,r historical background : The cuftigens and cultivarsof Zanzibar Leopardsand witchcreft on Unguje The declineofclove productionon Pemba Agricultural devclopment casternPembr in Agricultural innovationin northern Unguja The evolution of PRAs in ZCCFSP Ranking experience ZCCFSP in On-farm trials in ZCCFSP Flrmer reselrch groups end networks in Zlnzibrl. Understanding rnd engaging innovationwith cese studies Engaging traditional agroforestry practicc for sust*inebleland use ZCCFSPas a local institution Disciplinarity,interdisciplinarityand participation within ZCCFSP

Box 3.6

Box 4.I Box4.2

PREFACE

This book, as its title suggests, aboutunderst is andngand engagSng knowledge local and practicein the context of natural resources research and development. It has its immediate origins in our recently-completedwork for the ODA-funded and NRl-managed ZanzibarCashCropsFarmingSystems Project(ZCCFSP). In particular joint preparationof a workshop on the subjectof 'Methodologies it grew out of our for ParticipatoryResearch Extension'for the staff of the Ministry of Agriculture, and Livestock andNatural Resources, host institutionin Zanzibar. In writing the book our we have rangedmore widely than we did in our workshop presentations, examining local knowledge and practice in their wider context rather than focusing upon 'participatory per methods' se. Our approachto local knowledgeand practicereflects our diferent and overlapping backgrounds. One ofus (N[fW) is a social anthropologist with an active interestin ethnobiologyand communitywildlife management; while the other (SPII) has wide experience agroforestryand farmerparticipatoryresearc[ with a specialinterestin of the socialaspects local ecologicalknowledgein community-based of natural resource management.We do not claim to haveanythingradicallynew to say,only perhapsa different way of expressing As active 'developmentpractitioners' we have had it, preciouslittle time in which to write this book, but havehad to work arounda variety of other commitments while basedoverseas.To makelife more difficult, neitherofus had access ow own collectionsof the relevantliterature (MTW's library being in to storage,and SPH's having been conzumed fire, along rJeith house and other by her worldly goods). If we succeed enrichinganyone'sknowledgeor enliveningtheir practice,then it is in duein no smallmeasure the zupportandencouragement to ofthe manyinstitutionsand individualswho havehelpedus. Our primaryinstitutionaldebt is to NRI, in particular to the Head and other staff of the Social SciencesDepartment,the staff of the Publishing and Publicity Group, and the staff of the library. We also received invaluable assistance advicefrom researchers other staff of the IIED Resource and and Centre in London; the School of DevelopmantStudiesin the University of East Anglia; and the Schoolof Agricultural and Forest Sciences the University of Wales in at Bangor. For their direct andindirectcontributions this book, andmuchmore,we to would also like to thank all of our past and presentcolleaguesin the Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock andNatural Resources (MALNR) in Zanzibar; especially those who worked for ZCCFSP,as well as other staff of the Commission Research for and Extension and the Commissionfor Natural Resources,including membersof the Jozani-Chwaka Conservation Bay Project (JCBCP). Last, but not least,specialthanks are due to our familiesand friendsin Mombasa Zanzibarfor toleratingour absence and from their lives while writing this book, and for performingmore than their ordinary shareof domesticlabour,child-careincluded.

In so far aswe fail to enrichanyone's knowledgeor enliventheir practice,then noneof the aboveshouldbe blamed. The responsibility entirelyours. is

CHAPTERONE

INTRODUCTION

"Reversingtraditionalattitudes to development research thereforemearuuniting research and practice, understanding and action, researcher researched, and into a single unitary process. And this in tum impliesthat researchers must acceptto be changed the resultsof their researc[ mustbe accountable by to the subjects their researc[ and must be preparedto seethe valueof their work judged according of to its relevance improvingthe livesofthe peopleconcemed.This doesnol meanthat all research in that is relevantalso hasto be 'directly participatory'. Research which analyses similaritiesand differences over time and spacecan be extremely'relevant', but the usefulness such'secondary'research be of will a function of its effectiveness changingattitudes among the powerirl in a direction which will in ultimately enable lesspowerful thinkandact for themselves." the to (Edwards 1994:281)

The abovequotationis takenfrom the author'sown paraphrase ofan earlier pap€ron 'The irrelevance of development studies'(1989). We havequotedit herebecause it sumsup our own perspective, touches someof the principalthemesof this and on book. Like Edwards, areboth 'development we practitioners', duringour work and 'in the field' just how relevant over a numberof yearswe have often wondered 'development studies'are to our everyday practice. Unlike manyofour colleagues, however, havefoundtime to readsomeof the recentdevelopment we literature, and in the chapters which follow havetried to combinesomeof its best arguments with our owrr insightsgainedfrom field experience. We hope that the result will be 'useful' in 'secondaxy' the way thatEdwards suggests research be, andthat it will can helpto change attitudes the ofour fellow practitioners the ultimatebenefitofthose to they practiseupon(but shouldpractisewith). Our main concern how to understand engage is people's and knowledge practice and in a development context,and more specifically the contextof naturalresources in research development. and Understanding engaging criticalactivitiesin these and are contexts; they specifuthe development practitioners' task much more precisely than the increasingly nebulousexhortationto 'participate' does. We have not used 'participation' as the binding thread of this book, but have asked instead 'participationwith whom?', and 'participationhow?'. Unless the participatory imperative definedin this way, it eitherlosesits meaning remainsa one-sided is or recommendation oneparticular of interactions the development for set in arena.This is not to saythat the emphasis uponparticipation itself becomeirrelevant, is has or without value for developmentpractice. It has undoubtedly served an important purpose changing attitudes at leastsomepractitioners in the of towardsthe people primarybeneficiaries who meantto be the oftheir projects.It is now time, however, to building on the (theoretical) gainsof the pastquartercenturyand recognize that (practical) significant deficitsstill remain.

A brief outlile

The structure the book can be summarised follows. In chaptertwo we will of as examine what local knowledge and practice are and why they are important. Conventionalunderstandings knowledgeand practice are strongly influenced by of the 'indigenous knowledge debate'and the way in which it has developed. This debatecan be characterized terms of the (incomplete) in shift from a 'naive' to a 'sophisticated' (IK). The naiveconception conception indigenous of knowledge' of lK is overwhelmingly technical,while the sophisticated conception emphasizes its social(political,economic, etc.) dimensions.The latter is an improvement the on former, but it still focuses narrowly on 'knowledge'and has led to a number of proposals practrce. impractical for It is more satisfactoryto treat knowledgeas just one aspectof practice, and to put more effort into understanding differentmanifestations local practice. Different of ways of doing this are suggested recent social developmenttheorists, and we by examinethe relativeusefulness these,with particularreference 'structuralist' of to and'actor-oriented' approaches. Havingestablished needto analyse the how practice 'local'. Conventional changes overtime,we thentum our attention the meaning to of approaches IK (andpractice) to focusalmostexclusively one set of actorsin the on development arena,members the (usuallyrural) 'community' By contrast, of we expand definitionof local to includethe knowledge practice otheragents, the and of including govenrment (NGOs), and even pro.iects and non-govemment organisations themselves. Chapter three looks at how local knowledge and practice can be engaged at community level. Different methodsand approaches examined,starting with the are 'participatory' packages standard and including ParticipatoryRural Appraisal (PRA). Theseare found wantingin a numberof respects, especially whenthey are used(as they usually are) in an inflexible and uncreativeway. They often provide no more than a superficial understanding local knowledge and practice, and an of insufficientlydeveloped meansof engaging them. The secondpart of the chapter considers altemative approaches which address thesedeficiencies.The needto use different methods and approachesstrategically, and against a background of a coherent understanding localpractice, emphasized. of is In chapter projectpracticeis considered.We discuss four, the question engaging of 'extemal intervention what we call the debate',returningagain to some earlier theoreticalthemesand arguingthat interventionhasto be constructivelyengaged and not naively rejected. Different proposalsfor incorporating local knowledge into project practice are then considered,focusing on local knowledge as it is conventionally understood. the second In projects examined half of the chapter, are as local institutions and the implications this approach exploredin terms of of are differentinstitutional optionsandthe waysin whichthe skills of projectactorsmight be improvedto enablethem to understand engage practiceof other actors(as and the well as their own) more effectively. Someof the wder implicationsfor policies relatingto naturalresources research development alsooutlined. The final and are chaptersummarizes argument. our

Illustrative material Someof the main points in the text are illustratedwith boxesusing casematerial from our working experience Zanzibar,in particularwith the ZanzlbarCashCrops in FarmingSystems Project(ZCCFSP) the JozaniChwaka Conservation and Bay Project (JCBCP). It shouldbe emphasized theseare not intended illustrateall the that to points of the argument, althoughsomeboxesdo relateto points madeat different placesin the text, in somecases differentchapters this extentthe locationof in (to someboxesin the text is fairly arbitrary).It should alsobe notedthat theseboxesare not intended providea comprehensive to reviewof all tlre activitiesof the projects concerned, that we havebeendeliberately and selective.

l.l Zanzibar: historicalbackground (anda number smallerislets)off the coastof East Zanzibar comprises islands two of Africa. The largestisland,Unguja,has a surfacearea of about 1600 km2: The capital, Zanzibar town, is located Unguja. The smallerisland,Pemba, an area on has ofabout 1014kmr. It lies some50 km to the northof Ungujaandis separated from it by a deepseachannel. Thetopographies ofUnguja andPemba superhcially are similar,thoughtherearealso important differences. Both islands be roughlydividedalonga north-south can a.xis; the westemside of each island is more elevated and has deepersoils, while the eastern landsare flatterand litteredwith outcrops limestone, generally of referred to as 'coral rag'. The coralragof Ungujais extensive, dominating southern the half, the eastand the far north of the island. The west of Pembais hillier and more deeply dissected, thecoralragis largelyrestricted its eastem and to fringe. Thetropicalclimatemeans it is hot andhumidfor mostof the year. The westem that areas havea high rainfall (over2000mm/yearin someinlandlocations), which falls in two mainseasons: (abouMarch-May) vali (aboutOctober-December). masika and The coral rag is somewhat drier, and the vzrli rains in theseareasare notoriously unreliable. The naturalvegetation the islands(of which little survives)reflects of their topography micro-climate; and moist forestonce dominated westemhills the andvalleys, dry forestdominated coralrag. and the The islandswere first settledby Swahili-speaking fishers,farmersand livestockkeepers aroundthe middle of the first millenniumAD. Different Swahili groups continuedto migate to Unguja and Pemba in the centurieswhich followed. Meanwhile, annual the monsoon windsbrought traders from across IndianOcean, the especially from the Persian Gulf andthe southem ArabianPeninsula.Someof these traders their followerssettled permanently, and inter-marrying with the local Swahili ion and adontinstheir The middleof the millennium saw

the beginnings protracted ofa struggle politicaldomination for overthe coastal towns betweenOmani Arabs and the newly arrived Portugese. The latter were finally ousted at the end of the 17th century and henceforth Zarzibar was ruled by an independentline of Omani Arab sultans(who had earlier broken away from their cousins Muscat). in The economy of the sultanaterevolved around ffade in slaves,ivory, and natural productsobtainedfrom the mainland. h Zavlbu itself (and the parts of the coastal strip which were under Zara;ibari control), Omani Arab landownersdeveloped a system plantation of agriculture based the labourof importedslaves. In the 19th on century,most of the forestsof westernUnguja and Pembawere clearedto make way for theseplantations(theseare still referredto asthe 'plantation areas',in contrastto the lessproductive landsof the coral rag). A largenumberof exoticcultigens were introduced duringthis period,especially fruits andspices.The mostimportant the of spices cloves, was first introduced the early 19thcentury.Realizing in their potential, in 1834SultanSeyyidSaid ordered fellow Arab landowners plant cloves;in his to doing this, he unwittingly laid the foundation for an era of agricultural prosperity whichwasto lastfor the next 150years. Increasing European involvement in the affairs of Zatvibar culminated in the establishment a British Protectorate 1890. The British governed islands of in the throughsuccessive sultans who therebylost much of their independence well as as their mainlandpossessions. The new colonial authoritiesabolishedslaveryand ensured cloveproduction maintained substituting that was by slaves with paid labour. In subsequent decades, they intervenedon more than one occasionto counterthreats guaranteeing laboursupplyand preventing transferof to the clove economy, the the plantationsto Indian moneylenders. They also made a number of (largely unsuccessful) attempts to foster agricultural diversification. However, cloves continued to reign supremethrough to, and beyond, the granting of Zanzlbar's independence 1963. in In January1964,the govemment the Sultanwas overthrownin a bloody coup, of known as the ZatuibarRevolution, organized aroundopposition continuingArab to dominance. In April 1964, the leader of the new RevolutionaryGovemment, PresidentKarume, agreedto the unification of Zanzibarwith mainland Tanganyika, creatingthe United Republicof Tanzania. Karume,while remainingPresident of Zanzibar,alsobecameVice-President Tanzania, of with Nyerereas its first President. Zanzibu retained its own elected Council of Representatives and various non-strategicministries, including those responsiblefor agriculture and the environment the islands general.Karumeand his successors of in followedsocialist policies for the next two decades, era characterized excessive an by stateintervention in the economy manyotherwalksof life. and The mid-1980susheredin a gradualshift towardseconomicliberalization. This change policy wasalsocarriedacross mainland in to Tanzania whereits impactwas subsequently evenmore evidentimpact. The 1990shavebeencharacterized a by combination both economicand political cri of a drastic decline in

world clovepricesandthe introduction multi-partypolitics. The negative of impacts of botl of thesedevelopments beenfelt mostseverely Pemba have on wheremostof the clovesare produced,and where the vast majority of the populationvoted for the oppositionCUF (Civic United Front) party dwing the first national multi-party elections 1995. Many observers in wereunhappy with the way theseelections were conducted,as well as with the ruling CCM (Chama cha Mapinduzi, Revolutionary Party)govemment's subsequent teatment of Pembans. early 1996,mostwestem In donorsfroze their aid to Zarulbar, and a numberof bilateral projectsendedabruptly without any promise of renewed funding. So far, however, the Revolutionary Govemmentof Zanzibarhas weathered this storm, while intemational trade through the port, and the growing popularity of Zaraibar as a tourist destination, have continued stimulate to economic srowthin Zanzibar town.

CHAPTERTWO

REDEFTNING LOCAL KNOWLEDGEAND PRACTICE

Introduction Whatarelocalknowledge practice?More to thepoint,whatdo we meanby local and knowledgeand practice? The simple answeris 'what people say and do in a particularcontext',whetherthis contextis specifiedlocationally,institutionally, or otherwise. We do not necessarilyequate 'local' with 'rural', 'p€asant', or 'indigenous', asmanywritersdo. In our usage rnayreferto anygoup of actors a it in specified development arena, includingthe staffof projects, agencies, outside aid and (such as ourselves). The phrase 'stakeholders'knowledge and comm€ntators practice'is perhaps technicallymore accurate.However,we havepreferred'local knowledgeand practice', largely because is less cumbersome it and reflectsour starting-point the 'indigenous in knowledge debale'. We have reformulated'knowledge'as 'what people say' for two main reasonsFirstly, we are dissatisfied with the way in which the term (or rather construct) 'knowledge' hasbeenusedin recent development discourse. this context, word In the 'knowledge'drawsattentionaway from systematic consideration people'sideas of andopinions nanowlyfocusing oneparticular by on aspect ofthem. The complexity of actors' mental and verbal actions is thereby reducedto a single construct ('knowledge'), packaged a form whichis conveniently in compatible with the notions andprejudices thepackagers of themselves. Secondly, is evidentthat our knowledge other people'sknowledgeand other it of aspects oftheir mentalworld is primarilybased interpretation on ofwhat theysayand do. 'Kaowledge'is not a physical which canbe handled observed entity or directly, although maybe tempting think of it this way. Eliciting indigenous any other it to or kind of knowledge a complexenterprise, a combination strategies is and of may be used to reconstruct the knowledgeof any given individual or group_ Direct questioning one strategy is and observation relevantpractices another. This of is process is mediated by language,and is particularly evident in studies of (indigenousclassification) ethnotaxonomy when researchers distinguishbetween explicit andimplicit categories, signalling fact that the laftercan only be infened the from informants' statements behaviour. and What peoplesay and what they do are not necessarily correlated. Our own approach is to give priority to practiceand treat people'sverbalpronouncements (including thoseelements which we useto reconstruct their 'knowledge')asjust one aspect of practice. We believethat expression ideasis an integralpart of practice, their of while their reformulation 'knowledge'may reflectthe observers' as own practiceas much as that of their subjects. We recognize, however, that the understanding of theseissues manydevelopment by practitioners' beeninfluenced the growing has by

demand that they shouldtake account indigenous of knowledge'when formulating their own practice. The title we have given to this book acknowledges fact, this although our text suggests need for adopting a broader and more flexible the approach.

Starting with knowledge T'he importance indigenous of knowledge' Over the pastdecade so, the conceptof indigenous or knowledge'has becomean integral part of developmentorthodoxy. In the introduction to a recent review ('Moving the Indigenous KnowledgeDebateForward?'),Thompsonprovidedthe followingsuccinct account its riseto prominence: of
"D*ailed study (IK) date3 of indigenous knowledge backto the late 1970s whentwo seminal collected works drew togetherresearch that examined capacities, the skills and rationaleof peasant farmersand pastoralists. first,a special The issue ofthe 1DS 8ll//etn (HowesandChainbers, 1979), widespread had influence despite limitedcirculation.The second a collection published year et a @rokensha al., 1980), later,proved be evenmoreofa landmark to text. Thereafter, number otherinfluential a of books(e.g. Cemea,1986;Richards, 1985;Chambers, l9E3) argued forcefully the involvement local people for of and the incorporation of their knowledge into processes technologicaldevelopment. From the of mid-1980sresearch IK expanded into rapidly. Several intemationalIK resourcecentresare currentlyin operation, yarious with intemationally co-ordinated research programmes, followingAGENDA2l a and globalnetworkof indigenous people's organisations been has policies protecting established promote to indigenous property rights to genetic resourcesand supporting the conservation of indigenous knowledge ofbiodiversity withinthecontext whichit hasdeveloped." (1996:105) in

The need to record, understand and incorporate'indigenousknowledge' into practicein someconstructive development way is well established professional in circles. As the blurb accompanying recentcollectionof essays puts it: "The on€ mainconclusions from this impressive anay of expertise that local peopledo know is a greatdealabouttheir environment, which they haveoftenlived for generations; in andthis knowledge mustbe takeninto account the planning in andimplementation of development, this is to be acceptable the people,and effective"(Wanen et al. if to 1995:back cover). Accordingto the proponents indigenous of knowledge',its importance development no longeran issue(note herethe assumption for is that it once was). The challenge, rather,is to translate recognitionof this fact into the practice. 'Naive'snd 'sophisticated' conceptiow indigenous of krutwledge' 'indigenous This is easier saidthandone,not leastbecause knowledge' tumedout has to be a much more complexaffair than its originalproponents thought. Reviewing the (relativelyshort)historyof the notionof indigenous knowledge', is possible it to distinguish between two differentconceptions, which might be characterised one as 'naive' and the other 'sophisticated'. as This is no doubt an over-simplification; differentcommentators draw the dividing line between naiveconception(s) the they criticise and the sophisticated one(s)they advance different ways, giving them in

differentlabels(for example, compare Scoones Thompson, and 1994,with Blaikie er al., 1996). Despitetheir differences, however,the theoristsagreethat a paradig'rn (or shift of somekind hasoccurred shouldoccurif their prescriptions followed). are We concurwith this view, and in the following sections provideour own perspective on the 'naive' and 'sophisticated' conceptions indigenous of knowledge', indicating wherewe think the debate leadingto (or shouldlead to if orr prescriptions is our followed). Indigenousknowledge technicalkttowledge as The 'naive' conception indigenous of knowledge'(IK) stresses technicaland its instrumentalaspects. This is capturedperfectly in the once favoured formulation 'indigenous (ITK), which is still usedby manypractitioners technical knowledge' in the field. A similar orientationis implied in pluases like 'indigenous agricultural knowledge'(IAK) and'indigenousecological knowledge'(IEK), which specig'the particulartechnicalfield underinvestigation. Theseexpressions reveal the basic assumption underlying naiveconception IK, that it can,and shouldbe, treated the of as the mirror image(or seriesof local images) formal scientificknowledge, of the knowledge which researchers themselves havegainedthroughtheir training in, and application the universal of, procedures scientific of enquiry. Thosepossessing areassumed havearrivedat (at leastsome)valid conclusions IK to aboutthe environment whichtheylive, andhowto manage tkough a cumulative in it, process trial anderror. This process conceived beingparallelin somewaysto of is as that ofscientific experiment, thoughgenerally systematic, believed have and less is to produced resultswhich arenot only comparable with, but in manycases superior to, those reachedby scientists, especiallyin contextswhere the latter have limited experience.With this scenario or somemore cautious versionof it - in mind, the "first to empower practitioners taskof development is local peoplevis-i-vis research scientistsand development plannerswho, it is assumed, will be convincedof 'wisdom' only through indigenous science; and second, 'blend' IK with formal to Western process" science theresearch development in (Thompson, 996: 106). and I This,the originalconception IK, evolvedin the wakeof the increasing of advocation of 'participatory'approaches development.If sustainable to development was to participation the development depend people's process, madesense take a on in it to 'bottom-up' look at their own ideas and practicesand act upon these. Some commentators therefore have labelled the 'populist'or 'neo-populist' this to approach IK (Blaikieet e ., 1996;Thompson, 1996). It is the approach which dominates many of the contributions Farmer Frrsr (Chambers al., 1989),including the IDS to et Workshoppaperon 'Farmer'sKnowledge, Innovations, and Relationto Science'. Blaikie er. al. (1996)suggest the contributions Beyond that (Scoones to Falmer Fir.st 'Theoretical and Thompson, 1994),the first pafi of which is devoted to Reflections 'neo-populist'paradigm. on Knowledge, Power and Practice',belongto the same According to our own characterization (caricature?) naive and sophisticated of conceptionsof IK, they do not, although we would a$ee that the influence of the naiveapproach continues loomlargein certainrespects. to

It is no accident the naiveconception IK evolved, hashadmostinfluence, that of and in the contextof agricultural development. this field, the confiastbetween In formal scientific researchand indigenouspractice has alwaysbeen sharperthan most. An importantrole has long been assigned the expertiseof agronomists to and other specialists, since well before the Green Revolutionand beyond into the era of (FSR). Given their backgound and training it is not FarmingSystems Research surprising that enlightenedagricultural experts should have constructedIK in the imageof their own profession, once it becameobviousthat they could no longer ignoreit. Ironically,the sameimpetus still be seenin the standard can methodology Farmer of (FPR),despitethe claim that this approach Participatory Research has been freed from the top-downorientationof its predecessors. Farmersare typically encouraged to developtheir own on-farmexperiments, completewith control plots and evaluation procedures, germplasm. a largeextent oftenwith the objectof testingintroduced To farmers are viewed and treated as proto-researchers, working in the image of their professionalcollaborators. This is undoubtedlypreferableto ignoring them completelyin the process research of it and development; unfortunately can but sometimes also provide an excusefor ignoringtheir practices outside,and in the absence projectinterventions. of, In some fields, the technicalapproach IK has been developed extremesof to to precision. Ethnobotanical projectsoften tend in this direction, scientific research especially whenthey havea universal scientificgoal (for examplethe discovery of globallymarketable preservation areas medicines, the or of with a high biodiversity value)andonly a subsidiary interest the concems local people.The work of the in of Ecological Knowledge Research Groupin the University Walesat Bangor, of andthe, inputs of this group and othersto the ODA ForestryResearchProgrammeProject, provide examplesof highly technical approaches the field of agroforestry in (Southern, 1994;Thap,, 1994;Walker, 1994;Kendonet al., 1995;Sinclairer a/., 1995;Thapa al.,1995: WalkerandSinclair,1995;Walkeret al., 1995). Studies et of this kind have the virtue of indicatinghow complexIK can be, even when it is definedin narrowtechnical termsandthe socialandeconomic contexts which it is in producedand reproduced largelyexcludedfrom consideration. are Whenresearch IK is undertaken naturalscientists, is perhaps on by it inevitable that certain aspects are emphasized the expense others. Eliciting IK, even in at of specified technical fields,is not the simpleactivitythatit is sometimes assumed be, to but requires rangeof skills. These (in a includethe skills possessed theory)by social scientists, well as a degree linguisticcompetence leastsomeknowledge as (at of of the language which the IK is expressed). in This last requirement all too often is neglected,with unfornrnateresults. For example,botanists and others frequently recordthe vemacularnamesof plants(and evenspeculate their meanings)with no on more than a crude understanding the language(s) of concemed. Their orthographies are often inadequate, especiallyin the caseof unwritten languages, it may even and be unclearwhich languages dialectsare being recorded.This is a problemwith or

manyethnobiological (seeBox 2.1). databases notjust ethnobotanical and collections The simplesolutionis to employand/orseekthe adviceof peoplewho possess the relevant skills,includingnativespeakers competent professionals (ideallypeople and who areboth).

2.1 The cultigensand cultivars of Zanzibar An incredible varietyof cropsis grownin Zanzibar, morethanin mostotherpartsof Africa. The great diversityof cultigensreflectsthe geographical position of the islandsand the many and varied historical influencesto which they have been exposed over the past2000years. ZCCFSP researchers begantheir examination of the viability andpotential differentincome-eaming of cropsin Zanzibar with a list of 42 'candidate cashcrops',mostof which werefruits and spices.Thesecomprised a merefractionof the known cultigens the islands, on which includea varietyof root andgraincropstraditionally classified theMinistryof Agriculture 'food crops'. by as A furtherlevel of complexityis added the fact that farmers by recognize namea and largenumberof differentvarieties sornecrops,especially of which havebeen those the subject multipleintroductions of and/orwhichhavebeenimportant the islands' in economy manyyears(bananas rice aregoodexamples). for and AlthoughZanzibar is relativelysmalland mostfarmers nativespeakers a singlelanguage (Swahili), are of thereis also considerable local variationin the namesof recognized crop varieties. This reflectsthe islands'complexculturalandlinguistichistory,which hasfostered a high degreeof terminological heterogeneity, even within the main dialects(more precisely, dialectcontinua) which linguists recognise. a result,the Swahilinames As of crop varieties may differ not only from one areato another, in someinstances but from villageto village,andevenfrom onelocal speaker another. to Although Zanzibar has hosted a number of donor-fundedagricultural projects in recent yea$, relatively few attemptshave been made to record the local namesof cropvarieties, alonedescribe identifythem,assess let and their status cultivars, as and examine their useby farmers.In trueGreen Revolution style,researchers tended have to focusonly on thecropswhichinterest them,includingthe importedcultivarswhich theybelieve(not always with justification)to be superior local varieties.ZCCFSP to started recordinformationon farmers'knowledge differentcrop varieties, to of and beganto investigate someof them (mostnotablymangocultivars)in greaterdetail. However, this work was never completed,partly becausesome researchers were sceptical its valueandthought wouldconsume muchtime. of it too A full inventory Zanzibar's of cultigens cultivarsandtheir Swahilinames yet and has to be compiled. The best written sources (Williams, remaina coionial handbook 1949) and the informationscattered unpublished in reports,some of which was compiled,albeit uncritically,by Koenders (1992a)in his suwey of agricultureon Pemba. In manyrespects, Zarzibar'sfarmersare much better informedaboutthe thanthe researchers extensionists and who to advisethem.

The compilationof such a list (or lists) shouldnot be seenas an end in itself ("farmers'knowledge cropsandcrop varieties"), as a means understanding of but of farmers'practice engaging and with it moreprofitably. The diversityof cultigens and (presumed) cultivars on Zanzlbw sayssomethingimportant about farmers' past and present strategies(including diversificationas a strategyto maximize limited resources minimizerisk).andthese and shouldnot be ienored.

Practitioners operatingwithin the boundsof the naive conceptionof IK can be justifiably accused offailing to carry their own programme through,and of havingtoo narrowa view of their own practice, scientificmethodology the which they are using to elicit and evaluate IK. This is reflectedin the use of the term 'knowledge'(as 'indigenous in enshrined the phrase knowledge' and all of its derivatives), well as as 'validate'this 'knowledge'. Anyone by the commoncall for the needto schooled in prescriptions scientificmethod Popperian for will immediately recogaise these usages as being symptomatic an outmoded'inductivist' or dogmatically'positivist' of epistemology.A follower of Popper'sopen-ended approach scientific enquiry to might reasonably wonder why the object of our enterprise called 'indigenous is knowledge'.Would it not be moreaccurate describe as 'indigenous to it theory',or betterstill ' theeries'? Sucha revisionofour conception IK (nowIT or ITsl) wouldcarrywith it a number of of advantages. would serveas a constant It reminderthat neitherour theoriesnor those espoused others are necessarilyprivileged, and that even those which are by favouredmust alwaysbe treatedas provisional,and never accordedthe certainty of 'knowledge'. It would encourage to be more careful in assessing relation us the between,and relativevalue of diflerent theories. Over-enthusiastic proponents IK of sometimes find it embarrassing admit that IK may be wrong,an embarrassment to from the claim that recognition the validity of IK is what separates which stems of it from earlier approaches. However,if IK is recastas IT, then we shouldbe well preparedto find that some ITs are less adequatethan others, including our own theories. The challenge to explainhow and why sometheoriesare superiorto is whatever others, their source. It is widely believedin sub-Saharan Africa that physicalcontactwith chameleons and poisoning humans livestock. Zoologists their salivacauses in and have(as far as we are aware)found no evidence supportthis proposition, haveno hesitation to and in describing as mistaken, it consigning to the category 'belief. However, good it of a IT researcher wouldwantto know how thetheoryof chameleon toxicity arose, how it spread, why it remains prevalent.Only thencouldthe practicalconsequences and so of this IT (or setofITs) be addressed, assuming therewasa perceived that needto do so (for example,if a particular group of camel herderswas avoiding good browsing because the presence chameleons, killing a rare species order to avert of of or in sickness theirherds). in

This semi-hypothetical example shows that it is not sufficientsimplyto consider one IT as 'wrong' and another 'right', but that it is importantto explorethe relation as betweenthem and the consequences this for practice. When it matters,the of incommensurability theorieshas to be translated of into the commensurability of practice(for a non-hypothetical exampleof this see Box 2.2). Sometimes, the problemmay be lessacute,for examplewhen an IT can be readily incorporatedinto a moregeneral theorywhichexplains same the events morebesides.In eithercase, and however,the real work beginswhen the practical consequences theory (whether of 'ours' or 'theirs')are addressed.

2.2 Leopardsand witchcraft on Unguja The Zanzibar Leopard unique. It lives solelyon the islandof Unguja,whereit is is the largestcamivore and only wild felid. It has been separated from its mainland relatives morethan 10000 for years, andsomeauthorities consider to be a distinct it Pantherapardus adersi. As settlement subspecies, and agriculturehaveexpanded on Unguja, the ZanzibarLeopardhas sufferedincreasinglyfrom habitat destructionand predation humans.lt is not knownhow manyleopards by remainon the island,but recentresearch suggests the populationmay havereached critically low level. that a Most rural inhabitants believethat although someleopards wild, othershavebeen are groupsof witches (wachawi)who usethem to harassand intimidate bred and fed by their fellow villagers. This belief is elaborated manywaysand includes in detailsof (for example, the witches'practice their useof charms sendthe leopards to from one joint-owner to anotherin a different village) which are recountedwith considerable consistency from one end of the island to the other. These accounts of leopard-keeping so convincingthat most people who hear them, including are educated townspeople, themwithoutquestion- number outside accept A of observers, amongthem wildlife researchers, likewisebeenpersuaded theremustbe a have that core of truth in thesereports, and more than one has beentaken on a 'wild goose chase' seea keptleopard. to Thebelief in leopard-keeping fearofthe witcheswho keepthemhasa very direct and impact upon people'sattitudes leopards to and their conservation.Many villagers would simply like to get rid of them, and throughoutrecordedhistory local hrmters have trapped,spearedand shot leopards,with addedhelp from their own magical charms,in order to reducethe threat. Shortly after the 1964ZarulbarRevolution this culminatedin an island-widecampaign,encouraged the govemment,to eradicate by leopards and neutralize their allegedkeepers once and for all- By the mid-1970s, more than 100 leopardshad been killed in this campaign, which was led by a witchfinder known as Mzee Kitanzi. The killing has continuedto the presentday, with the now illegaltradein leopardskinsprovidingan additionalincentiveto local hunters. Leopard numbers have declined to such an extent that some villagers, particular the younger generation, are now prepared to consider some way of ine them. The commonest is to keeo them in a zoo or a more

extensiveenclosureand chargetourists to see them. Many Forestry officials (includingthoseresponsible wildlife conservation) for agreewith this approach, and suggest the simplest that course wouldbe to persuade leopard-keepers displaytheir to kept leopards. At first sight,the widespread talesof leopard-keeping completelyat odds with are scientific knowledge. However, closer examinationshows that this belief is constructedaroundan attemptto explain the very real problem of conflict between human and leopard populations. Villagers designateleopards as wild or kept accordingto their behaviour. A leopardwhich is seendeepin the bushand flees from the observeris generallyassumed be wild, but a leopardwhich doesnot run away, to approaches farmlandand humanhabitation,and/orwhich poses threatto the lives of a people their livestock (there manyrecords and are ofpredation, includingfatal attacks on children),is assumed be kept and acting on the ordersof its owne(s). The to belief in leopard-keeping drawson commonideasaboutthe natue and role of also witches in local society,and functionsas a multi-purposetheory which, amongother things,explains whatmightotherwise thoughtofas normalbehaviour leopards be for living in closeproximityto humans. Equipped with this knowledge (a more general theory which encompasses and explains 'indigenous' the theory),it is easier approach problemof conserving to the the ZanzibarLeopard. It is evidentthat local concerns aboutthe 'antisocial' activities of leopards haveto be addressed their long-term will if survivalis to be assured. The Jozani-Chwaka Conservation Bay Project(which is fundedby CARE Austria) and the Forestry Section the Commission NaturalResources currentlyworkingon a of for are series ofproposals designed balance interests differentstakeholders to the of involved in this issue, includingthoseofthe nationalandlocal hunters who haveactuallybeen doing the killing. Whetheror not the divergentviews of the different 'experts' can be reconciled, remainsto be seen;it is more important,perhaps, that some form of agreement reached is overthe courses ofaction whichcanandshould taken. be

Indigenousknowledge indigenous as practice Sincethe beginning ofthe decade, naiveconception IK hascomeunderattack the of (Bebbington, 1991;Fairhead, 1991;Long and Long, 1992;Scoones Thompson, and 1994;Thompson and Scoones, 1994;Thompson, 1996). Thesecritics all makethe point that 'knowledge', including IK, is always socially (culturally, politically, economically etc.)grounded, that its articulation development and practicecannot in be separated from questionsof power and the relationsbetweenthe different actors andagencies involved.Thompson Scoones and state:
"The attempt to "blend" or "incorporate" local knowledgeinto eisting Westem scientificprocedures assumes that rural people's knowledge(RPK) representsan easily definable"body'' or "stock" of knowledgereadyfor extractionand incorporation. The critics point out, however,that rural people's knowledge,like Westernscientificknowledge,is alwaysfragmentary, partial, and provisionalin nature. It is neverfully unified or integratedin termsof an underlyingcultural logic or systemof classification.

Moreover, knowledgeis embedded and emerges of a multidimensional in out universein which diverse cultural, economic,environmental, sociopoliticalfactors intersectand influenceone another. The aad proc€sstskes place on the basisof existingconceptualframeworksand processes is atrectedby and various social contingencies, such as the capacities, experiences, interests,resources, and pettems of social interaction characteristicof the particular social group or groups of individuals. Finally, knowledge,whether"indigenous"or "scientific", is inclusivein the sense that it is the result of a great manydecisions selective and assimilations ofprevious beliefs,values,ideas,andimages, at the same but time exclusiveof other possibleframesof conceptualiz:tionand understanding. Hence, it is not an accumulation "facts" but involyesways of comprehending world: knowledgeis always in the of the (1994:59) making."

The naive conceptionof lK, with its over-emphasis the technical and its on over-simplisticview of the easewith which IK can be appropriated, lacks this deeper perspective. sociological According its advocates, sophisticated to the conception of IK makesup for this failing, and requiresdevelopment practitionersto deal with the issues raises it headon. The essays Beyond in Farme,, First (Scoones Thompson, and 1994)providesomeindication how theymight approach tash especially of this those workingin agricultural (at development. basicmessage leastof the editors'own The is contribution) that theyshouldplungethemselves the complexities practice, into of reflectingcritically upon their own as well as others'; acting not just as smiling facilitators but also as canny catalysts and crafty negotiators in the fields and battlefields of knowledgebefore them. However, Beyond Farmer Firut promises morethanit delivers suffers from someofthe same and blind spots its predecessor as (Chambers al., 1989). Farrington et drawsattentionto someof these,the first of which is particularly relevant here:
"[One shortcoming]is an inadequate conceptualis8tion the interactionsamongknowledge,the forms of (i.e. technologies) which it might be applied,and the processes innovation) applyingit. in (i.e. of Knowledge, on which the book focuses,is only one componsnlof innovation: others include the complementary inputs - whetherland,labour or capital- necessary put new ideasinto practice. The to vast literature documenting locallevel conflict over physicalaccess resources ignorcd- If it hod to is beentakeninto account,therewould havebeenlessoptimismaboutthe willingnessof"the community" to wotk togetherin prioritisingneeds,about the possibilities arriving at an agreedagenda, of about the permanence "unanimous"decisions apparent of oncethe team of outsidershasdeparted,and about the capacity participatory of methods resolve to conflict."(1995:5)

The conceptionof IK espoused BeyondFarmer L'irst and other recent writings in does provide a more sophisticatedperspectiveon the same subject, (indigenous) knowledge. Although it promotesa view of knowledgegroundedin practice,it preservesthe naive conception's prioritization of knowledge over practice, and thereforecontinuesto pay little attentionto those aspectsof practice cited by Fanington(and others). A more recentreview of different approaches IK therefore to combinesthe naive and sophisticated conceptions under the label 'neo-populist', describingthe latter as merely a more radical versionof the former and equally (Blail<te a1.,1996: deficientin its proposals practice for et 8-9). Recallingour earlierdiscussion the disciplinaxy of originsof the naiveconception, it is evidentthat the sameinfluences exist in the sophisticated conception. A very different perspectivemight have emergedif the principal exponentsof IK were writing aboutnatural resourcemanagement ratherthan agricultural development: at the very leastthey would havehadto address resource the mentioned conflict issues
v

by Fanington.Instead, sociological concems to appear havebeensimplytackedon to the originaltechnical approach.Althoughthe resulthassomevalue,it falls shortof the obvious conclusion indigenous that knowledge an aspect indigenots is practice, of practice muchmorethanthat. On this vien the theorists IK andthat indigenous is of havetravelled an extremelyroundaboutroute to get halfway to a goal which should havebeentheir starting point. Theoristsof the sophisticated conceptionof IK claim an impressiveintellectual pedigree.The list of authorities (1994)readslike a citedby Scoones Thompson and Llho's Who of social theoristsand philosophers sciencespanning past few of the decades. The common themewhich connects work of these the differentauthorities, including Kuhn, Feyerabend, Habermas, Bourdieu,Foucaultand Denida, is their rejection (explicit or otherwise)of 'positivism', and in particular of scientific epistemology an adequate as accountof how knowledgeis constructed and scienceis really carriedout. As Blaikie er al. (1996)suggest, altematives the which they and the sophisticated theoristsof IK sketch out lead inexorablyin the direction of epistemological culturalrelativism and (this is mostexplicit in Feyerabend's lgairsl Method, and should be apparentto anyonervho has followed the developmentof post-structuralist theory). This is somewhatunsatisfactory when taken to its inevitableconclusionand translated into proposals practice. Some of these for proposals (Blaikie et al. refer to those of the 'extreme' FPR lobby) are clearly impractical,and are in dangerof leadingto an attitude of 'anl.thinggoes', and ultimately theabandonment to ofpractice. We all recognizethat knowledgeis socially constructed the sensethat it is in produced reproduced particular and in socialcontexts whichmay shape in different it ways. However, not all of us are preparedto accept the relativists' implicit conclusion that everyone's knowledge equalin the sense is that no one person'sor group'sknowledge moreextensive, is (we accurate usefulthananother's avoid use or of the term'valid' herebecause canhavedifferentmeanings this context). This it in doesnot meanthatwe candecide advance in whose knowledge 'better',or discount is anyone's knowledge beinginelevant. In a development as context(anddevelopment parlance) knowledge all the stakeholders relevant, the of is and the challenge to is searchsharedunderstandings which arenot ownedby any singleparty. While examining naive conception IK, we intimatedthat a more productive the of approach the whole questionof IK might be to adopt a Popperianperspective, to by treatingindigenous knowledge indigenous (ITs). This approach as theoryor theories provides readyset of procedures comparing evaluating a for and theories, regardless of who holds them, and encorragesus to theorize the theories, in other words to attemptto explainwhy differenttheories held. This includes are theorization the of socialdimensions theoryand all thoseaspects ITs to which the sophisticated of of conceptionof IK draws attention. Epistemological relativism can be jettisoned particularinsights without losingthe generated its adherents.Popper'sscientific by epistemology essentially prcscriptionfor practice is a ratherthana description that of practice, point which seems havebeenmissed the majorityof theorists a to by who sided.with Kuhn in the wakeof their famous debate.Readers pursue who wish to this
l0

line of reasoning and its implicationsfor the IK debateare refened to Popper's disputewith the FrankfurtSchool(Habermas included)and relatedwritings. For present purposes, however, havesaidenough we abouttheory,andwill retumnow to our centraltheme:practice.

The primacy of practice An anthropologicalperspect ive A number of contributorsto the IK debatehave acknowledged that before it began researchon IK was carried out primarily by social (cultural) antkopologists (Fairhead, 1991;Thompson, 1996). Most issues raisedin the debate be tracedin can the anthropological literature,where many of them are examinedin considerably more detail and from a much wider varietyof angles. Anthropologists have long grappled with countless facetsof the sociology knowledge of amongthe peoplethey havestudied.However, muchoftheir work remains unread contemporary by students oflK, especially thosetrainedin otherdisciplines. is arguable ifthey hadtaken It that account ofthe existingliterature, thenthe IK debate wouldnot havedeveloped the in way that it has. It is alsounlikelythatIK wouldhaveremained privileged the concept that it has. Not 'indigenous only would the expression knowledge'have beenseverely criticized(it seemsto have been introducedas a 'soft' translationof what some American anthropologists were alreadycalling 'ethnoscience'), also the notion that it but represents.One of the anthropologist'sprimary interestsis, and always has been,to explainthe relationbetween what peoplesay and what they do, regardless how of 'belief, 'myth', or just plain thesestatements might be categorized ('knowledge', 'exegesis').As might be expected, socialrelations figureprominently accounts in of 'thought')and their actions, the relationbetween informants'statements (presumed although different schoolsof anthropologyinterpret their roles differently. Many anthropologists would agree that what peoplesay(think, know, believeetc.) cannot be explainedwithout referenceto what they and othersaboul them do. Knowledge consists more thanjust statements theoriesaboutthe world, with or without of or people. The production reproduction knowledge something peopledo, and of is that andin this sense an aspect is oftheir practice. A practical problem The IK debatehas diverted attention away from the needto understand and engage people'spracticeand the theorists haveonly recentlybegunto recogtrise need. this What impactshasthis had upon development practice? The majority of practitioners are now awareof the declaled importance IK, althougha significant proportionof of progressed them havenot beyondthe naive conceptionof IK as technical knowledge. Relativelyfew field workersknow how to elicit or use IK creativelyand many continue to treat it as somethingwhich threatensto make their work unnecessarily complicated.Their understanding and ability to deal with, people'spracticeis of,
ll

evenmoreundeveloped. This is not surprising, because literatue placesso little the emphasis the importance on oflocal practice, hardlyany guidance provided and is on how to understand engage The standard and it. toolkits for participatorydevelopment only promotea superficial level of understanding engagement, and focusingmore on the technicalaspects local practice(seechapter of three). Practitioners left to are follow their own instincts, and while someland on their feet, othersdo not. This problemis perhaps most acutein projectswith explicitly technicalgoals,but not uncommor in thosewith an institutional focus. Under standinglocal practice What do we meanby local practice? The answerto this question has traditionally fallenwithin the domainof anthropologists, whomlocal practice everything for is that peopledo and say. Understanding local practice meansunderstanding why they do what they do and why they saywhat they say. This is not how anthropologists would normallydescribe theirjob, but this is basically what it boils downto. In the process of performing this task, anthropologistshave frequently limited their frames of reference(for example,to a particular ethnic group, or a particular type of practice) and focused tle minutiaeof local practice the exclusion its wider context. on to of Many anthropologists still operatein this way, especiallythose who are more interested what p€oplesaythan what they do. A significantnumber,however,have in enlarged and enriched their approachto local practice by borrowing from other disciplines by addressing concerns socialdevelopment and the of research general. in This is the approach which, we suggest, and shouldenrich development practice. can At 'community' level (whetherthis refersto a particularlocation or a particular population,howevernarrowly or broadlydefined)this entailsdevelopingan overview of the politicaleconomy the community, the principalrelations of of within it andthe principalrelations between andothercommunities it (including wider community, the suchas the state,of which it is a part). In this context,'relations'includethoseof productionand exchange, power, gender,social organization,land tenure and access (this is merelyan indicativelist). At individualor household to resources level the task is much the same,though it shouldbe pointedout that a lot of the researcher's time andresources be wasted focusing this level- It is muchmoreeffrcient can by on to begin with the generaland work down to the specific, given that the former often explains latter. In Farming the (FSR), mistake oftenmadeof Systems Research the is 'farming syst€m' extrapolatingfrom the specific to the general(the conceptis in any questionable it is limited in bothdescriptive analytical case as and scope).

2.3 The declineof cloveproductionon Pemba Until recently, Zanzibar wasfamousfor the production ofcloves. For morethan 100 years,its economywas heavily dependent clove monoculture on and the incomes derived by the state,traders,landownersand agricultural labourersl?om the clove The raoi ion of clove ion bv the world's main consumer
t2

Indonesia, the consequent and over-supply drasticfall in world marketpricesover and the pastdecade,havehad a devastating impact on Zaruibar's clove industry and the national economy a whole. According currentmarketpredictions, as to thereis little hopethatpriceswill recover anlthinglike their formerlevels. The futureprosp€cts to for large-scale clove productionin Zanzibarare thereforegrim, and while clove farming has not suffereda suddendeath,it is certainlyin a stateof accelerating decline. The vastmajorityof Zanzibar's clovesare grown on Pemba. Clove farms,many of which were originally established plantations as and share-plantations the 19th in century,dominatethe hilly landscape the westemside of the island, covering of approximately two+hirdsof the land. Farmers this areahavebeenmosthardhit by in the fall in prices. Althoughfarmerselsewhere the islandhavealso suffered, on in generalit has been easierfor them to adjust to the change. There are a variety of reasons this,themostobvious for beingthatclovesneverplayedsucha dominant role in their livelihoods; relativelyfew own clove farms,and seasonal clove-picking was only one of a rangeof incomesources which households exploitedto supplement their subsistence-oriented agriculture. In the west, however,the vast majority of farmersown clove treesand until recently relied heavilyon their incomesfrom the cloveharvest buy foodandmeetotherdomestic to needs. As cloveshavebeenso dominantin the local economy, farmershavefound it very difficult to adjustto the recentdemise. Most clovetreesremainon the farms. It is illegalto fell productive treeswithoutofficial sanction, the formal procedures and for this areslow andcumbersome. However, manyfarmers blamethe government, rather than the world market,for the low price of harvested clovesand believethat prices will recoverif the government its policieschange.As a result,thereis cunently or little inclinationamongfarmersto engage wholesale in felling and replacement of clovetrees. Instead, manyclove farmsareneglected, the landbetween trees and the is reverting secondary to forest. This provides ideal habitatfor vervetmonkeys, an whosedepredations other food and cash crops provide further disincentive on to expand cultivation. The inherited patternsof land-holdingand labour use are further obstaclesto agricultural development.Largeacreages clovesare ownedby peoplewho live of outside localcommunity (someof themoutside the Pemba), this limits the useof and 'permanent'tree the land for other crops, especially crops. Labour inputs to remaingeared the economicsystemunderwhich they evolved. The agriculture to role ofwomen is mainlyconfined subsistence cultivationandthe processing to rice of rice and otherfood crops. Althoughmen'sinputsaremore extensive, mostcases in they could not be described intensive, as especially when compared with farmers (includingwomenoutside the cloveplantation elsewhere of area). This reflectstheir historicalreliance a treecrop requiringminimalmaintenance, on muchof which was undertaken labourers by from outsidethe clove-growingareawho were paid from the proceeds the harvest. The transitionfrom a low-inputto a higher-input of system is particularly the financialresources employoutside not easy, as to labourareno longer so readilvavailable.
13

The typicalresponse ofclove farmen hasbeento expand subsistence production a in piecemeal fashionby plantingcassava bananas scattered plots. Many ofthese and in plotshavebeenopened in patches up wherecloveshavedied from Sudden Death,a which is known to attackpoorly-managed disease plantationsmore readily than those which are well cared for and which app€arsto be tkiving in proportion to the increasingneglect of the clove farms. For farmers,cassava and bananashave the obviousadvantage being familiar food crops which can help to plug the gap of previouslyfilled by food purchases; surpluses any can be sold. There is also a growing market for bananas,which are being traded in increasing quantities to Ungujaandespecially Zanzibar town. Farmers havebeenslow to expandproduction of other altemativecashcrops,partly because their lack of confidencein the of markets,andpartly because the constraints of mentionedabove. The cloveareas Pemba probably mostpressing of are problemin the agriculrural the economy of Zartzibar. This problem is compoundedby the environmental risks inherentin the development alternatives cloveswithout carefulplanningand of to appropriateadvice from policy-makers. Throughouthistory, the westernside of the islandhasbeenperceived Zaruibar'slargest as areaof naturallyfertile land, full of potential for agricultural development. Howeveq althoughthe potential is there (as demonstrated morethan 100yearsof successful by cloveproduction), soilsin this the areaare no more fertile thanelsewhere. fact,the subsoilon the hills of Pembais In pooranddeficientin minerals; deepsoil pockets somepartsofthe coralragare the in muchmorefertile. The apparent fertility of thecloveplantations dueto a thin layer is of organic mafter depositedand maintainedover thousandsof years by the forest vegetationwhich grew on it. The natual balancewas fragile, and becomeevenmore precarious whenmostof Pemba's indigenous forests werefelled in the l9th andearly 20th centuries.By happyaccident, theywerereplaced a treecrop which playeda by similar, if lesseffective,biologicalrole in maintaining soil fertility. Ironically,the periodic and cunent neglect of the clove plantationshas further helpedto maintain the balance. Withoutsomekind of treecoveror othermeasures maintainsoil fertility, the green to hills of Pembawill give way to a banen and relatively unproductive landscape, similar to that which hasalreadydeveloped otherdeforested partsof the tropics. in gainshaveto be measured Short-term economic against suchmedium-and long-term consequences. There is a dangerthat theseconsequences be ignoredor not will recognized until it is too late. This hasalreadyhappened other areasof Pemba; in whereroot cropshavebeencontinuously cultivated morethan two decades, for soil fertility and productivityhavedeclinedmarkedly. Given the recentchanges the in economic fortunes the cloveplantations, issueneeds be tackledurgentlyto of this to avertthe risks of unplanned development work towardsa sustainable and agriculture.

justificationfor this approach sketched in Booth'soverviewand The theoretical is out summing-upof RethinkingSocial Development (1994), He arguesthat social
l4

researchers development shoulddevelopanalyses the 'middle ground' between in top-downtheory and bofiom-upempiricism,both to accountfor the patternsof divenity which have scuttled grandtheory and to bridge the gap betweenacademic development studiesand the work of practitioners the field. To some extent, in researchers have begun to do this, and the contributionsto RethinkingSocial Development illustratedifferentapproaches this problem. Booth's discussion to of the relationbetween 'neo-structuralist political-economy' 'actor-oriented' the (or and 'agency-oriented') approaches advancedby different contributorsis particularly pertinent- Although he concedes eachapproach something ofler the other, that has to he ultimately chooses subscribe the former. One way out of this 'minor to to impasse' to think of themashavingdifferentbut complementary is The applications. neo-structuralistapproachis particularly relevant to the understandingof practice, whereas an actor-orientedapproachhas a much more obvious rcle in engaging practice. The reason for this is deceptivelysimple: understanding requires generalization,whereasengagement people and/or the entails interaction between institutions whichtheybelong.This distinction, to however, should be carried not too far; understanding practice are not just complementary and engaging activities, but canandshould dialectically be combined development practitioners. by

2.4 Agricultural development easternPembr in For more than a centurythe agricultureof Pembahas been dominatedby clove production (seeBox 2.3). The lowlands andcoralrag beyond westemplantation the zone have frequently been characterized as marginal in terms of both their contribution to the clove economy and their presumedcomparativelack of potential. However,recenthistorysuggests this characterization agricultural that is misleading.Most of the significant agricultural developments Pemba in overthe last 25 yearshavetakenplacein the lowlandsandthis trend continues the presentday. to productionexpanded response period shortages basic foodstuffs, Subsistence in to of particularlyduring the 19'10-72 famine,caused mainly by the government's abrupt cessation food imports. At the sametime, and in particularareas, of specificcrops were developedas cash crops, and marketedboth within and outside Pemba. The best exampleswere sweetpotato in Makangalein the far north-west,and turmeric in Mwambe in the south-east the island. The recent sharpdecline in the clove of economy has had a further, and undoubtedly more widespread, impact upon production for the market. Many farm householdsin the lowlands used to derive additionalincomefrom clove-picking, the fall in clove prices,and thereforeof but labourrates,hasreduced seasonal the migrationof labourers a trickle. Instead, to many farmerson the eastof the islandhavebegunto supplement their incomesby growingvegetables other short-term and cropson the coral rag. The only villages largely unaffectedby this trend are thosein the Micheweni peninsulaand on someof the smallerislands around Pemba, wherefishingandlong-distance tradeoffer a more secure livelihood.

l5

The villagesin theseso-called marginalareashavethe most traditionalsocial and economic organization. Theywereleastaffected the large-scale by transformation of the islandwhich accompanied introduction the ofthe plantation economy the l9th in century,and thereforeconform more closely to the historical pattem of rural Swahili communityorganizationfound all along the East African coast. To this extent,they represent outcomeof a long process adaptation the of which is evident in their exploitation the diverseresources of available them,on land as well as in the sea. to Agriculture a longhistoryin these has communities.Shiftingcultivationon the coral rag,especially sorghum millets,hasbeenpractised morethana 1000years, of and for and the modified vegetationof Pemba'scoral rag, whereonly two dry forestsof any sizeremain(RasKiuyu andMsitu Mkuu on theMichewenipeninsula), t}e resultof is this practice. Rice growingin the shallowvalleys,and cultivationof other crops, includingbananas root crops,on the higherland between and these, also hasa long history. The history of economicand agricultwaldiversification thesecommunities in has madeit easierfor them to weatherrecenteconomicchanges and to adaptto new circumstances opportunities. However,thesechanges and havenot affectedthem all pressure land availabilityhaveprobablyhad mosteffect on equally. Population and their differentialresponses, shownby the historiesof cashcrop development as in Makangale and Muwambe. These factors also help to explain why agricultural in development the centralpart ofthe eastcoasthaslagged behindand only recently begunto show signsof rapid change, propelledby the declinein clove incomes. Much of this development focused Vitongoji and Ole, wherecomparative is on ease of accessto Pemba's urban markets has provided an additional stimulus for increasing cashcropproduction, especially (includinggroundnuts). ofvegetables The impactof this development app€ars be spreading now to north,following the line of the new tarmacroad. Althoughthe paceof change slowerin Kangagani othervillagesoffthis road,it is and is already beginning to be felt, particularly on the coral rag, where vegetable production (tomatoes in Kangagani) is developing, and efforts by the Forestry Departmentto introducetree planting aretaking off The tree planting is particularly encouraging because uncontrolledexploitationof the coral rag and the fringing mangroveforestsposesa threat to the resourcebase;in someareaslarge standsof mangrovehave alreadybeen clearedto make way for the manufactureof salt. At present, coral rag land is comparatively abundant and fallows are generally maintained,thoughnot for long enoughfor naturalforestto regenerate.The coral rag is generallyperceivedto be commonland, opento exploitationby anyonefrom either within or outsidethe local community. In this respect,there are fewer controls than there were in the past, when village elders and the party branchesexercizedsome authority pressure overits use. As population increases, Pemba's coralrag is likely to be subjected the kindsof intensive to exploitation which are already taking placeon Unguja, wherelandownership becoming issue research is an and indicates mixed that farming with livestock and tree crops provides the best prospectsfor a sustainable agriculture.

l6

Genderissuesare an importantcomponent this situation. Whereas of women havea relativelylimited role in agriculture the plantation in they providethe bulk of areas, the labour in the lowlands of Pembaand produce nearly all the food crops with minimal assistance from men. The coral rag, however,is traditionally a male preserve, and it is men who havebegunto cultivate cashcropson this land, although women'sgroupshavealsobeeninvolvedin the recentwave of tree planting. It is likely that furtherexpansion agriculture the coral rag will increasingly of on impact on genderrelations, and that this will not necessarily to women'sadvantage be in termsof their access resources the proceeds to and from them. Planners, researchers and extensionists have to consider will this issuecarefully,both in planningtheir work with farmersand in providing appropriateadvice. Gendersensitivity shouldbe an essential component the development a participatoryapproach agricultural in of to development throughoutZawibar, but especiallyin areaslike the lowlandsof Pemba playa leading wherewomenalready role in farming.

Theimporlanceof change An essential component any analysis this kind shouldbe an understanding of of of how practice has changedover time, how it is changingat present,and in which direction it seemsto be heading. This might seem to be an obvious point developmentis, after all, about managingchange- but it is one which is frequently neglected. One reasonfor this neglect,perhaps, that development is practitioners tend to be more concemedwith the changes that they and other stakeholders would like to seetake placethan thosewhich are alreadytaking placeor havetaken place in the past. The participatorymethodsand tools recommended practitionersdo little to to overcome this inherent bias. Consider, for example, the standard practice for Participatory conducting Rural Appraisal(PRA). The overallemphasis the PRA of processis placed on the identificationof existingproblemsand possible /zlzre solutions. One of the many problemswith this approach the generallack of is att€ntion paid Io existing solutiors to past problems. The 'landscape' of problems and solutionsin any one communityor region is usuallyuneven,what remainsa problem to one group of actorsmay alreadyhavebeensolved,or is in the processof groupin the sameor another beingsolved,by another location. Thesesolutionsor sofutions-in-the-making constituteopportunities those ll,ho have not yet may for arrivedat them, including thosewho havenot yet recognised problemswhich they the engage. Such opportunities often missedin the process conducting are of PRAs, especiallywhenthey are undertaken a singlecommunitywithout referenceto what in is happening others. in Apart from this generalfailing, the recommended tools and techniquesfor PRAs are inadequatefor addressingquestionsof change, especially in the hands of inexperienced researchers. While local historiesand time lines "can be extremely importantin highlighting someof the causes certainproblemsor how changes of have
t7

(Nabasa al., 1995:27),theirelicitationoften produces occurred" et little morethana chronology importantevents. Other tools are explicitly orientated of towardsthe collection of syrchronic information. Wealth ranking, for example,providesa snapshot perceived of differentiation the economic in status households the time of at the exerciseis undertaken.The causes inter-household of di{ferentiation not are usuallyconsidered (suchas 'households beyondstatements ofthe obvious headed by widows are in the poorest category'). As a result,field workersoften assume that household membership the categories haveelicitedis moreor lesspermanent. in they As anthropologists havelong beenat painsto point out, this is not necessarily the case. Households, the largerdomestic groupsto which they belong,invariably and movethrougha'developmental cycle'during which their economicstatus changes. A household assigned one particular 'wealth category' may well fall into a to different category some years later, and householdsat different stages of the developmental cycle may appearto belong in the samecategorywhile they are actually movingin verydifferentdirections. The operation factorssuchas thesecan createhavocwith unsophisticated of wealth rankings bringinto question furtheranalysis actions and any and based uponthem. In communities wherepermanent pattems socialandeconomic of differentiation not are immediately apparent, ofthe first questions researcher one any shouldask is whether they haveemerged, to what extentthey are in the process emerging. This is not or of question;it is of critical importance development a purely academic practice, for especiallywhen distributionaland equitability issuesare being considered. An understanding of patterns of differentiation at different levels (inter- and -group, -communityetc.) is crucial for making decisionsabout intra-household, 'interactions') (or targetinginterventions perhaps, and monitoringand evaluating lmpacts. Whenexamining change, is perhaps it helpful to distinguish between change the at 'structure'and 'agency' macroandmicrolevels. This is another areawhereboththe approaches be usedin a complementary can way Changeat the macroJevelcan perhapsbe best understood terms of the 'neo-structualistpolitical-economic' in (Booth, 1994),whereaschangeat the microJevel falls more obviously approach within the domainof the 'actor-oriented' (Long and van der Ploeg 1994). approach Whereas structwal approachis the simplestroute to understanding a generalpatterns of change, focusuponagency help to elucidate diversityof individualand a can the institutional actionswhich make,and aremadeby, thesewider pattems. Innovation is one such aspectof changeat the micro-levelwhich is of particularinterestto practitioners. Innovatorscan be viewed as individual agentswho development pioneer changes structure structures in whicharenot,however, oftheir own making, but of otheragents whoseearlieractionshavedefinedthe pattems constraint of and opportunityon which they act.

2.5 Agricultural innovationin northern Unguja
t8

Agricultural developmenthas proceededat a much faster pace on Unguja than on Pemba,partly because the proximity of Zanzibartown and its growing market for of produce.The growthof eggplant agricultural farmingin Gamba isjust one example among many on Unguja; others include orangefarming in Ndijani (central Unguja) production exportin Muyuni(southwest andmango and Unguja). Gambalies at the northeastem fringe ofUnguja's plantationzone,borderingthe coral rag which stretches awayfrom the villageto the eastcoast. Beforethe 1980s, was it more or less marginalto the economyof the island; as in many other villages, productionof bananas, subsistence rice and other grain crops was much cassava, more importantthan the oppornrnisticsaleof theseand varioustree crops in the local markets. Somecashcrop development takenplace,focusingon turmeric and had gingergrownin homegardens, by the 1990s marketfor these products not but the was very good. Until recently, the clove economyprovided many inhabitantsof Gamba with their most reliable sourceof income. As a result of historical pattemsof migration and intermarriagebetweenthe people of northem Unguja and southem Pemba, someof the inhabitants Gamba of heldrightsin cloveplantations the latter on island, and many more sailed over to Pembaevery year to pick cloves or take advantageof other economic opportunitieswhich the clove harvest offered. The declineof the cloveeconomy placedadditional from the mid-1980s pressure onwards on the inhabitants Gamba develop of to altemative sources incomeof Gamba'stimely response linked to the growth of the Zanzibarurbanmarket;this, w:rs in tun! wasa functionofthe increased trade(andto a lesser extent,tourism)which followedeconomic liberalization the mid-1980s.In lessthan a decade, in many of Gamba'sfarmershadreorientated towardsthe growing urbanmarketand transformed a significant sub-set their local farmingsystems movingawayfrom subsistence of by productionand into vegetableproduction. The most spectacular aspectof this transformation the conversion was ofthe fertile valleyto the eastof the village from cassavacultivation to eggplant(aubergine)production. Developmentof this kind may havebeeninevitable oncetransport links with Zalibar town hadimproved, but the precise form of the developmentowed much to the foresight of a single innovative farmer. He had previously worked in the town market and seen an opportunity for supplyingit with eggplants when they were out of season Umbuji, in the villagewhich hadpreviously sourced Zanzibar's residents. several For he se.rsons labouredalone,but when neighbouringfarmerssaw the good profits he was mafting, production 1993. theyswitched zzrsse eggplant en to in Since then, eggplant production has continued to expand in Gamba and the surroundingvillages- The processof expansionhas been greatly assistedby the evolutionof a collectivemarketingsystem, flrst institutedin 1994. This system parallels, and in somewaysis more successful than,the system operated orange by farmers Ndijani in cenhalUnguja. It is entirelythe productof local innovation in and collaboration,and is designedto ensurethat the market is never flooded and that prices therefore remain more or less constant through most of the three-month harvestingperiod. In the first year of its operation,the two villages involved took tums to markettheir andwereset for the maximumquanti
19

which they could taketo marketon any singleday. In the 1995season, system the had expanded coverfive villages;eachtook a daily tum to markettheir produce to without any limit on the amountof producethey could send. Farmersanticipatethat the system be furthermodifiedin 1996, areevenconsidering adaptation will and its to at leastone other vegetablecrop, tomatoes. So far, it has worked well, and farmers areprevented from sellingout of tum by carefulpolicing. Gambais now Unguja's secondmost importanteggplantproducerafter Umbuji. Profits are not as high as they were for the village's first eggplantfaxmer,but good enoughto encourage continuingexpansion. Meanwhile,some farmershave also begun to experimentwith other vegetablecrops, such as spinach(Amaranthussp.) intercropped with the eggplants, tomatoproduction becomean increasingly and has importantfeatureofcultivation on the coral rag to the eastof the village and its fertile valley. The introduction of improved tomato cultivars for the urban market has playeda significant role in this development. Many farmersnow combineeggplant cultivation, begunbeforethe long masikarains,with tomato cultivation, begunin the shortvrli rains,in an annualcycleof vegetable production.Althoughsomefarmers, mostlyof the older generation, haveresisted development continueto glow this and cassava other 'traditional' crops(in somecases and derivingmost of their income from off-farm activities),the trend seems be set. Gambaprovidesan excellent to exampleof the kind of diversificationtaking place in manydifferent partsof Unguja, especiallyin areaswherethere is land on which to expand(the coral rag uwanda and maweni)and/orno or few permanent tree cropsto preventthe conversionof the land productive to more use (especially the rice and other valleys). The naturalend in result of this diversificationwould appearto be a patchworkof complementary local cashcrop specializations; patternof this kind is alreadyemerging(eggplants a in Gamba Umbuji,oranges Ndijaniandmangoes Muyuni). and in in This patchworkof localized cashcrop production,much of it for the Zanzibar town market, is a far cry from tfte picture of future developmentoriginally envisagedby ZCCFSP, which began searching cropsto substitute by for cloves. ln manyrespects, the farmersand tradersof Unguja have shownthemselves be a step aheadof the to agricultural experts devisingtheir own solutions the declineof the plantation by to economyand exploringopportunities which are more immediatelyrealizable. In retrospect, makessense developthe local marketbeforeaiming for export, and in it to the caseof 'Boribo Muyuni' mangoes hasprovideda good springboard more this for ambitious development. Outside interventions sometimes very wide of the mark. fall For example,govemment sponsorship rice productionhas persistently of failed to produceresultsover the past30 years,and farmershaveoften found more productive usesfor the valleysin which rice was oncegrown. On a muchsmallerscale,it can now be seenthat ZCCFSPwas wrong in promotingginger productionin Gambaat a time when the local markethad declinedand in a way which led somefarmersto believethat it hadnot. Until intensive res€arch undertaken Gamba, was in ZCCFSP only had a vague idea of the scale of eggplantproduction and marketing and the overalltrendtowards vegetable cultivation.This underlines importance finding the of out what farmers have actually done, and are doing, before suggestingwhat they isht do in future.
20

The recordofZCCFSPandsimilarprojects assessing predicting impacts in and the of agricultural has development beenmixed. ZCCFSP was instrumental highlighting in the needto evolve sustainable agricultural practices,given the inherent fragrlity of Zanzibar'ssoils. Farmersdo not always perceivethe dangersof environmental degradationuntil the damagehas been done, and a strong ciue can be made for developingparticipatorystrategies tackle this issuein anticipationof future events. to privatization the coral rag near Gamba,and the replacement The increasing of of shifting cultivation with permanent grain and vegetable production, parallels developments which are taking place throughoutthe coral rag lands of Zawibar. It remainsto be seenwhetherthe 'Ndijani solution' (fruit tree productioncombined with intensive manuring) something it will evolveelsewhere the islands.In or like in Gamba,new agoforcstry practiceson the coral rag are still in a tentative stageof development,but cattle-keepingand the potential for manuring appear to be in decline. The Gambacasealso highlightsthe needfor a more carefulassessment gender of issuesin cash crop development. Although turmeric and ginger productionhas provided womenwith an additional source income, of this hassometimes beenrather less than anticipated (where husbands have taken advantage of their culturally-specified monopoly long-distance on marketing).Male dominance coral in rag agriculture alsomeans cashcropproduction this areais moreimmediately that in to their advantage.On the other hand,somewomenhave clearly benefitedfrom the production securing development eggplant of by their own plots in the valley near their homes. In somerespects, expansion cashcrop production the of would appear to increase women'sbargaining powerbecause moreincomeis available themto for bargain over. Cashcropdiversification the local levelmightmakeit moredifficult at for men to monopolize incomefrom thesecrops,especially womenown the the if land on which they are grown and./or providemost of the labour. However,this is no more than conjecture and again underlines the need for further researchbefore interventionsdesignedto enhance women's access and control of, resourcesare to, proposed.

Expandingthe defnition of local Sinceconcluding discussion the IK debate haveabandoned qualifier our of we the 'indigenous'and substituted it with 'local'. 'Indigenous'(and its derivatives) can patronizingconnotations evokeethnic particularism. 'Local' is rathermore have and 'rural', andis definitelylesspatronizing. general open-ended and than,for example, So far, we havediscussed local practicein the conventional in sense which'local' refersprincipallyto the inhabitants a particularlocale (a village, a region or a of wider politico-geographical area). These'local people' are very often the primary 'beneficiaries' intervention, practice, presumed targets development for the of andthe 'rural people's possessors IK and all its (near-)synonyms of ('ethnoscience', zl

knowledge','local knowledge','existinglocal knowledge','indigenous agricultural knowledge','indigenous ecologicalknowledge'etc.). They are also the primary subjects of anthropology and social development research in its structuralist manifestations. However, actor-oriented the approach socialdevelopment to research and practiceencourages wider conception local practicewhich doesnot limit it a of to its traditionalor assumed definition. This is the conceDtion which we adoptin the followingdiscussion. Understandingand engaginglocal practice meansunderstanding and engagingthe practice ('stakeholders') ofall the actors andagents activein the development arena, whether theyare 'locally'basedor not. This includes knowledge practice the and of all the relevantgovemmentinstitutions,NGOsand aid agencies involved in a project. It also includes the knowledge and practice of project sta{I, treating projects themselves local institutions.Thepractice as ofthesedifferentinstitutions agents and is all too frequentlyoverlooked,under-emphasized, placedin a different category,or only considered seriouslyat certainstages the project cycle (most often at the of projectproposals). beginning, whenformulating Thereare different reasons this neglect. Onehasbeena generallack of analytical for (and practical)tools for examininginstitutionalpracticeat the wider level. When researchers haveexaminedsuchinstitutionsin greaterdetail they havetendedto do so from a critical rather than a constructiveperspective(asking, for example, why a particular project has failed, or analysingthe failure of governmentto addressthe needs of 'local' people). Developmentpractitionersare given few practical guidelines how to understand practice,includingtheir own, or on local institutional how to tacklethe issues which suchan understanding might raise. It is perhaps not surprisingthat so many projectsare riven with intemal conJlict and working at odds with the institutionswith which their logical frameworksassume them to be in harmony. The success smoothrunningon a projectfrequentlydepends the and on 'experience' 'commonsense'of and the projectteam,and this is no substitute for propertraining and guidancein undentandingand engaging local practicein all of its differentaspects. It is ironic that many of the insights of British social anthropolory (or at least the classical structural-functionalist version of it) developedfrom a need to understand and engage the practice of local institutions as part of the wider project of 'IndirectRule' produced flurry colonialism.The decision implement to a of research on local institutions and practiceby both administrators govemment-employed and anthropologists. results The ofthis research manylongJasting had consequences, and it although is no longerpoliticallycorrectto agreewith their goals, methods the they usedcontain both both positive and negativelessonsfor the present. Unfortunately, they did not beginto question their own practice, analyse or criticallythe institutions which they had created and worked with, until they had lost their mandate to intervene. Participatorydevelopment (we hope) very diflerent goals: this is no has excuse, however,for us to approach work with an equalmeasure sophistication our of ard naivety.

22

Conclusion We are not suggestingthat every developmentpractitioner should be an anthropologist socialdevelopment or specialist, that everyprojectshoulddevote or itself to academic-style research. However, thereis a clearneedto develop both the methods practitioners understand and skills which would enable development to and local knowledge practice,in our expanded engage and definition,more effectively than at present. Somepracticalapproaches theseproblems to will be exploredin moredetailin the followingtwo chapters.

23

CHAPTERTHREE

UNDERSTANDING AND ENGAGINGLOCAL KNOWLEDGE AND PRACTICE

Introduction plannersand practitionershavebegunto pay Over the pasttwo decades development increasing attentionto what rural peoplesayand do, and in particularto what they say they want to do. Although developmentonce meant trying to 'modemize' such people, someit now means to actingin partnership with themto solvetheir problems 'Participation'has becomethe key word and fulfil their wishes. of development rhetoricand,at leastin theory,of development practice.Devising (andin somecases, reviving) 'participatory' methodshasbecomea minor industrywith the elicitation of 'indigenous knowledge'(and the elaboration means mobiliseit) as one of its of to majorbranches. In this chapter, will focuson some(but by no means of the methods we all) currently usedto understand engage practicein the context of natural and local lcrowledgeand resources research and development.Here, we will focus upon the conventional, narrowdefinitionof 'local', referringprimarilyto the knowledge practice the and of 'ordinary' people usually identified as the primary target goup or intended 'beneficiaries' development of intervention.The mostserious weakness the tools of and methods available lies in the way that they are used, and the general 'participatory' approach(es)under which they are subsumed. In many ways 'participation'and 'participatory'have becomeempty slogans, and their repeated deployment become way ofavoidingthe firll complexities understanding has a of and local knowledgeandpractice. engaging

The Limitations of Participaiion The main problem with participatory approaches not so much what they do, or is encoumgepractitionersto do, but what they do nor do, or discouragepractitioners from doing. Participation, the sense interaction, an essential in of is component in any attempt to understandand engagethe knowledge and practice of others, but without further specificationit either lacks content,or containsonly that which the provide. If we ask 'Participation differentparticipatory methods with whom?',then we receivean answerwhich is both over- and underdetermined the sametime. In at participation generally everyday application, is restricted one setof interactions to in 'us', the development the development arena: the interaction practitioners, between and 'them', the rural peoplewith, and on whom, we practise. The agentsand actors on either sideof this equation,however,tend to be treatedashomogenous classes.

Apart from the appllicatiionof stock formulaesuchas 'resource-poor households', 'female-headed households' relativelylittle attention paidto the importance etc., is of 'beneficiaries' projects, socialandeconomic differentiation among intended the of or among the various 'owners' of projectsthemselves, practitioners included. The failure to identiS the beneficiaries clearly is frequentlyassociated with a poor understanding the socialand culturalcontexts which they think and act. The of in social,political and economic dimensions practice, includingknowledge, of tend to participatorymethodsand practice. be weakly apprehended, at all, by conventional if The 'sophisticated' conception IK is helpingto correctthis,but hasyet to 'trickle of practitioners, down' to most many of whom continueto operatewith the 'naive' conception IK astechnical of knowledge, the contextof the equallynaivepopulism in participatoryapproaches. of standard If we ask 'How shouldparticipation put into practice?', be then we find an equally response. Natural resources projectsusually fail to specify which unsatisfactory 'mode' of participation theyareto work in; the defaultis usually mode(s) the fostered participatory otherwise, by the particular methods, projectemploys. The or which a useof the term 'modes' in this contextderivesfrom Biggs' (1989)identification of the following four modes of participation in agricultural research: contactual (researchers contract with farmers to provide land or services),consultative (researchers consult farmers about their problemsand then develop solutions), (tesearchers farmers collaborative and process) collaborate partners the research as in and collegiate (researcherswork to strengthen farmers' informal research and development systems rural areas). Thesefour modesare progressively in more participatory,from contractualto collegiate. Blaikie et al (1996) argue that negotiation knowledge of local and extemalactorscan only really occur if between local peopleare ableto participate the process research development a in of in and (collegiate) mode. In practice,Biggs' modesare usually muddled,and collegial participatory methods little to sortthemout. do The fact that Biggs' modesrefer primarily to agriculturalresearch restrictsthe scope ofthe modelandreflects technical the orientation from which agricultural researchers are still struggling free themselves. to This is the principalcontextin which the IK debate and participatory methods haveevolved,and it is possible that if the debate had focusedon altemativestrategies natural resource(for example,wildlife) of management, very differentemphasis a might haveemerged.Management usually payinggreater involves attention the interests to ofall the stakeholders, notjust to one set of them; it also fostersa greater concemwith local institutions and institutional arrangements. One of the difficulties of conducting participatory agricultural research communitylevel is that as there are often no (or very few) institutions at involved over and above individual farmine households. researchers are often temptedto createthem. Natural resource management remindsus that we neednot think of modesof also participation termsof a scale in which slidesfrom goodto bador vice verso; instead perhaps we should think of differentmodes beingappropriate differentcontexts. as in Thereare somecontextsin which more formal t1,pes research appropriate(and of are

may even be requested farmers). Similarly, situationsfrequently arise in by community-based resource management which the interventionand/or arbitration for of a higherauthorityis required(for example, inter-village disputes over resources can rarely be resolved at the village level). The challengefor development practitioners to know how differentmodes participation be deployed the is of can to greatest participationis merelyan unsatisfactory effect. In this respect, coverterm for a complex sequenceof engagements, some running concurrently,others in succession, all of them intended complement another pursuitof project and to one in objectives. PMs : participation packaged For many practitioners, participatory research (and development) has become synonymouswith PRA. PRA is a family of approachesand methods with acknowledged sourcesin activist participatory research, agroecosystems research, applied anthropology,field researchon farming systems,and its immediate predecessor, Rapid Rural Appraisal(RRA). The focus has shiftedfrom extractive data collection to facilitating local people to produce and analysetheir own (Chamben,1994a, information 1994b; ComwallandJewkes, 1995). However, there hasbeenan increasing tendency standardize to PRA methods and package them into a singleframework. Although the results of PRA can be, and often are, a vast improvement on the outcomesof more traditional styles of investigation (including and engagement formal surveys topdown modesof research extension), and and they frequentlyfail to match expecations and create additional expectationswhich cannot be met. In individual cases, this kind of failure can be blamedon inadequate planning,poor implementation, and insuffrcientfollow-up; which in tum can be blamed on inadequate understanding the PttA process the part of insufiicientlytrained of on participants and other poorly preparedagents(such as NGO decision-makers not directly involved in undertaking PRAs). To a largeextent,however,the methodology itselfcan be blamedfor the failure, andthe fact that PRAsare badly conducted be can seen a functionof naiveover-optimism the partoftheir proponents. as on The 'quick andeasy'natweof PRA,with its heavyreliance a'toolkit' of different on methods, at the root of many of its problems. The toolkit comprises random is a (and in somerespects, confusingassenblage) techniques, assortment a of eachof themdesigned givea 'quick fix' on particular to issues.It is assumed their usein that combinationwill somehowachievethe ambitiousgoals which PRA sets itself, providing information for practitionersandassisting communiqrparticipantsto define andsolvetheir problems.To someextentit does, not in a very satisfactory but way.

3.1 The evolutionof PRAsin ZCCFSP The main line of methodological development ZCCFSP in took the followins couse:

(a) a series PRRAswas conducted; farmingsystems (b) of zoneswere classified on the basisof the information deriving from the PRRAs;and (c) farmer research groups (FRGs)werecreated within zonesof particularinterest. At a later stage, series a of 'mini-PRAs'was carried more focused out with the FRGs. Other approaches were followed in parallel, including work with farmer networks,cashcrop and marketing casestudies, thedevelopment and ofstrategies relatingto these. Overthe course oneyear,a series Participatory of of RapidRwal Appraisals (PRRAs) was carried out with support from all sections of the Ministry for Agriculture, (MALNR). The programme Livestockand NaturalResources includedtraining, 10 village PRRAs,and a one-week workshop. A multidisciplinaryteam (of varying composition) spentoneweekliving in eachof the l0 villages. The objectives ofthe programmewere multiple and involved the development a farming systems of approachwithin MALNR, analysisof research and programmepriorities, and more specific objectivesrelated to ZCCFSP'sexport crop diversificationprogramme. Twenty-eight household farmingsystems Zuzibar were identifiedand described. rn This madea significant contribution the delineation farmingsystems to of zoneson the two islands. However, description the classification farmingsystems the and of zonesdid not generate adequate an understanding the complexity and diversity of of livelihood strategies, nor was the classificationperceivedas relevant by many deparfrnentsin MALNR (which continued to organise its activities according to existing administrative divisions). The PRRAs were usedto move towardsa more participatory approachin MALNR andprovidedtraining opportunities an exposure participatoryresearch and to methods and tools. However,ttrey generated little action in the communitiesinvolved (with the exceptionof thosewhich later becameFRG sites)and reflectedthe project's objectives more than thoseof the local participants-This was partly because the process not clear,resulting their usefor defining PRRAs'role in the research was in cash crop constraints and opportunities the classic style of farming systems in (FSR). The use of the term ParticipatoryRapid Rural Appraisal ratherthan research PRA was in itself a problem. The rapid and elicitativenatureof the research still predominated. The sametoolkit, which included a wide array of tools (semistructured interviews, time-lines, mapping, transects, calendars rankingactivities and of various kinds) was used in each of the villages. The opportunity for further training was not adequately followed up, and the development the use of these of tools wasneverreally given suflicient attention. Lack of experience the useof PRA methodsmeantthat there was little analysisof in socialandeconomic differences household village level and,despite useof at or the time-linesandothermethods, understanding the ofthe development agriculture of in Zanzibar its socialand historicalcontextremained in poorly understood.A second series PRAswascarriedout later in the project,partlyto gain furtherinformation of on farmers'knowledge practice. Theseweretermed'mini-PRAs'and were,in and effect, intensivestudiesof local farming systemsand livelihoods. Focusingon membersof the FRGs rather than whole villages, the mini-PRAs were actionientated: research the themeswhich from collective were taken

backto the FRGs,modifiedwith their suggestions, converted joint research and into plans. The tool-setusedwas more basicand encouraged more effectiveuseof the tools and ownershipover the process;only semi-structured interviewsand farm observationswere employed. The research process was also more integrated, involvingall the members ofthe research teamin all the stages from initial checklist brainstorming collectiveanalysis the results. Greater to of emphasis was placedon tracing changesin the farming system,identi$'ing existing opportunitiesrather than constraints, understanding and farmers' knowledgeand practicein their local context. (The generalaccounts agricultural presented Boxes2.3,2.4, and of development in 2.5 havebeenadapted from the reports thee of these of mini-PRAs).

A significantamountof informationcan be collectedduring a PRA, althoughit generallytakes the form of series of superficial snapshots particular aspectsof of community life rather than a comprehensive understanding structureand agency of and how these have changedover time. PRAs are undoubtedlymost effective for eliciting strictly synchronictechnicaldata (for example,which crops are grown where, andwhy). Theyareleasteffectivefor answering political-economic questions and for dealing with social and institutional complexity, including issues of distribution and equitability. When such matters are addressed effectively, it is practitionerswith the relevantskills and experience usuallybecause havetaken part, andnot a resultof the application the PRA toolsper se. Althoughsomeof these of tools build on the experience anthropologists of and other social development researchers, they do not equip others(natural scientists included)with the skilts necessary carryout suchresearch to themselves. Theymerelycreate impression an of understanding providepractitionerswith an excusefor not delving deeper. and The ranking exercises recommended the standard in PRA packageare particularly at fault in this respect.The weaknesses wealthrankinghavealready of beenmentioned. Other,and in somewayssimpler,methods havebeendevised rankingproblems for and preferences.Although thesecan be revealing,the conversations which take place while the exercises in progress are often yield more informationthan the rankings themselves. The resultsof suchexercises shouldneverbe takenat facevalue. As Nabasa al. (1995)makeclear,rankingcan be influenced a variety of factors, e/ by including the socio-economic statusof individual respondents.Without probing further, practitioners may fail to recognize the influence of these factors on participants'choices,or conflatewhat peoplesay theydo with what theyaetually do. Although ranking may provide a window on people'sknowtedgeand practice, other methods haveto be employed complete picture. to the

3.2 Rankingexperience ZCCFSP in Several differentrankingexercises werecarriedout by ZCCFSP,

development a candidatecash crops matrix; and (b) a method to quantify of indigenous (QuIK). The first method technical knowledge wasnot aimedspecifically at incorporating localknowledge its design, the second in but method was. The candidate cashcropsmatrix usedinformationfrom PRAsand other sources (such proposed as informationconcerning client groupsand potentialmarkets)to select crops for further researchand development. Criteria were listed down the side and potential crops were entered as columns to form the matrix. The criteria were selected the projectteam and consisted projectobjectives, by of agronomic, socioeconomic, marketandpost-harvest indicators.The scores the cells of the matrix in werealso allocated the projectteam. Cropswere grouped by into first, second and third ranks,andtie outcomewas usedto prioritize cropsfor research.Apart from the issueof whosecriteriaandchoices formedthe basisofthe scores (obviously farmers were not involved),a major problemwith this methodwas that it simplified and nanowed down the selectionof crops for research, rather than building on the diversityofcrops andfarmercropping It strategies. alsofailedto put the choices into contextanddid not reflecttheir changing nature a historical in sense. The QuIK ('QuantifuingIndigenous Knowledge')ranking method was orientated towardsincorporatinglocal knowledgeinto the research progmmme. QuIK is a rapid methodof assessing crop performance without field trials and wasapplied in research on ginger, mango, and cinnamon. Matrix ranking involved the systematic interviewingof experienced farmersand the generation numericaldata on crop of performance. Data setswere compiled using severalfarmersas replicatesand were then subjected statistical to analysis usingan analysis variance(ANOVA). The of advantage QuIK is that it canprovideinformationrelevantto the farm situationat a of muchlower costthan field trials. This is particularly usefulin tree crop research as conventionaltrials can take manyyearsto yield data. Although the data may reflect morethan a singleseason's results(based farmers'accumulated on experience with the crop in question), methodis strictly limited to agronomicparameters the and resultsshouldtherefore treated be carefully. QuIK analyses local knowledge usinga formal scientific procedure which cannot possibly reflect the differentiation of knowledge cropperformance of otherthanthat between informants.The problem the of 'representativeness' whichplagues conventional trials alsoprevails here. Also, the 'replicates' 'populationof key treatment farmersas of and groupsof farmersas a informants'is redolentof the scientificmethodfrom which manypractitioners have soughtto distance themselves adoptingmore participatorymodesof inquiry. by

Even whenconducted the contextof FarmingSystems in (FSR)or Farmer Research (FPR),PRAs may still fail to providea deeperperspective. Participatory Research FSRhasbeencriticisedfor not payingsufficientattention the historical,political, to economic, and institutional dimensions farmers'practice(Biggs and Farrington, of 1991),andthereis little evidence suggest FPRis any better. FPR hasstrong to that technology development, testing and information dissemination objectives.lt departs from FSRby focusing thedevelopment potential farmers'own research on process, of

and having a strongergroup or communityorientation. FPR would thereforeappear to be more suitedto a PRA approach, a numberof commentators and havetaken this view. However,as Okali et al. (1994)observe, PRA tools and techniques, the and increasingly standardized framework in which they are applied, have not made a significant contributionto the understanding group dynamicsand the processes of of informallocal experimentation information and dissemination which FPR is most in interested. PRA fares little better in assisting local peopleto define their problemsand the possiblesolutionsto these. The problem orientationof PRA has alreadybeen discussed Chapter in two. Askingpeople whattheir problems andwhat solutions are, they can envisage, is not necessarily the best way of identifliing needs and opportunitiesandthe structuralfactorswhich underliethem; it shouldcertainly not be the only way. PRA often resultsin a 'shoppinglist' of local wishes;and it is not just one or two itemsfrom this list for unusual the agency for conducting to select it furtheraction. Research development and activitiesinevitablyraiseexpectations in the communities in which they are undertaken;PRAs do this to an even greater degree than normal,but frequentlyfail to deliver. To exacerbate matters,PRAsprovide few guidelinesfor further engagement, which is one reasonwhy they are usually undertakenat the start of the project processand rarely later. Also, and despitethe rhetoric of participation,PRA tools are obviously 'owned' by the outsiderswho introduce them and are widely perceived as suchPRAs are still essentiallypackages the extraction of information and a tool for for helpingoutsiders makedecisions abouttfteir intewentions. PRAsarepresented As as packages, practitionerstend to use them without further tliought, either because they lack the skills and/or confidenceto adapt and experimentwith methods,or because they are constrained time (field practitionersare often askedto conduct PRAs at by relativelyshortnotice). Thereare good reasons abandoning PRA package for the while retaining someof its methods.Individualtools canbe usedseparately for specificpurposes, provided and that their limitations are recognizedand/or they are combinedwith other methods. The tendencyamong practitioners conductcomprehensive to PRAs using all the recommended methods shouldbe discouraged; topicalPRAsusingfewertechniques particularissues oftenpreferable.Similarly,it may be more useful but targeting are to undertake topical investigations a larger sampleof communities, in enablinga comparison results, of than to conducta full PRA in a singlevillage;this would be intrinsicallymore sensitive inter-villageheterogeneity whateverform (social, to in economic, institutional etc.). Ii for example, ofthe objectsofan actionresearch one exerciseis to identify institutional opportunitiesfor natural resourcemanagement, suchopportunities muchmore likely to appear a wide sample villagesthan are in of in a single village study. It may also only be possibleto uncoveragricultural innovationsby examiningfarming practicesin severallocations. Homogeneityshould never be assumed advance;it can be demonstrated in only by wideningthe n€t of investigation. The standard PRA package little to encourage does

this, especially it is linkedto othergeneralizing if (suchas thosepromoted strategies by FSR). In spite of claims to the contrary,full PRAs can be both costly and time-consuming, and projectscan rarely afford to conductmore than a few. Unless they arecombined with otherkindsof investigation, project'sunderstanding the a of in communities its targetareamaybe correspondingly restricted. PRAsoften compareunfavourably with what can be achievedby a singleexperienced fieldworkerin a fractionof the time andat a fractionofthe cost(a goodvillage study can be produced a month,with additional in time for writing-up). The full costsof PRAs are usually buried deepin prqject accounts, and it can be arguedthat thorough cost-benefit analyses wouldshowthat the more 'traditional'methods investigation of and interactionare consistentlymore useful and cost effective than PRAs. However, 'traditional'methods haverarelybeendeployed this context;the increasing of in use anthropologistsand other trained field workers as development consultants and projectstaff has largelycoincided with the growingemphasis the PRA package, on and it is extremely unusual theseworkersto be sentinto the field for more than for 'success' many shortperiods(or on grandtours). At the sametime, the apparent of PRAs can probablybe attributedto the presence such experienced of field workers, ratherthan to the PRA process se. per PRAsare rarelysubjected critical evaluation.It is not in the interests project to of organizers declare to their shortcomings, external projectevaluators and may not wish to cast aspersions the current fad (which is what PRA has become). On the on positive side, the emphasis PRA placeson understanding (and to a lesserextent, engaging)local knowledgeand practiceis a distinct advanceon the more formal and technicaltypesof investigation. The activeparticipationof the targetpopulation,and govemment and NGO personnel, in the PRA process is also laudable. It is particularly important for providing training and experienceto members of the research team itself, especiallyif they are working largely as technicalextension agentsand/or have insufficient resources undertakeintensiveinvestigationsin the to field (asis thecasein manygovemment departments). However, using the PRA packageis not necessarily the best way to achieve participationor train field staff, especiallyif the outcomesof an exerciseare superficial or inaccurate;participation is pointless if it leads to unfulfilled expectations misguidedproposals action. Similarly, there is no point in and for trainingfieldworkers usetechniques to whichdo not necessarily produced desired the results which may discourage and themfrom thinkingfor themselves. muchbetter A approach to 'unpack' PRAsand usevariousPRA tools in a more selective is way; recognising whateachcanandcannot achieve, combining and them,wherenecessary, with other(in somecases more'traditional')methods. 'semi-structured Ironically,the mostusefultechnique, interviewing', a 'traditional' is technique drafted into the PRA package under a new and technical name. Open-ended interviewing hasbeenaroundfor much longer than PRA and is usedby anthropologists and others as a standardmeans of eliciting and exchanging informationin the field. Asking peoplequestions responding their queriesis and to

an everyday social activity, not just the principalelementin so-called'participant observation'.Trainingfield staffto do this well, andto recordthe outcomes their of interactions, relativelyeasy,as most peoplepossess is basic discursiveskills. In additionto participating directlyin otherpeople'sactivities, talking and listeningto them is one of the most powerlulmeansavailable establishing maintaining for and 'participation').As we will seebelow,effective (or socialrelationships engendering is communication essential understanding engaginglocal knowledgeand to and practicein any context.

Undertakingparticipatory research with farmers The emphasis participatory on methods developed own specialmomentum has its in agriculturalresearch and development and relatedfields (including agroforestry). The PRA process usuallytreatedas being most appropriately is employedin the initial stages problemidentification(diagnosis) of and the provisionalproposalof solutions. Thereafter, different waysofworking with farmersare recommended, such groups(FRGs). This kind of as the formation (or transformation)of farmer research institutionalintervention partly necessitated the fact that households other is by or groupsarethe primary,and often only, unitsof farm organization, the domestic and sheernumbers thesein any singleproject area precludes of intensiveinteractions without some form of selection. The formationof farmer networksrepresents a different,and sometimes more effective,solutionto the sameproblem. Relatively little attention has been paid to the implicationsof creating such institutions; researchers havetreatedthem largelyas research tools (without describing them as In this section, will examine prosandconsof doingthis. We such). we someof the will begin,however, examining practiceof conducting participatory by the on-farm prevalence traditionalresearch trials, which exposes most clearlythe continuing of process. agendas, albeitmodified$eaterfarmerparticipation the research in On-farmtrials: ure they alwaysnecessary? Much effort hasbeenexpended the development participatoryon-farm research on of methodologies, including powerful and sophisticated means for analysing the complexanddisorderly datawhichoftenemerge from trials. It is clearlybetterto test in cropsandtreatments a field thanin a greenhouse, it is betterstill to test them and in the intended beneficiaries' fields. own Despitethe emphasis farmers'participation, on however, underlying the agenda for this type of research still generally is researcher-driven. Researchers often set the objectives, design trials,choose treatments, the the analyse results, write them the and up and disseminate them. Even when farmersare given a more active role, it is difficult to escapethe conclusionthat they are essentiallybeing treated as 'proto-researchers', that and their practice beinggentlymanipulated the mould is into of formal research.Somefarmersmay be happyto be treatedthis way, and accorded sucha novel degree respect, it is hardto accept of but that the conditions on-farm of

trials,evenwith the bestandmostparticipatory designs, of replicate thoseofthe 'real world' withoutresearchers the expectations and generates. whichtheir presence Participatoryagricultural research demands that agronomists conduct on-farm trials, but in certain contextsthere may be no needfor them to do so. By striving to solve agricultural problems in order to meet the requirementsof domestic survival and subsistence, farmersare conducting all year in and year out, agriculturalresearch, althoughthey might not call it 'research'and formal researchers might not recognize it as such. The number of experimentswhich agronomistscan undertake,with or palesinto insignificance without farmers' participation, besides this, especiallyin situationswhere agriculturaldiversification alreadytaking place. Under these is circumstances, might be more useful for researchers examinefarmers' practice it to as it is, determinewhat 'experiments'they havealreadycarried ouVarecarrying out, and note what the outcomeshave beer/arelikely to be. Furthermore,on-farm tnals may well divertresources awayfrom morerelevant investigations, thesemay,for and example, revealthat intervention mostappropriate a non-agronomic is at levels,such as in the marketingchain,ratherthan in farmers' fields.

3.3 On-farm trials in ZCCFSP The on-farmtrials in ZCCFSP's programme wereoriginallyconceived with a view to converting farmers into researchers, modelling farmer practice on formal research. All the trials in the research framework,from exploratorytkough to stationand then to pilot trials, were either designedby the project or largely researcherJed. Participation therefore was controlled underthe researchers' terms. Diflerent approaches on-farm trials were tried, someof which were subsequently to modifiedor rejected.For example, pilot trials based the commercial on development of a single crop were dropped. Within a given area,farmerswere identified (opento any farmer), potential traders were found, and planting materials were distributed. The mainproblems with were: the difliculty of conectlyidentifringa crop with real scope for expansionto commercial scale; the usual problems of farmers' expectations; the difficulty of providing sufficient good quality planting material and at the right time. However, trials carriedout by the ZCCFSP the agroforestry networkhad the explicit objective buildingon farmers'existingsystems, of usingfarmer-designed trials, from the outset of the programme. The mandatewas simply to observehow network farmers experimented with and manageddifferent tree and crop combinations (indigenous introduced and species), assess and their preferences plantingniches for and arrangements the ways in which theserelated to their householdand farm and characteristics. Localknowledge indigenous of species, local practice termsof and in tree/crop combinations, and planting sequencesand anangements in both the traditional bush fallow system(in sparselypopulatedareas)and permanentsystems in more settledareas). were evaluated.This enabled and analvsisof
l0

practice, changing and identification potentiallysustainable of management options. A casestudy approachwas adopted,and differencesin practiceaccordingto gender and land tenurearrangements were identified. This helpedin the targetingof species gender according household to and needs. (researcher focused The first approach led) (farmer moreon adoption and the second designed)on adaptation. It is doubtful, however,if any approachcould match the unaided work of the farmers themselves. Rural Zanzibar comprisesmore than 100000farm households, most with two or more membersinvolved (to varying degrees) farming and (to a lesserextent)the saleof farm produce. Every year,they in makeinnumerable decisions aboutthe cultivationandharvesting wide varietyof ofa farm plots,includingmajorchoices aboutwhatto plant,whatto sell, andhow to sell it. This hasresulted, especially Unguja,in an impressive on degree home-grown of (seeBox 2.5). In this context,on-farmtrials, whether agriculturaldiversification farmer designedor not, are unlikely to have a wide impact. Although formal researchers may feel that an inordinateproportionofthe farmers' 'experiments'have uninteresting designs results,the cumulativeeffect can be very impressive or and have far reachingconsequences. short,a lot can be leamedfrom looking at what In farmers(and traders)are alreadvdoine.

Groupsand networks institutionol intenentions : The pros and cons of working with FRGs,farmer networksand various intermediate forms of institution,havebeenextensively discussed the literature(for example, in Drinkwater, 1994). Participatoryresearch with FRGsundoubtedlyhas the potential for buildingon local knowledge practice; prioritiesshouldarise and ideally,research from the problemsand opportunitiesfacedby the farmers within the group. If it is well chosenand representative, ideasor technologies new developed the group by will be relevant a wide section the farmingcommunity to of within the area. Froman pointof view, it is easier work with a groupof 15 farmers organizational to thanwith join; therewill be a groupmemoryof individuals. If farmersdrop out, otherscan what hasbeendone,and thereis more chance that activitieswill continueif project assistance ends. The leaming process will be quicker as farmerscan exchange information and leam from each others' experiences. Other potential benefits of group co-op€ration include sharingresources, collectivemarketing,and attracting attentionfiom other organizations. providea mediumfor trainingboth FRGscan research extensionstaff, and the farmersthemselves. and Therearealsomanydisadvantages workingwith FRGs,especially groupscreated of by researchers. formation a groupis an institutional The of intervention, this may and havea numberof consequences. is extremelydifficult to ensurethat FRGsare It representative eitherof the local farmingcommunity, of the wider areaor zonein or 'tools', and which they are located. It is difficult to avoid treatingthem as research easyto rely too heavily on interactions group memberswhile with 'progressive' neglecting knowledgeand practiceof resource-poor the farmers. It may also be

difiicult to show farmershow they might benefit from group membership, especially when their expectations differ from those held by the researchers project stafl and Most of all, it is difficult to enswethe sustainability FRGsafter projectshave of withdrawntheir support. In orderto makeFRGs'work', significantinputsof time, expertise, materials otherresources typicallyrequired. Meanwhile, and are tiere are many problemsassociated as with the dissemination research of resultsand group experiences therearefor on-farmtrials conducted as outsidea groupcontext. The formationof farmernetworks overcome can someof theseproblems.Networks may comprisea mixture of individuals(and their households) existinggroups and (FRGscanalsobe formedon the basisof existingcommunity groups).Theymay be geogaphicallydispersed and/orclustered particularcommunities; in this helps to enswe a greaterdegreeof representativeness. many respects, In networksare more flexible than FRGsand allow a wide rangeof working methods, often at much less cost. However,the formation of a network is also an institutional intervention,and as such may be just as difficult to sustainbeyondthe lifetime of a project or other funding(sustaining local groupmaybe slightlyeasier" external a thoughonly if it has developedits own rationalefor existing). In view of their inherent 'ftagility', considerablethought should be given as to whether researcher-created groups and networks needto be setup in the first place.

groupsand networksin Zanzibar 3.4 Farmer research The development farmer researchgroups(FRGs)and networks in Zanzibar took of placegradually.Towards end ofthe project,the tkee FRGson eachislandwere the seen as key for enhancingfarmer participatory research. A network of farmers involvedin agroforestry research developed parallelwith the FRGs. The initial in work with FRGs was candidatecrop-orientated,with researchfocusing on simple trials for measuringthe efilectsof different treatmentswith relatively few variables. However,the crops/varieties introducedoften proved unsuitableand failed to match farmers' expectations.A new sfiategywas thereforeevolved wherebyfarmerswere providedwith subsidized seedlings which they could selectthemselves and plant where and how they wished. However, this strategy was clearly inadequatefor dealingwith complexissuessuchas soil fertility or marketingproblems,although farmerswerehappywith the improvedsupplyof plantingmaterial. Otheractivitieswith FRGsincludedtrainingcourses workshops, helpingto and and organize raisewider issues or with the relevantauthorities lobbying. The main by focus of the FRG approachwas on technology development. Problems with the approachcentred on the dependency generated. Groups were essentially it researcher-created farmers had high expectations. Other questionscould be and raisedabout their cost effectiveness, time taken by staff with individual groups, the FRG's representativeness termsof the wider targetgroup,andtheir effectiveness in in disseminating results the ofresearch training. and

The agroforestry farmers' research network provided an altemative focus for interaction between farmers and researchers(as well as between farmers and farmers). It comprised70 farmers,including women'sgroups,individual womenand individualmen, from 10 differentlocationson the coral rag of Unguja. Its main objectiveswere: (a) to assess importanceof different agroforestry(AI) species the groups;and (b) to expandand and systems different locationsand socio-economic for strenglhen network in eachvillage, building on farmer-to-farmer the extension(using farmen as a sourceof ideas/planting material). The following activities were carried out: farmerdesignedon-farm fials linking researchand extension; study tours to exchange knowledge and experience about different A-F species and systems (farmer-to-farmer extension); farmers'workshops €valuate and to research, identif the strengths and weaknesses the designof different systems, priorities (using in set farmers' criteria), andplan future research. Some problemswere common to both the FRGs and the AF network becausethe network was also researcher-created neededresourcesto bring its members and together. However,the individuals and groups comprisingthe network were more 'natural' in a way that the FRGswere not; the problems of representativeness could be overcome becausetheir geographicaldispersal covered much more variation, including socio-economic variation, and enabledmore effective targeting. Networks alsohelpto dissolve research extension the and dichotomy.

The focus of agriculturalresearch and development should be farmers' existing practice and efforts to build upon that. The imposition of new 'methods' and 'institutions'(temporary or otherwise) shouldtake secondplace to this pragmatic (1988) view that a potentially emphasis. We agreewith Okali and Sumberg's powerful altemativeto the more classicmodesof on-farm research to begin with is the 'farming system'itself; rather than developingnew systemsor identifuing 'technologicalbreaklhroughs', the approachshouldbe to 'work from and build upon the existingproduction system'. The objectof research devetopment and shouldnot be to introducepermanent innovations, to involve peoplein a process but of'selfgenerated innovation' with the smallestnumber of technologies necessary for (BunchandLopez,1995). In somecases, achieving significantsuccess farmersare capableof achievingmuch the same,and more, without no extemal intervention at all.

Understending local knowledge and practice In the following sections, discussaltemativeapproaches natural resources we to researchand development. Methods should be shapedless by their participatory packaging and more by coherent approaches which focus on understandingand engaging both social and agroecological diversity. This requires a deeper understandingof the theoretical underpinningsof different approachesin social development theory, research and practice,on the part of all practitionersin natural

resources development. well-informed A approach, which acknowledges theory the that underlies will of course subject change the projectprocess in the it, be to in and context of theoreticaldevelopments.However,the continualdevelopment an of approachshould be seenas an important part of project practice and an essential 'tool' for understanding engaging and local knowledge practice termsof both and in the nanowerandbroader provided. definitions have we agencyo.nd Understanding structure: knowledge prcctice in context and Local knowledge and practice shape, and are shaped by, patterns of social differentiation the socio-cultural, and historical, institutional political contexts and in which they emerge change and over time. An understanding the diversityof local of knowledge practiceimpliesa needto understand and socialdifferences the local in context(suchasthe socialorganization ofthe family,kin, andcommunity; and social relations power,gender, land tenure)andhow theserelateto wider processes of and of social,economic political change.This reflectsboth the 'actor-oriented' and and 'neo-structuralistpolitical-economy' approachesalready outlined and their importance understanding in local knowledge and practicein the contextof social change the microandmacrolevel. at The actor-oriented approachis useful for understanding social processes the at microJevel (including the knowledge processes embeddedin them) and the emergenceof different patterns of social organization, which "result from the interactions, negotiations, social struggles and that take place betweenthe several kinds of actor" (Long, 1992:21). By adoptinga broaderperspective, Booth draws "insightsabout processes their wider contextandto reconciling attention social to in indigenous (whichcanbe interpreted our own understanding local alternatives" as of "with the kinds knowledge and practice) of urderstandingsof larger structwes without which they will lack realism"(1994a:17). This bringsthe two approaches togetherand stresses different 'kinds of understanding' the requiredin our own pfactice. Understanding local knowledgeand practicein contextrequiresa historical approach which emphasizes importance change socialand ecological the processes. of in By "the important conffast,an actor-orientated approach stresses extentto which changes in the well-beingof rural peopleare the result of complex interactions between individualsand groupsendowed with differentmd changing amounts knowledge of and power" (Booth 1994a:11, emphasis added). A broader,structuralapproach which viewsthe changing natureof local knowledge the contextof wider change, in "the is equallyimportant here. As Thruppsuggests, knowledge local groups not of is a static body of wisdom, but instead,usually consistsof dynamic insights and techniques which arechanged over time throughexperimentation adaptations and to environmental socioeconomic and (1989: 15,author'semphasis).On this changes" we can agree;it shouldbe noted,however, that adaptations techniques of may also refer to innovationsin institutionalpractice, which we address below, and not j ust the in adaptation farming practicesto which Thrupp refers.

t4

Much of the recent literature local knowledge on systems highlights importance the of institutional change both the micro-andmacrolevel. At the microJevel,the need at to work with and throughexisting organisations an areaof specialconcem(Pretty, is 1995;Scoones al., 1994;Warrenet al., 1995) However,as Bebbington et states, "despite the importance accorded it, to the theme of local organisationsremains underdeveloped" The participatoryapproach, the use of rapid PRA and Q99a:212). methods such as Venn diagramming techniques to describe different Opes of institution, doeslittle to overcome problem. An explicit institutional this approach is needed providea thoroughanalysisof local institutionsand their complexand to sometimes conflictingpractices. An understanding institutionaladaptation of and innovation(and the negotiationprocesses from which they emerge)asa form of local practice is a useful entry point to this kind of analysis. Further to this is an understanding the changingconditionswhich give rise to institutional innovation. of Bebbingtonnotesthat if organizations to be the agents a strategywhich is based are of on local knowledge,it is necessary "understand conditionsthat will structure to the the possibilities tendencies that agency" and of (1994:212). This pointsagainto the importanceof both structureand agencyapproaches our understanding local to of knowledgeandpractice,and institutionalpracticein particular. The political dimensions local knowledgeand practiceform an importantbut of neglectedarea in nafural resourcesresearch. While practitioners have begun to recognizethe importanceof the social differentiation of knowledgethis is rarely extended includethe political differences to people'spractice. Political that shape relations should the subject moredetailed be of inquirythanthe useofrapid methods allows. For practical purposes, political di{ferentiationcan be viewed at the micro-level muchthe sameway asgender, in classandethnicdifferences, especially when it is concernedwith access to resources(including lnowledge) and decision-making. These differencesmay have indirect consequences, certain if groups excluded are from the membership local committees example, direct of for or and negativeimpactsif the management naturalresources of breaksdown completely dueto partypoliticalconflict. The forcesof politicalchange felt on di{ferentlevels(local,regionalor national), are and the relationship betweenthesedifferent levels needsto be understood its in historical perspectiveand in the context of the broaderstructuralapproachwe have outlined.It is important recognize, to however, impactthattheseforcesmay have the at the micro level,especially local organizations, on (1994)has which,asBebbington shown,are as much vehiclesfor political expression for the administration as of agriculturalprojects. This has implicationsfor our own practiceand the role that projects mayplay in eitherfurthering hindering claimsof particular or groups.Of the key importance, therefore, is an understandingof the various forms of political expression and the ways in which different positionsare negotiated. Peoples' manoeuvringsin this respect are an important part of local practice with which practitioners should mostconcemed. be Understanding innovation: the casestudyapproach

15

is Observation a simpleyet effectivetool for understanding local practice.Whether informalor systematic, needfor researchers usetheir own observations well the to as asthoseofthe local people, againbased the premise is on that what peoplesaythey do often differs from what they actually do. However, the role of observationis frequentlyunderestimated practitioners by in engaged participatory research. This may be partlybecause they associate with the moreconventional, it time-consuming and extractive methodof 'participant observation' usedin anthropological research. The way forward may therefore involve a synthesisof the two (i.e. participatory researchand participant observation)which recognizes that both have somethingto (Nelsonand Wright, 1995).The practicalimplicationsof this are teachthe other clearlyspeltout by Richards, whoseinterpretation 'participantobservation' its of in mostactivesense particularly is useful:
"Where time and resources permit there is little doubt that 'participant observation'(i.e. taking part directly in the farm work, preferablyacrossa full farming season) the best of thesediagnostictools is (Johnny,1979; Richards,1985). Some apparently familiar problemstake on an sltogethernew significance perspective" (1985:l5l). whenseen from a participant's

Richards further advocates that successfulparticipatory researchin its wider sense will dependon regular and continuouscontactbetweenresearchers user groups and and a "willingress of researchers live and work for considerable periodsunder to village conditions"(1985: 154). It would seem,however,that the participatory researchhe originally envisagedwas a little different from what PRA has now with its emphasis speed. become, on The case study approachtakes a different starting point and begins with local knowledge and practicein context,ratherthan problemdiagnosis. It assumes that farmers and other actors are already conducting research, finding solutions to problems,and sometimes sharingthem with others(whetherintentionally by word of mouth, or unintentionallyby demonstrating their efficacy). Casestudiesconcentrate (technical on understanding process innovation the of czd institutional), means the of its spread, the existingpractices opportunities and or which can be most effectively engaged.In termsof the wider influences which impedeor give rise to innovation, the casestudy is most concerned with the ways in which theseinfluencesare locally perceivedand contextualized.The tool set for the casestudy is more basicthan for a PRA and relies simply on semi-structured interviewsand farm observations.The time frame dependson the resources available and the amount of researchalready undertaken the area. Furthercasestudiescarried out at regular intervalsand with in differentobjectives maintain regular continued will the and contact whichRichards to refers. Although distinct from the PRA approach, casestudiesneedbe no less participatory, especiallyif they involve 'participantobservation'in the active sensedescribed above. Although the type of ethnographic inquiry with which the casestudy is most often associated does not necessarily entail direct action in the short term, the understanding can generate it canl leadto more effective interventions,strategies and actionsin the mediumterm. A detailed ethnography the kind described Long of by (1992), in which he focuseson a single good (beer) to explorethe relationship
IO

practice knowledge, between andsocialdifferenliation, likely to revealmoreabout is socialgroupings and conflicts,'participants', and the scopefor action,than a PRA evercould. The casestudyalsohasa potentially usefulrole in assessing impact the of interventions the innovations and which may resultfrom them. Casestudiescan providea detailedunderstanding the process therefore of and impactof innovation, andan approach more effectiveengagement local practice. for of

3.5 Understanding and engaging innovationwith casestudies ZCCFSPundertooka numberof casestudiesaimed at understanding building on and farmers' and traders' existing knowledgeand practice,designingmore eflective padicipatory researchand extensionstrategies,and targeting resourceswhere they were most needed. They were also used to help the government formulate appropriatepolicies and to inform the wider developmentcommunity in Zanzibar. The hrst studieswere carriedout with the six FRGswhich ZCCFSPhad begunto work with. What werethen termed'mini-PRAs' (with a casestudyorientation)led to the formulation of detailed plans for further participatory researchand extension activities with the groups. They also provided a key input to policy and planning initiatives, includingcollaboration with otherdepartments the Ministry to develop in a zonalapproach Zaruibar's farming systems. to A furtherset of casestudies was carriedout on cashcrop historiesin order to gain insightsinto the factorswhich stimulatecashcrop development.Studieson five relatively 'successful'crops looked at how their productionand marketinghad evolved over time, often without any direct input from governmentresearchers and exlensionists, in somecases, spiteof it. The cashcropschosen and in includedsome which until then had been widely perceivedby the Ministry, and the project, to be eitherfood cropsor'local' cashcropsunworthyof researchers' attention. The cash crophistories werenot ony usedto identif,rexistingopportunities, alsoto helpthe but projectdetermine what kindsof research extension and strategies wererequired(and which oneswereto be avoided)to promotesimilar developments the future. in The casestudieswere particularly useful for revealingimportant links betweencash crop developmentand patternsof social and economic differentiation in different areasof the islands. The studyon the development oranges a cashcrop in of as Ndijani revealedthe importanceof groupswhich had generallybeen excludedfrom previous it analyses; highlighted centralrole in the local economy squatters the of and agricultural labourersof mainland origin, and provided an understanding social of stratificationandthe differential access resources the community. The emphasis to in on the historical developmentof agriculture in different areas,and the comparative providedusefullessons identifuingcashcrop potential, natureof t}restudies, for and possible impacts, in areaswhere permanentpattems of differentiation had not yet emersed. The case was also usedto i
l7

for cashcropson both islands. Production and marketingstudiescarriedout for a wide rangeof cropsled to the formulationof cashcrop strategies collaboration in with farmersand traders. The development a SpiceStrategy Pembaand the of for ZaruibarMango Strategy prominent are examples.All the casestudiesfocused on understanding local knowledge and practicein the contextof developing cashcrop productionand marketing, with an emphasis identifyingand further developing on e-risting opportunities.Basedon the premisethat farmersand tradersare already carrying research findingsolutions their problems, ofthe attractions out and to one of is this kind of approach that it canbe usedto maximize resources, scarce especially in Zanzibar contemporary wherefundsfor research extremely are limited.

Engaginglocal krowledgeand practice The following discussion based the premise is on that a comprehensive coherent and understanding essential the process engaging is if of local knowledge practiceis and to be effective. An importantelementof this approach lies in understanding and engaging diversityof local knowledge the and practicewithin agriculturalsystems and ecosystems. Existingpractice(whether'traditional'or'new') needs be built to on, as well as existinginstitutions and local networksresponsible the spread for of innovation. The importance engaging generate of success order to in success is highlighted, althoughit is notedthat this shouldnot be at the expense practices of oflenperceived be of minorimportance. to Building on local pructice and repertoire Effective engagement local knowledge of and practicemeansbuilding on existing practicein orderto identify sustainable land useand resource management options. This approach not new. Richards(1985) saw the traditionalsystemof shifting is cultivationasa'compendium skills', andstressed the mosteffectiveapproach of that might be to recombine skills and methods to agricultural change the which already exist within the shiftingcultivator'srepertoire, ratherthan designnew systems from scratch. As an exampleof understanding engaging and diversitywe can take the caseof ethnobiological research. The casestudyapproach aimedlargelyat providingan is ethnographic understanding local knowledgeand practice in terms of social of diversityand the pattems socialdifferentiation of emerging and changing over time. The approachwe describehere has a slightly different focus and is aimed at generating ethnobiological an understanding local knowledge of and practicein the contextof agroecological diversity,as well as of the socialdiversityfrom which it emerges to which it givesrise. The ethnobiological and has approach its entrypoint at the level of local practice, linking local plant and animalresources with the users andmanagers The ofthoseresources. example discussed belowrelates specifically to (people/plant ethnobotanical studies interactions).

l8

An ethnobotanical approachto understanding local knowledgeand practice is with the plant-human concemed intenelationships the interface people at of with their "ethnobotany the environments. the wordsof Alcom, In is studyof contextualised plantuse"(1995:24). Traditionally, ethnobotanical research beenframedby the has technicalapproach IK andthe socialusesand management planl species to of have frequently beenoverlooked. Ethnobotanical studies havealsotended be extractive, to for examplein their emphasis upon identifldngmedicinalplants for commercial exploitation. More recently, however, someworkershavewidenedtheir concept of ethnobotany and emphasized needto concentrate the ecologicalcontextsand the on dynamic aspects plant-human of interactions. This approach can be particularly fruitful if associated effortsto develop reinstitute) ecologically (or with an sustainable agticulture. If ethnobotanicalsurveysare undertakenas part of a wider effort to understand land tenure and other relationships (including genderdifferencesin resource use and managementpractices), shifting the focus of interaction from research actionand from understanding engaging (seeBox 3.6) is only a small to to step.

3,6 Engagingtraditional agroforestrypracticefor sustainable land use The agroforestry programme the coral rag areasof Unguja was a on-farm research in collaborative effort, linking the Sub-commissions Forestryand Research, for and ZCCFSP the FINNIDA-funded and ZanzibarForestry Development Project(ZFDP). The traditional bush-fallowor agroforestry system, which is the main farming system on the coral rag, is becomingincreasingly unsustainable demands as intensi$ for forestproducts and cultivableland. Collaborative efforts to solve the problemsof decreasing fallow periods,decliningsoil fertility, and wood and fodder shortages, focused initially on participatory research agroforestry into systems which incorporate trees,food and cashcrops. This research was intended supportboth the Village to Forestry extensionprogramme,which had already started to promote agroforestry with exoticmulti-purpose trees, the objectives ZCCFSP and of which wereto testthe candidate cashcropsidentifiedfor the coralrag(see Box 3.2). However, emphasis the research the of changed over time as it became obviousthat elements the traditionalsystem, of and the role of indigenous tree speciesin the fallow andin farmers'fields,werecriticalboth in termsof sustaining livelihoods and maintaininglocal biodiversity. Many of the indigenous treesand shrubsprovide fruits, fodder, fuelwood,building materials, and medicines. Thesewere far more 'multi-purpose' and better adaptedto the harshconditions of the coral rag than the exotic species which had been screened testedin on-station and trials, and which problems drought,livestockdamage were susceptible the widespread to of and fire damage associated coral rag agriculture.The role of indigenous with trees,and the ways in which they were managedin the bush fallow system over time, became importantfeaturesof the research. Oneof the most research ities.aimedat
t9

usefuli

multipurpose trees and shrubs for agroforestry,involved an ethnobotanical assessment the usesand management tree,shruband herb species of of found in the forestsand agricultural lands of the coral rag. Field researchwas carried out by a teamcomprising farmers, foresters, agronomists, agroforesters, botanists an local and anthropologist. An important startingpoint was understanding how land tenure and gender relations influenced localpeople's access andconhol,of coralrag landand to, how this in tum influenced their use and management the indigenous of species it supported. The information collected duringthis exercise analysed the whole was by researchteam, and then taken back to the farmers involved in order to generatea discussion agroforestry plans. of opportunities futureresearch and Further information on indigenousspeciesand their management was derived from farmer-designed trials, workshops held with members farmernetworks, of and field daysduring which farmersshared their knowledge indigenous of treesand related practiceswith other farmers. One important output of this work was the preparation of a guideto indigenous treesby a member the research of team(Kombo, 1996),and paperon agroforestry a Swahilitranslation a of systems the coral rag (Kitwanaet on papers al., 1996). These werewidelydistributed helped and disseminate research the findingsto farmers practitioners. andotherinterested Meanwhile, discovery the that the agroforestry optionsexercised farmers,and planting choicesin particular,were by influenced differences livelihoodstrategies (degree dependence off-farm by in of on income),access labour(for land clearingand groupwork), and genderand land to tenurerelationships, formedan importantinput to ZCCFSP's own approach the to development sustainable of farmingsystems the coralrag. on

This is one exampleof the potentialfor building on local knowledge and practice onceit hasbeenthoroughly understood.Thereare no shortcuts success.Prance to arguesthat those ethnobotanical studies which have yielded useful ecological informationhavebeenlong-term and multidisciplinary:"Such work is successfully canied out only when somedeeper understanding culture,not just tlat of plants, of hasbeenachieved; oftenlong-term and,at times,tedious research involved"(1995: is 64). This point can be generalised the whole processof understanding to and engaging local knowledge practice, it casts shadow and and a overour own cultureof rapidappraisal the 'quick fix' whichthis so oftenpromises frequently and but fails to deliver. pattems differentiation the level of local agencyboth influenceand Changing of at are shapedby wider structuralchange. This is also true of human influenceon natural systems the way in which the changingnatureof the environmentshapes and the livelihoodsof thosewho interactwith it. An agroecosystem after all, the is, interfacebetweensocial systems nafural ecosystems. and The study of what goeson at the interface,and the natureof the interactionswhich form the basisof social and ecological relationships, shouldbe of mostinterest thoseworkingtowardssocially to andecologically acceptable change.

20

Engagingsuccess Engaging success involvessupporting process local innovationand seeking the of opportunitiesfor empoweringknowledgeand practice. Empowerment hereis viewed as helpingpeopleto develop confidence their own knowledge, in ideas,insightsand capabilities, buildingup their self esteem sense power;this canhelp them thus and of "selectivelyincorporate, to adaptand take advantage extemaltechnologies of and ideas, ifthey want them" (Thrupp"1989:20). Thruppnotesthat peoplecan become empowered this rvay if they are enabledto demonstrate validity of their in the knowledgeto other farmerstkough farmer-to-farmer eKensionand groupworkshops. This approach echoed BunchandLopez(1995)who recogaize an important is by that goal in supportinginnovationis for farmersto be confident,leam, and become motivated to continue developingtheir own agriculture. Farmerswill incorprate traditionalcomponents extemaltechnology they shouldnot be madeto feel into and that theyhavefailedifthey do. In community-based conservation particular, in successful examples participatory of projects hardto find, andthe participatory are melhods seenas 'recipes'for success havehada disappointing impact(Wells,1995).However, success a mostimportant is recipe for just that - success and can help establishthe legitimacy('effective engagement' practice)of local knowledge or and justi! calls for more funds and resources expandactivitieswhich seekto build on local knowledge to and practice 'sustaininginnovation' (Thrupp, 1989). Also, after interventionmeansachieving (BunchandLopez,1995). However, is important evaluate recognizable success it to success accordingto local people'sneedsand aspirations. Local knowledgeand practice, and tle successes which their understanding engagement to and may give rise,should perceived localpeople's be in terms. All too often, development practitionersfocus on the problems identified by themselves their clients,and the PRA process and often encourages this, with its emphasis uponproblem-ranking relatedmethods- They usuallypay ratherless and attentionto the identificationof opportunities and examplesof success. Listing problemsis relatively easy,althoughit may require more thought to provide a structural analysis them. Proposing of is solutions a little more difficult, especially solutions which areappropriate the wider contextof the problems question to in and which can be realistically achieved.Identiffing opportunities harderstill, and the is methodsat our disposalfor doing this are generallyinadequate.Only by paying closerattention farmers'andothers'practice we can recognise to can success the and potential it; andonly by creatively for engaging their practice we hopeto build on can success. Conclusion ln this chapter, havelookedcloselyat someof the differentmethods we employed to understandand engage local knowledge and practice in the context of natural resourcesresearchand development. We have contrastedsome well-known 'participatory'approaches with more considered approaches the samequestion. to
)l

Many more examples could havebeenprovidedand somepointsmentioned briefly couldhavebeendeveloped further. However, is hopedthat sufficientdirectionhas it beengiven to enablereaders pursuethis task for themselves.So far, we have to focusedlargely on local knowledgeand practicein its narrow definition, where 'local' refersto the world of the primary targets development of intervention.In the next chapter,we will expandour argumentto a wider arena,and considerthe knowledge and practiceof projects and the differentactorsand institutionsdirectly associated themat a moreinclusive with level.

22

CHAPTER FOUR

UNDERSTANDING AND f,NGAGING PROJf,CT PRACTICE

Introduction In the last chapterwe looked at different aspects the social (institutionaletc.) of differentiation local knowledge of and practice, and how an understanding these of shouldshape approaches influence choiceandapplication methods and the of usedin naturalresources research and development.We focusedon local knowledgeand practiceas conventionally understood, the level of the 'community' or other at primary targetgroup. In the presentchapterwe will return to our expanded definition of'local', and look more closelyat the wider institutional contextof development practice. We will focus in particularon projectpractice(includingthe knowledge and practice their stall), treatingprojects 'local' institutions of as whoseknowledge and practicemust also be understood and engaged development pmctitioners, by whether theyareworkingwithin theseprojects not. The simplepoint we makeis or that we should understand and engageourselves well as other actors in the as developmentprocess. This is more than a question of engagingin critical self-reflection. In this context engagingproclice unequivocally meanschanging practice,andwe will suggest someofthe practical waysin whichthis mightbe done. Theexternal interventiondebate Beforewe tum to look at projects localinstitutions, shouldsaysomething as we about whatmight be calledthe 'external intervention debate', which in somewaysparallels the 'indigenous knowledge debate',alreadydiscussed.In recentyears,a growing numberof academics, includinganthropologists, scrutinized have differentstages of process, the development from policy formulation throughto impactevaluation, and 'deconstructed' concepts the prescriptions. which underlieits standard Long andvan der Ploeg (1989) provide perhapsthe most authoritative analysisof intervention practice,having first exposedthe theoreticalassumptions underlyingthe policy modelswhich areadvanced support it. According this analysis, in of to intervention "an ongoing, is socially-constructed negotiated process, simplythe execution and not plan of an already-specified of action with expected (1989: 22S) We outcomes" agreewholeheartedly with this view and are happyto be identified with what might be calledthe 'sophisticated' conception extemalintervention. of However, with the sophisticated as conception IK, this perspective development of on practice easilyslideinto a naiveanarchism. can Longandvan der Ploegsuggest that "can be usednot their approach only to understand, also to transformthe practice but of intervention"(1989: 242). We have written this book as our own modest contribution sucha programme, to although havenot embraced actor-oriented we an approach theexclusion structuralist political-economic to ofa perspective. the and At sametime, we do not believethat the transformation intervention of should.or will.

result in its abandonment, someresearchers as imply, and we hold this view for a number reasons. of Firstly, there is no evidenceto suggest that the different international and national agencies which cunentlyhavestakes development in intervention aboutto give are themup. Secondly, believethat we should struggling change practice we be to the of these agenciesbecausewe are stakeholdersin many of them (both as potential employeesof them and as citizens of a nation which has its own agency and to contributes others).Thirdly,evenif theydid tum their backson intervention, other govemment would probablycontinueto intervene. and non-govemment agencies Plannedinterventionis not the preserve intemationaland national agencies of based in developed countries, is the practiceof many agents diflerent levelsin the but at development arena. None of these agencies agentsshould be automatically or privileged,althoughthis is the positionadopted, explicitly or implicitly, by some populism. adherents actor-oriented of research radical and Our own pragmatic approach to acceptthe reality of extemalintervention is while activelytrying to change theoryand practiceso that it morecloselymatches its that reality. To someextentwe agree with the positionadvanced Hulme (1995)in his by discussion altemative of approaches projectidentification planning.He argues to and that "thereis no optimalmodelfor planning agricultural rural projects or but, rather,a set of alternativesthat should be considered dependingon the specific context and objectivesof an intervention" (1995: 211). The conclusionto his paper is reproducing full below. in
"This paperhasattempted to chart the wide rangeof responses open to those seekingto make project planning and identification more effective, in terms of achievingthe stated objectivesof rural and agricultural development, haspointedto the inadequacies the onhodoxmodelupon which the It of is training of project personnel largelybasedandfrom which most project planningmethodologies have beenderived. The conflictingimageofprojects aspolitical arenas which powerful groupsconflict and in bargainin their attemptsto set and manipulate agenda public action hasbeenpresented. This for the power in termsof actual project processes, its rejection of appears havesignificantexplanatory to but technicalanalyses mereguisesfor self-interest unsatisfactory.Thosewho continueto pusue the as is narrow confinesof the orthodox model are likely to define 'what shouldbe' without relating this to 'what is'. Those who remain within the boundariesof the political model may be academically comfortable,but may conderm themselves being permanently to marginalcritics who are not able to in contributeto changes pfoject practice. It is the ground betweenthese two positions, termed the hybrid model in this paper, that offers opportunitiesfor the development project methodologies are both desirable of that and feasible. This searchfor improvedmethodologies not for one optimal project identificationprocedure,but for the is production of a numberof altemativemethodologies that can be recognisedas being more or less appropriatein certaincircumstances.It is not simply a questionof blueprintversusprocess(Sweet & Weisel,1979), a question but ofwhich form ofblueprint process, whichcircumstances, evenof in or and what meansmay be used to irftegrateblueprint and processapproaches. For rural and agricultural initiatives in developing countries, where uncertainty is high, knowledge is limited and intended beneficiaries commonlyperipheralto centresof local and national decision-making power, then are processapproaches which make a seriousattempt at beneficiaryparticipationand informal institution buildingare likely to be mostrelevant. The dominantirnageof projectsas a technocratic exercisemust be replacedwith a revisedimagethat projectsas arenasfor conflict, bargainingand trade-offs, and in which data and technical recognises

tools havethe potentialto clarii/ likely outcomesand shapearguments.This is an altogetherlesscosy image ofwhat projects projectidentification about,but in realitythetextbooknotions and are ofproject (1991:229-230) planning havenever transcended coverc." their

In the following sections, will applya similar perspective differentaspects we to of projectpractice, notjust to projectidentification planning. and and

Incorporating local knowledge into project practice Local knowledge(with or without practice)is generallyunderstood mean the to knowledgeof people in a project's target 'community' (usually rural dwellers). Incorporating local knowledge into projectpractice therefore is treated part of the as problemof makingprojectsmore 'participatory'by drawingthesepeopleinto the projectprocess from startto finish andbeyond. Oneway of tacklingthis problemis to examine eachstage the projectprocess, of lookingat waysin which this might be achieved. Project designand evaluation Reg ( l99l ) arguesthat "If we want to give indigenousSWC [soil and water conservation]and other forms of local environmentalknowledgea real chance,then projectdesign conventional should thoroughly be changed":
"Many donor field a numberof missions projert identification,preparationand appraisal. for agencies Thesemissions often lake 3-4 weeksin the field followedby a similarperiodfor report writing at headquarters, they involve severalconsultantsand gaps of severalmonths betweeneach missionare common.Thisdesign chainis highlyinadequate. Projectidentification missions to spend tend halftheir time in the field talking to public administrators, staff of various ministries(agriculture,environment) andto some representatives targetgroup- oftenvillageelite. The restofthe time is spent the ofthe in (census capitalon data collection data,pricedata,etc.) and on discussing with ministries and donor agencies. This type of identification mission usually in the position identi8/and analyse is not to local perceptions, prioritiesandenvironmental knowledge.Assuming somecontinuitybetweenwhat hasbeen identifiedandwhat hasbeenappraised, is importantthat identificationmissions it right. Therefore it get the emphasis during designshould shift from appraisalto identification. A solution is to field small (2 identification missions or 3 consultants instead or 7), who know the regionwell andareprepared of6 to stay3 months thefield."(Reij 1991:15). in

Reij's characterization identificationmissionsshould,perhaps, qualified by of be noting that not all projectsare'new' in the sense that they are not all building on nothing. It is important that identification missions shouldtalk to publicofficialsand (includingresearch members otherinstitutions of institutions), only because not they may haveimportantinformation and insightsinto, local knowledge practice, on, and but alsobecause theyare importantstakeholders their own right. Otherwise, is in it not unusual projects be proposed designed for to and around experience others the of which have preceded them in the same location (see Box 4.1). In this case, evaluations former project(s)may provide much of the requiredinformation, of especiallyif they have been conducted a 'participatory'way. This does not in eliminatethe need for stakeholder analysisand stakeholder workshops, although again,theseshouldnot be confinedto just the donor agencyand membersof the
1

target 'community'. If project identificationis startingfrom scratch,then Reij's recommendations moreforce. have A morewide-ranging assessment ofthe implications projectdesign provided for is by Blaikie et al. (1996), basedupon their more 'sophisticated' conceptionof local knowledge. Farringtonprovidesa concisesummaryof their main arguments as follows.
"B&riers to fuller incorporation of LK flocal knowledge] into researchand developmentprojects include the (often unacknowledged) social and political agendas outsideagencies, professional of the and cultural backgroundof their sta$ and the often contradictoryagendas amongstlocal people and outside agencies. Structural and behaviouralfactors often lead outside agencies design projects to without allowing time for local participation. In additioL outsidersare often not adequately trained to recognise and deal with unacknowledgedprofessionaland cultural agendaswhich may underlie interactions betweenoutsiders insiders. and Progress towardsremovingsomeofthese barrierscanbe madeby introducingnew skills into the design and implementation projects, including facilitation, conflict management, negotiation,and by of and supportingexistinglocal networksandpathways, successful insider- outsiderinstitutions. and In terms of projea management, somepreliminaryfunding may be required to ensureearly dialogue between scientists, development workersandintended beneficiaries, that a clearshared so understanding processcan be gained. Furthemore, policiesat the nationallevel in of the designand implementation developingcountries should be examinedto see in what ways they encourageor discouragethe resilience, vitality andadaptability ofLK. Theymayhaveparticularrelevance for instance, extent to, the to which LK incorporatedin plant selectionis protectedby legislationon intellectualproperty rights." (r9e6.2)

It is interesting notethat although to Blaikieer al. (1996)examined largenumber a of (DFID) prqectsfor evidence a concem ODA with local knowledge, of theyhavelittle to sayaboutprojectevaluation a specificactivity,apartfrom recommending as that projectsinvolving local knowledge their restricted action research on-going (in on definition) should be undertaken. Their silence may be related to the general weakness DFID and other agencies project evaluation, of in especiallywhen the projects havebeencompleted.This is because shortcomings pastprojects the of are unlikelyto be acknowledged duringthe process self-evaluation projectstaff and of by otherindividualaid organization stakeholders. Opportunitiesfor institutional leaming are therefore lost, though individual practitioners may gain something from their own experience. This problemexistsin not just in natural resources all sectors, researchand development. Time and resources detailedpost-projectevaluationsare generallyscarceand certainly not for availablefor evaluating put everypastproject. In this respect, recommendation the forwardin Blaikie et al. is quitereasonable, especially it canbe ensured action if that rs taken on the recommendations suchaction research.Otherwise, of more could certainly be done to record and leam from practitioners' and other stakeholders' opinionswhenprojects cometo an end (at the very leastby askingthem to fill in a moreelaborate versionofthe typeof form usedto evaluate workshops, by holding or workshops themselves). Some platform from rvhich they can air their opinions shouldbe orovided.

Theneed time for Blaikie et al. (1996) make the importantpoint that project designseldomallows sulficienttime for localparticipation. similarpointis madeby Reij, who notesthat A upon incorporating local knowledge into projectsis the fact that a major constraint "govemment, donoragencies the presswant quick and tangibleresults"(1991: and 15). "It may take3-5 yearsbeforethe bestandmostacceptable technicalpackage is identified, hencetangible resultscan rarely be obtainedbefore 5-10 years have elapsed. is essential donoragencies govemments It that and accept these time frames for projects"(1991:16). Althoughnot everyone aiming for'technical packages', is this point is valid. Oneof the supposed advantages of'participatorypackages', which was mostexplicit in ,lR.A,is the relativespeed with which they can be carriedout; ('quick, easy and cheap') has helped to make them widely this characteristic (and practice) and local knowledge acceptable.However,understanding engaging process, projectcycles canbe a lengthy and oftenprovideinsufficient time. (Reij, andBlaikie el a/., recommend This is not only needed outsideresearchers for that more formal researchon local knowledgeshould be undertaken),but also for other projectstakeholders. Research an experienced by researcher, especially it if focuses upon particulartopicsor locations, can often be undertaken a relatively in shortperiodof time. For example, antkopologist an with relevant experience should be able to producea detailedanalysis a village communityin a month or less, of dependingon how much research alreadybeendone in the generalarea(PRAs, has which typically result in poorer analysis,may take much longer in terms of person-days). orderto engage theremay In local knowledge practice, and however, be no alternative to follow the paceof the peopleand institutions but beingengaged (this appliesequallyto the posfPRA process).Projectmilestones calendars and are generally meaningless in projectoffices. except projects Naturalresources may also demand moretime by their very nature. Many for tree species, example,whetherwild or cultivated,do not reachmaturity during the projects. This short life time of forestry,agoforestryand cashcrop development problem is particularlyacute in conservation projects and those which support management initiatives. The development community management is community of projects designed thattheir key activities a longtermprocess unless and are so will be (whichtheyrarelyall canbe),the long-term prognosis be grim. sustainable may projects;extending can sometimes overcomeby reproducing Time constraints be phase initiatinga furtherprojectbased the experience its them into another or on of predecessor. ad Althoughthis maybe effectivein somecases, is a dangerously hoc it (third etc.)phases projects usuallymadeat approach. Decisions aboutsecond and are a very late stagein the cycle, and funding is often not secured until after a project has ended. Meanwhile, uncertaintyprevails; project staff (and sometimesother may stakeholders) not know whether they shouldbe preparing conclude to their work it it or continue Underthese it. circumstances,is difficult to planfor sustainability; is probably safestto assume the project will end and that attemptsshouldtherefore that be made rneetits originalobjectives thetime available. *o in

Altemativeapproaches projecttime frames clearlyrequired. 'Process projects' to are arenot enough; greater a flexibility hasto be built into the projectprocess itself, even if this meansabandoning conventional the notion of what a project is and what it shouldlook like. This will obviously diffrcult for mostaid agencies, which the be in paceof institutional rarelymatches change that which they demandof their clients overseas.However,this issuemust be tackled if our capaci$ to understand and practice to be developed. engage local knowledge is and One option may be to provide funds for open-endedsequences intervention' of relianceon on-off consultancy postings which placea greater inputsthan permanent in the field. Progress be evaluated can during and after eachdiscreteinput, and inputs canthenbe clearlytargeted their institutional and impacts carefullyconsidered. Such a process would providethe motivationfor promotingsustainability a meansof and ensuring development, its especially the periods in inputs. It would between extemal not be appropriate everycontext, it is evidentthat the traditionalprojectcycle in but is often inappropriate.Under the circumstances, would seemquite rational to it experimentwith altematives Project objectives projectsmadeexplicit Blaikie et a/. found that relatively few ODA natural resources reference localknowledge their titlesor stated to in objectives, concluded the and that data"suggest LK hasbeena minimallyidentifiedcomponent ODA projects that in to date" (1996:24). The increasing emphasis 'participatory'approaches, on however, impliesthat this situation changing.Blaikieet al. alsonotethatthe (ratheroblique) is recognitionof the importance theseapproaches ODA's revisedRenewable of in (ODA, 1994a) NaturalResources Research Strategt 1995-2005 offerssomehope for for the future, athoughthere is a dangerthat a gap betweenrhetoric (the rhetoric of 'participation' the 'incorporation and oflocal knowledge') practice and will develop. Thereis no intrinsicreason why local knowledge shouldfeature explicitly in project objectives. It is more importantthat projectsshould have clear and achievable objectives, differenttargetgoups or stakeholders clearlyidentified,and that that are (whethertheseare construed 'knowledge'or not) form an their own objectives as input to project objectives. This might be achievedin a numberof ways. The organization stakeholder of workshops part of the projectplanningprocess as has much to recommend especially theseworkshops facilitatedby consultants it, if are who are relativelyindependent the principalstakeholders. of Processes this kind of should ensurethat local knowledgeand ptactice are engaged from the very outset, whatever specific project objectives emerge from negotiation between the practice, stakeholders. kind ofengagement This should alsopermeate subsequent and to this extent local knowledgeand practiceshouldbe an integral componentof every projectwhether stated its objectives not. in or This is alreadythe casein termsof our expanded definitionof local knowledge and practice,althoughit may not be recognized such. All projectsoperatewithin the as

arena of local knowledgeand practice and engagethem, knowingly or not, in differentways. The problemis that existingmodes understanding engagement of and are often deficient,especially when they are not critically and creativelyengaged themselves. The meta-objective all projects of shouldbe to understand engage and localpractice its widestsense, in includingtheir own practice.

Project practiceas local practice Theproject as a locdl institution Projectsshouldbe considered local institutions, only because as not they may be based 'locally', but also becausethey directly engageother local institutions, wherever projectitself is located.Projects the oftenform part of otherinstitutions or are linkedto themin someway. Theymay be strictlytemporary institutions lasting only for the durationof the 'project cycle', or they (or partsof them) may have a longerlife, eitheras(semi-)autonomous institutions asintegralpartsof others(see or Box 4.1). Whenprojects beingplanned is important questions askwhat kind are it to of institutions they shouldbe. Thereis no singleanswer this question to it because has to be approached a case-by-case on basis,taking into accountboth project objectives thedifferentinstitutional and options available.

4.1 ZCCFSPas a local institution ZCCFSP was both an institutionin its own right and a part of other institutionsto varying degrees. It was fundedby ODA who also directly employedsomeof its expatriate TCOs (Technical Co-operationOflicers) and, through a different arrangement, APOs (Assocate the Professional Officers) attachedto the project. OtherTCOswereemployed tkough NRI (which,until it was privatizedin the final monthsof the project,was the 'scientific arm' of ODA) who managed ZCCFSP. Apartfrom supplying fundingandstaff,ODA's mainrole wasto provideadvisory and relatedinputsvla the British Development Division in EastemAlrica (BDDEA), its regionaloffice in Nairobi, Kenya. The most important inputs were providedthrough includinga majormid-termrevieworganized BDDEA in annualreviewmissions, by late1993. Day-to-day management was left to NRI. In the early years, the designatedNRI ProjectManager the U.K. playeda key role in setting in milestones ensuring and that they weremet. Later on, a new ProjectManager who gavemuchmore autonomy to ZCCFSP's (an NRI employee). FieldManager NRI headquarters thenconcemed was mainlywith providing administrative support moregeneral and advice. Up to a point, this systemworked well, although some TCOs regrettedthat BDDEA and./orother extemaladvisors werenot available providemoreactiveguidance to alongthe lines of the mid-termreview.

ODA andNRI werenot the only 'extemal'stakeholders ZCCFSP.TheForeign in and Commonwealth Office (FCO) providedTechnicalCooperation Funds (to support TCOsin post,includingtheir families)throughthe British High Commission (BHC) in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania.As the ultimateoverseer British aid to Tanzania, of the FCO,tsHC alsohada vested interest the project'sprogress.For example, in towards the end of the projectthe Field Managerwas askedto provideBHC with a list of 'tangibleoutputs'. Followingdissatisfaction ZCCFSP's with political developments during and after Zanzibar'sfirst multi-partv elections in November 1995, the FCO,tsHC intervened suspended and British aid to Zarzibar. This put an abruptend to plansfor a newprojectdesigned build on ZCCFSP's to work to date. Planning for this was well advanced, had involved the active participationof the Zanzibar govemment, and was actively supported ODA.tsDDEA. Ironically, the new by projectwasto havehada moreexplicitlyinstitutional focusthanZCCFSP. ZCCFSP'sprincipal institutional locus in Zanzlbar lay within the Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock and Natural Resources (MALNR). At the start of the project, it wasattached theparastatal to (CCFC), it was CashCropsandFruit Commission but later relocated the Sub-commission Research the Commission Research to for in for and Extension (the organizationof the MALNR into this and three other Commissions, Planningand Administration, Agricultureand Livestock,and Natural Resources, relativelynew). ZCCFSPwas one of four donor-funded was projects dominating work of this Sub-commission, wasgenerally the and referred as 'Cash to Crops' to distinguishit from 'Food Crops' (under the IFAD-funded Zanzibar Smallholder SupportProject),'Coconuts'(the GTZllDA-funded National Coconut Development Programme), 'PlantProtection'(the Dutch-funded projectentitled and 'Strengthening Plant ProtectionDivision of Zanzibar'). All the these projects developed extension activities,in manycases independently the Sub-commission of for Extension(supported a UNDP-funded project and implemented FAO). by by Althoughthe differentprojectscollaborated specificprogrammes, on their different approaches research to and extension remained constantsourceof friction, both a statedand unstated. ZCCFSP'sinstitutionalpresence was further complicated the attachment an by of APO agroforester two employees the Sub-commission Forestry(in the and for of Commissionfor Natural Resources), and the appointment a TCO marketing of economist the understanding he wouldalsowork within the Ministry of Trade, on that Industryand Marketing. ZCCFSP'srvideninginterpretation its objectives, of and especiallyits drive to institutionalizea Farming Systems/Farmer Participatory Research approach throughoutMALNR, conflicted with its primary institutional location(not to mentionthe widely-heldperception that its main job was still to develop cashcrops,and in particular altematives cloves). As one projectwithin a to singleSub-commission, ZCCFSPdid not havethe institutionalstrength carry its to expanded objectives through. This is onereason why the proposed follow-onproject wasto be based the Commission Planning in for and Administration whereit would potentially have a much wider impact on MALNR and be able to tackle the recognized weaknesses MALNR asan institution. of

However, relatively little thought was given to the sustainability ZCCFSP's of activitiesas the 'CashCrops' sectionin the Sub-commission Research.It could for be argued that if ZCCFSP stuckmorecloselyto originalobjectives, had especially as perceived thesewere within MALNR, more attentionmight havebeenpaid to this issue. One TCO even suggested ZCCFSPshouldhave remainedwithin the that CCFC, and thereforeoutsidethe line structureof MALNR altogether. Planning for the new project,and the generaloptimismthat it would go ahead, delayedserious 'CashCrop' consideration the of futureuntil it was too late. Negotiations section's secureda promise of support(for one year) from IFAD firnds, but past experience suggested this promisemay not translateinto practice. When ZCCFSPwas that discontinued June 1996,capitalequipment in was handed over to the 'CashCrops' (who continued usethe projecttitle). Within a monthof the handover, section to the project's successor run into diffrculties, partly because had MALNR could not afford to pay its runningcosts(ZCCFSP had subsidized someof thesecosts,althoughthe original project agreement had specifiedthat this was the responsibilityof the Zamibar government). The local institutions which ZCCFSP had created, including its FRGs. havehadsimilardifficulties.

Ihstitutional oplions There are severalobviousways in which projectscan be strengthened. local As institutions, they shouldbe accountable their stakeholders. to The problemis that somestakeholder interests frequentlyignoredat the expense others. Many are of projectsthereforebecomesites of conflict betweendifferent interests,and are riven with disputes over purpose,the distribution of resources(including training resources), the ownershipof their tangibleand intangibleproducts(including and research results). Some degreeof conflict is to be expectedin any institution, especially one with the diverseanay of individualand collectivestakeholders in so projects. Project planners, tlpical of however,are often unableor unwilling to consider all the options which might reduce the potential for conflict; project practitioners alsobe ill-equipped dealwith conflictswhenthey arises may to because of a similarblindness altematives lackof management to and skills. Someform of stakeholder engagement shouldbe the startingpoint for everyproject. Plannersand practitioners may be more familiar with stakeholder analysis(SA). Grimbleel al. (1995)suggest followingdefinitionof SA: the
"An approachfor understanding a systemby identifyingthe key actors or stakeholders the system, in andassessing respectiv€ their interests that system.Stakeholders in includeall thosewho affect,and/ or are affectedby, the policies,decisions, actionsof the system; and they can be individuals,communities, social groups or institutions of any size, aggregationor level in society. The term thus includes policy-makers, planners and administratorsin govemment and other organisations,as well as (1995:3-4: original comrnercial subsistence groups." and passage italics) user in

Grimbleet al. alsoidentifuwo key objectives SA: of

"(i)

of to improve the ef/ecti',vness policies and projects on the ground, by explicitly considering interestsand the challenges they may present,identi!,ing and dealingwith (before they stakeholders' groups, and consideringth€ potential fcr arise) conflicts over natural resources betweenstakeholder and cooperation compromise. (ii) to better address distributional and rocial impactsofpolicies andprojectsby brealing down the the analysisto assess separately interestsof, and impactsof intervention o4 diferent stakeholders. the is Consideration also gjvento trade-ofls betweendiferent policy objectivesand priorities (in particular (1995:4: italicsin the original) economic equityconsiderations)." and between environmental,

In these quotations,SA is being describedin the context of natural resource management. Grimbel et al. argte convincingly that SA can be both a powerful to to analytictool azd a stepping-stone activitiesdesigned empowerlesspowerful stakeholders. SA can be applied at different levels and at different stagesof the projectprocess a varietyof purposes.Althoughthey do not specifically mention for to of as this, SA canbe appliedequallywell to the analysis projects institutions, help determinewhat institutional form they should take and how they might be adapted interests oftheir differentstakeholders. overtime to thechanging as The major limitationof SA in this contextis that it is primarilydesigned a tool to and practitioners. extemalprojectplanners be usedby just one set of stakeholders, primary emphasis on analysis. To the extent that is As its name suggests, the prerequisite practice, is for this is satisfactory.However, understanding a necessary engagement, the meansfor achieving so on its own, SA doesnot ensurestakeholder workshops already has this shouldbe activelyexplored. The holdingof stakeholder of effectivein the early stages project beenmentiioned.Thesemay be particularly design if all Ihe major stakeholdersare represented,and if the workshops are local consultants.This suchas independent facilitatedby relativelyneutralagents, just as SA can,and phase alone; shouldnot be limitedto the design kind of approach should, be undertaken different stagesof the project cycle, SE (stakeholder at projectpractice.Both formaland informalmeans engagement) shouldalsopermeate involvement be throughout. of ensuring stakeholder should employed Ownership and sustainability are perhaps the two most important issues to be consideredwhen determiningthe institutional form of projects; they are key for institutional interventionat any level and are inextricably considerations intertwined.To a largeextent, nature the ofan institution's ownership determine will its capacityto persistover time, so it would be a mistaketo plan for sustainability without payingcarefulattention ownership.'Ownership'is not a simplevariable to may havea stakein the project. Unless in this contextasmanydifferentinstitutions projects one-offin-out interventions, for thereare goodreasons treatingparticular as giving local institutionsas large a sharein the the emphasis shouldalwaysbe on ownership projectsas possible; of this will meangiving them control over project just 'paper' shares. Potentialownersor part-owners might include resowces, not government institutions, NGOs and community-basedorganizations. In some to contexts,it may be appropriate designprojectsin sucha way that they subsequently 'melt into' an existinginstitutionalframework, disappearing local institutionsin as local institutions theymayremainasindependent once their own right. Altematively, replaced. staffhavebeen expaftiate
l0

Much the samecan be saidaboutthe institutions which projects themselves create. (1995)discuss needto identirythe socialconditionsfor sustained Mosseet al. the participation projects.Theysuggest linesof attack: to within rural development two build into projects ability to analyse interpretproblems, the and needsand priorities as social constructs; and to identifu appropriate social contexts(local groups)for planning andsustainability. andSE havethe potential fulfil muchofthis work SA to with a more explicitly institutional focus. The refinement of SA, and the development methodsfor ensuringSE, also have potentiallykey roles in the of understanding engaging local knowledgeand practicein the wider sense. and of Although SA and SE are, in effect, elementsof an actor-oriented approachto understanding engaging, and they arenot suflicient for all our purposes.SA is not the sameas structual analysis,thoughthey sharethe sameacronjryn. Institutiondl actors If projects to functioneffectively local institutions, are as local stakeholders to be are enabledto exercisetheir different stakesin the project, and projects are to aim for sustainability the medium-to long-term, in carefulattention mustbe paid to the roles, skills,andtrainingofproject practitioners otherindividualactors. and The institutional culture of donor-funded projects typically revolves around dichotomies 'us andthem', insiders outsiders, of and operating differentlevels. At at one level, 'we' are the expatriate technicalstaff and 'they' are our local (usually govemment-employed) counterparts; anotherlevel, 'we' are all the practitioners at directlyattached the projectand 'they' areotherministryemployees, to includingthe superiorsof our counterparts;at yet another level, 'we' are all the donor-funded projects and 'they' arethe hostgovernment. Perceptions this kind, while in some of ways unavoidable, also be highly counter-productive, can especially when they are translatedinto project practice and affect the ways in which different institutional actorsare engaged.Similar dichotomies may operate within the wider institutional culture,for example, within the ministryor department whicha projectis attached, to but this is no reason reproducing for including them. As an aspect local practice, of (and our own, perceptions suchastheseshouldfirst be understood then engaged and wherenecessary, countered) asconstructive wayaspossible. in a

4.2 Disciplinarity, interdisciplinarityand participationwithin ZCCFSP In its last year (1995-96), ZCCFSPhad an unusually large expatriate team of four project'sField Manager(an economist), TCOsand two APOs. Theseincludedthe (two on Ungujaand one on Pemba), agroforester (Unguja),a three agronomists an (Pemba).To someextent, marketing economist Glnguja)anda socialanthropologist partly because they workedseparately, they were based differentislandsand, in on two cases,becausethey had close links with other institutions (the agroforester workedwith staffin the Sub-Commission F for while themarketing economist
ll

was attached the Ministry of Trade,Industryand Marketing). In spite of this, there to was a remarkabledegreeof collaboration,and many researchexerciseswere jointly (the social anthropologist, particular,commuted undertaken in betweenthe two islands, did his colleagues, as less although often). Most of the expatriate team'sZanzibari wereMALNR employees. counterparts The (with someexceptions, majorityhadreceived basictrainingin agricultural science to certificateand diplomalevel). On both islands, expatriate the and nationalproject post-harvest, socio-economics staff were allocated threesections:agronomy, to and (a fourth section,agroforestry, was confinedto Unguja). This division was often counter-productive madeit difficult to co-ordinate work. On Pemba,the and the three sectionswere effectively integratedinto one for the purposes most research of exercises. Unguja,however, On attempts achieve similardegree integration to a of in everyday activitiesfailed,partlydueto resistance antipathy and amongst someofthe personnel involved. For a long time, decision-making dominated the expatriate was by team meeting aloneon Unguja. Major decisions werethen presented Zanzibai counterparts to as in were fait accompli. However, the last yearsof the project,somepositivechanges made. Monthly projectmeetings wereheld and importantissues were discussed by all the technicalstaff, includingdecisions aboutthe allocationof funds for training activities of diflerent kinds (including study tours). The meetingsfrequently heated practice. engendered debate and werea distinctimprovement the previous on project, Zanzibari Towards endof the the a Headof Projectwaschosen.Prior to this appointment,the expatriate Field Manager had no effective counterpart and the Zanzibai staff had no effective representative.The Field Managerhad dealt directly with individualstaff at one level. and the Assistant Commissioner Research for at another. When ODA funding endedand the expatriatestaff left, the new Head of Proiectremained controlof whatwasleft ofZCCFSP. in

Projectresources includepersonnel, and skills,and opportunities trainingas well for as financialand materialresources, thesehaveto be allocatedand controlled. and Financial controlis always sensitive a issue, especially ifhost institutions shortof are funds and/orhavea reputationfor managing them poorly (and at worst, comrptly). If the personnel hostinstitution ofa cannot trusted, is arguable theyshouldnot be it that (unless projectis designed promote be chosen recipients projectassistance as of the to greateraccountability and transparency within the institution). In more regular circumstances, areseveral waysof haadling there of this issueeffectively. Instead of handingoverall financial control to a singleexpatriateprojectmanager (who may also be financially incompetent comtpt), a systemof checksand balancescan be or introduced; boardof'directors' or otherpersonnel a couldbe created reviewmajor to decisions the allocation projectresources. on Iffinancial andotherresponsibilities of canbe safelyhanded the hostinstitution, maybe appropriate appointa project to it to managerfrom within the institution and leave the expatriate staff with primarily technical advisory and roles.
t2

Whenemploying personnel, eitherexpatriate national or carefulconsideration should givento the skills required the project. Althoughmultidisciplinaryteamsare be by often preferred,they may not be entirely satisfactoryif the expatriatescome from a rangeof disciplinesbut their nationalcounterparts mainly mono-disciplinary. are Multidisciplinarityin itself doesnot necessarily promote inder-disciplinarity; thereis oftentoo muchspecialization within teams and an over-emphasis technical on rather than institutional skills. Technical skills are sometimes best acquiredthrough consultancy; whenplanningprojects, serious thoughtshouldbe givento creatingan effectivebalancebetweenlong-termappointments consultancies.Either role and may be given to nationals, and in somecontexts emplolnnent local staff and the of (for instance, termsof familiaritywith the consultants bringdistinctadvantages can in project area, local language(s), the institutionsinvolved). The formation of and mixed teamsof expatriates nationals, and working as equals,is an obviousway of overcoming 'us andthem' syndrome the referred above. to Trainingstrategies shouldaim to improvethe skills available projects to both in the 'normal professionalism' shortand long-term. This shouldincludetacklingthe and 'conservatism development professionals' of highlighted Blaikie et al. (1996)by by creatingmore effectiveblendsof naturalscience and social science, technicaland institutionalskills; and this appliesto both nationaland expatriate staff. Natural resourceprojects are frequentlyoverloaded with expatriates and nationalswith primarilytechnical training. In orderto understand engage and local knowledge and practice all levels,a varietyof non-technical at skills is alsorequired.Theseinclude the ability to analyse institutions, and interactand negotiate with other institutional actors from olfice to field level. This does not mean that every development practitioner should become socialscientist, the importance a but oftheseskills should be recognized steps and takento ensure theyareexercised that morewidely.

Implicationsfor policy Throughout book,we haveemphasized needto understand engage this the and local knowledge practice rathermorerigorously and thanhasnormallybeenthe case,and we havesuggested someof the ways in which this might be achieved. However, questions policy alsoneedto be addressed. will beginby considering of We current DFID strategy, then discuss and morespecificstrategies relatingto the allocationof resowces natural for resources research develooment. and A strategt lhefuture'l for Renewable ODA,{DFID's NaturalResources Research (RNRRS), Strategy which was introduced 1990and revisedin 1993-94, unashamedly in is technicaland explicitly basedon a 'productionsystemapproach'. The revisedRNRRS for 1995-2005 is introduced follows: as
"The revisedStrategyaimsto generate replicable new
IJ

technologies improvedknowledgein natural, and and relevantsocial, sciences through a more rigorous scientific approachto problem solving. It will

promote the uptake and application of researchproducts for the removal of constraintsto the sustainabledevelopmentand management renewablenatural resources ifl tropical developing of countries. It will focusmore on demand criteriato improvethe quality, relevance, uptakeand impactof (ODA 1994a: seealso1994b: research." 2; vii)

The technical orientation of the RNRSS is evident in its definition of 'commodity/resource production (research focuson seven these)and will systems' of reflected in its organizationinto 12 programmes, the majority of which are (for example, Aquaculture Research,Fisheries Management discipline-based Research, Genetics Fish Research FishPost-Harvest and Research). Environment The Research Programme, which is administered from the RNRSS but is separately designed complement is similarin its conception. to it, The emphasis on'demandcriteria'offers a little hope,but not much. Blaikie et al. cautiously stated:
"With the introduction of the revisedRNRRS it is likely that LK ocal knowledgel (together wirh 'participation') will featuremore strongly in project frameworks and in annual/ completionreports. However,thereis a dangerthat it will do so morein letter than in spirit, andthat a gap betweenrhetoric and practicewill develop. That is that research may continueto be prirnarily set by Western agendas scientificpractic€,with a cursorynod towardsindigenous management strategies LK. The reasons and for this haveto do with the difficulties of managing research the interfacewhich, in the neo-populist paradigm,becomeconsiderably more complex. It needsto be ernphasised the implicationsof an that explicit LK componentfor the research processare considerable, involve a profound shift in the and social and political relationships betweenNR lnatural resources] researchscientists, extemal agencies and their clients, and in the ways in which these structure themselves, make decisionsand relate to (1996:24-25) in others the professional sphere."

This criticism is valid, but limited by the focus on local knowledge in its conventional, restricted sense. Why is the RNRRSonlyaresearchstrategy? Thereis nothingwrongwith research such(andnothingintrinsicallywrong with 'Western as scientificpractice',at leastin its lessdogmaticmanifestations), research (either but ours or theirs) must be put into practice. Natural resources development and management appearto have been overlooked. If the RNRRS actually does guide DFID practiceuntil 2005, the short-termoutlook is grim. This is a criticism, however,only of the letter (and implied spirit) of the text. DFID is a complex organization with manydifferentstakeholders, includinginstitutional actorswho are well awareof theseproblems capable addressing and of them. The proof will be in their practice. Multiple strategies The vast and growing literature in favour of participatory approachesto natural resources promptsthe assumption research and development that they have been endorsed with the same fervour by policy-makers, and that resources freely are just as the participatory available their use. However, for message yet to trickle has down to somepractitioners, is encountering it similar, if not greater,difficulty in moving upwardsto the policy-makers. While many practitioners have at least embraced rhetoricof participation, the evidence suggests many policy-makers that
t4

havenot, eitherbecause they haveactivelyresisted doing so, or because largely are ignorant ofthe particpatorymovement. i Thereare several reasons this, someof which relateto the political economy for of development.Many policy-makers adherents (declared not) of neo-classical are or economics (the source of traditional modemization approaches)whereas many development theorists and practitioners havebeenmore stronglyinfluenced the by radical alternatives(including neo-Marxism,feminism, and the environmental movement)underlyingparticipatorypopulism. These are the ingredientsof an age-old ideological conllict which, although it rarely surfaces,exists beneath policy and practice. It is not difficult to seewhy resources development might be denied the participatory to lobbyin this context. The questions which this raises rarelyaddressed the optimisticproponents are by of participation.In his critical rcviewof Beyond FarmerFirst (Scoones Thompson, and 1994), Fanington (1995) notes that "the book is permeatedwith simplistic perceptions ofthe conditions whichpublicsector in resources be allocated (or may to deniedto) the rural poor." Referringspecificallyto less developed countries,he argues that participatoryapproaches requiremore resources than are usually available in publicsector research extension ald services:
"We cannotsimply that assume participatoryapproaches self-evidently are deserving greaterresource of allocations: existingpolitical pressures likely to favour continuedstrongrepresentation better-off are of farmers. By what political and management processes might we expect some reversal of cuneni patterns? resource Thisis a qu€stion thebookdoes adequately (1995:6) allocation that not address."

Farringtonmight equally have been referring to the allocation of resources in developed countries,althoughthe political pressures againstparticipationtake a somewhatdifferent form. He continuesby arguing that the editors' definition of 'transferof technology' nowhere risesabovethe level of caricature, is conflated but with a topdown technologydevelopment extension and approach:
"The time is ripe for redefinitionand somerehabilitation ofthe conceptof technologytransfer: it does not necessarily imply purely "science-driven" modesof operation(though it does admit the important possibility that ideasfor researchand for new technologies may come from both scienceand from farmers). Even if technologieshave been developedby profoundly participatory processes, there remains needto offer themas optionsto otherswho mayfind themuseful,regardless the ofwhether this "sharing", "dissemination", "extension" "technologl process termed (1995:6) is or transfer".

Farringtonsuggests relying insteadon the use of the media (including radio) for middle and high incomefarmers, therebysavingon resources which could then be allocated to lower income farmers for whom face-to-face approachesare more necessary. He also suggests need to explore altemativesto farming. Farm a households differ widely in their capabilities levelsof commitment agriculture; and to typically,poor farmers (for combinestrategies meethousehold to food requirements example, sellingtheir labourto othersin additionto working their own farms). by Farringtonconcludesby endorsingCarroll's (1992) argumentthat development planners shouldalsoadoptmultiplestrategies promoting combination income by a of
t)

generation(farming included), the creation of casual, unskilled employment opportunities, 'safetynets'. and Farrington arguing is realistically that resources shouldbe bettertargeted we want if to meetthe needs resource-poor of farmers.These issues usuallyglossed are over by proponents participatory of approaches in this respect agreewith Farrington; and we an enhanced understanding practice, of includingthe practice policy-makers, of both practice demands allowsusto engage and sfategically.ln some cases, may mean this using methods which are not participatory the fullest sense (Biggs' 'collegiate' in mode),but our ultimateobjectives the sameas, or very similar to, thoseof the are populists. As Edwards (1994) noted, researchdoes not have to be directly participatory be relevant.Similarly,we areunlikelyto achieve objectives to our ifwe only engage practice (or 'participate the of with') the peoplewe want to help most. The knowledge practice our own policy-makers and of might be an obviousplaceto begin.

Conclusion There are many ways in which project desigrrand practicecan be improvedto enhancethe capacity of projects to understandand engagelocal knowledge and practice in their widest sense. There is also a considerable need to consider 'project package', with its restrictive format alternativesto the normal and time-frame. Why the whole package? Is there scope for specific institutional interventions,longer-termbut more focused interventions,the use of rolling consultancies, closercollaboration with NGOs? Theseare questions which do not apply to natural resources research development and alone,but must be considered if practice to be engaged local knowledge and are moreeffectivelythanat present.For the samereasons, thereis an evidentneedto examine criticallythe policy framework in whichnatural resources research development embedded. and are

l6

CHAPTERFIVE

CONCLUSION

The message this book is simple: understanding engaging of and local knowledge andpractice criticalto naturalresources are research development. and Althoughthis is not a new idea,we havegivenit a muchwider interpretation emphasizing by that understanding engaging and shouldnot be confined a singlesl,nchronic to domain(of primaryprojectbeneficiaries), ratherextended but overtime andto differentlevelsof institutional space. More importantly,however,we haveemphasized needto understand engage the and knowledge and practiceat different levelswith much greaterthoroughness than is case. The methods toolsgenerally usuallythe and recommended this taskarenot for entirelysuitable, appliedaswell (or ascreatively) theymightbe; thoughtless or as use pRl{'package' is a goodexample this. However, of the standard of altematives are available, includingdeveloping potential more'traditional'methods inquiry. the of of Understanding the key to effectiveengagement, this appliesto engagingproject is and practice well asto planning as interactions community at level. Before ending, let us recap the sequenceof our argument. Conventional understandings knowledgeand practice are strongly coloured by the 'indigenous of knowledge debate'and the way in which this has developed.This debatecan be characterized the (incomplete) by shift from a 'naive' to a 'sophisticated' conception (IK). The naiveconception overwhelmingly indigenous of knowledge' is technical, while the sophisticated conception emphasizes social (political, economicetc.) the dimensions IK. The latteris no doubtan improvement of overthe former,although it still carrieswith it a narrow focus on 'knowledge'which has led to impractical proposals practice. for Knowledgeis more satisfactorily treatedas an aspectof practice,and more effort should be put into understanding local practice in its different manifestations. Differentwaysof doingthis aresuggested recentsocialdevelopment by theorists, and we examined the relative usefulnessof these, with particular reference to 'structuralist' 'actor-oriented' and After emphasizing needto analyse approaches. the how practicechanges over time, we tumed our attention the meaningof'local'. to Conventional approaches IK (andpractice) to focusalmostexclusively one set of on 'community' By actorsin the development arena,members the (usuallyrural) of we contrast, expanded definitionoflocal to includethe knowledge practice the and of otheragents, includinggovernment, NGOs,andevenprojects themselves. We thenconsidered local knowledge practice be engaged community how and can at level. Different methodsand approaches were examined,starting with the standard 'participatory' packages, includingPRAs. Thesewerefoundwantingin a numberof respects, when used(as they usuallyare) in an inflexible and uncreative especially

way. They often provideonly a superficialunderstanding local knowledge of and practice,and an insufficientlydeveloped meansof engagingthese. Alternative approaches whichcanmakeup these deficiencies wereconsidered, includingthe case study approachand the importanceof building upon local practice (including innovation success) a means engaging The needto usedifferentmethods and as of it. andapproaches strategically against background coherent and a ofa understanding of local practice wasalsoemphasized. Finally, we retumedto the wider definition of local knowledgeand practice,and looked at the questionof engaging projectpractice. We beganwith an extended 'extemalintervention discussion the of retumingto someearliertheoretical debate', themes arguing and that intervention to be constructively has engaged not naively and rejected. Different proposalsfor incorporatinglocal knowledgeinto project practice wereconsidered, focusinguponlocal knowledge conventionally as understood.We projects local institutions, lookedat the differentimplications then examined as and of this in termsof variousinstitutional optionsand the ways in which the skills of project actors might be improved,enablingthem to understand and engagethe practice otheractors well astheir own) moreeffectively.We concluded (as of with a brief look at someof the wider implications our argument policiesrelatingto of for natural resources research development. and To reiterate:the knowledge practice all the participants and (individualactorsand of institutions)in the processof natural resources researchand development are important.Theprimarytaskof projectandotherdevelopment practitioners shouldbe and to understand engage local knowledge and practice(using 'local' in its widest sense) comprehensively creatively possible.Thereareno shortcuts doing as and as to this. However,the potential advantages a comprehensive of understanding local of knowledgeand practiceare considerable; least in fosteringa more creative not approach engagement the promiseof more equitable to with and therefore effective i nteracti ons.

BIBLIOGRAPITY

The following bibliographyis divided into two parts: (1) works relatingto our main text and the generalissuesdiscussed it, and (2) works dealing specificallywith in Zavibar and the project experiences have used to illustrate the text. We have we includedin it a numberof works which arenot cited directly in the t€xt, but which we have found useful in the course of preparingand writing it. It does not pretend, howwer, to be a comprehensive bibliography, either of the mainthemeswe discuss or of the political economyandhistory of dwelopmentinterventions Zmzibar. n

I. GENERAL (1995) 'The Scopeand Aims of Etbnobotany a Developing Alcom, J. B. in World', in R. E. Schultes S. von Reis(eds.) and (1995). 23-29. Altieri, M. A. (1995) Agroecologt: Ihe Science Sustainable of Agriculture (xcond edition). London: Intermediate Technology Publications. Appleton,H. E. and l{ll, C. L. M. (1994) 'Genderand Indigenous Knowledge in Various Organisations',IndigenousKntwledge and Developmefi Monitor, 2 (3),8-l l. Bebbingto4 A. (1991) 'Indigenous Agricultural Knowledge Systems,Human Interestsand Critical Analysis:Reflectionson FarmerOrganization Ecuador', in Agricalture and Human Values;8, 14-24. Bebbington, A. (1993) Rural People's Knawledge,Farmer Organisations and Regiotnl Development: Implicationsfor Agricaltural Research and Extension, ODI AgriculturalResearch ExtensionNetwork PaperNo.41. and 'Theory and Relevancein Indigenous (1994) Bebbingto4 A. Agriculture: Knowledge, Agency Organisation', D. Booth(ed.)(1994). 202-225. and in Bebbington,A., Merrill-Sands,D. andFarrington,J. (1994) Farmer and Community Organisafions Agricultural Research Extension: Functions,Impactsand in and ODI AgriculturalResearch Extension and Network PaperNo.47. Questions, Bentley, J. W. (1994) 'Facts, Fantasiesand Failures of Farmer Participatory Research, lgriculture andHumanValues, 140-150. 11, Biggs S. (1989) Resource-poor Farmer Pafttcirytton in Research: A Sythesis of Experiencesfrom Nine Natiornl Agric,trltural fusearch Systems,ISNAR / OFCORComparative StudyPaper No.3.

Biggs, S. D. (1990) 'A Multiple Sourceof InnovationModel of Agricultural Research Technology and Promotion',WorldDevelopment, (ll\, l48l-1499. 18 Biggs, S. D. and Fanington,J. (1991) 'Assessing effectsof FarmingSystems the Research: Time for the Reintroduction of a Potitical and Institutional Perspective', Joumal of AsianFarmingSystems Association,l, I 13-131. Biot, Y., Blaikie, P. M., Jacksoq C. and Palmer-Jones, (1995) Rethinking R. Research on land Degradation in Developing Countries, World Bank Discussion Paper No.289.,Washington D.C. Blaikie, P., Brown, K., Stocking, M, Tang,L., Sillitoe,P. and Dixon, P. (1996) 'UnderstandingLocal Knowledge and the Dynamicsof Technical Changein DevelopingCountries', paper presented the Socio-economic to Methodologies (ODANatural Resources Workshop Systerns Programme), 29-30 April. Booth, D. (1994a) 'RethinkingSocialDevelopment:An Overview',in D. Booth (ed.)(lee$. 3-34. Booth,D. (1994b) 'How far Beyond Impasse? Provisional the A Summing-up', D. in Booth(ed.)(1994).298-31 1. Booth, D. (ed) (1994,) Rethinking Social Development: Theory,Researchand Practice. Bumt Mill, Harlow: LongrnanScientific& Technical. Brokensha,D , Warre4 D. and Wemer, O, (eds.) (1980) IndigenousKrutwledge Systems Development.Lardaalrl.: and UniversityPressof America. Bunclq R. md Lopez, G. (1995) Soil Recuperation Central Amerim: Sustaining in Innovationafter Intervention, IIED Gatekeeper Series No.55. Carew-Reid, Prescott-Allen, Bass,S. andDalal-Clayon, (1994) Strategies J., R., B. for Nafional Susainable Development: A Handbookfor their Plarning and Implementation London: Earthscan Publications. Carney, J. (1991) 'Indigenous Soil and Water Management Senegambian in Rice -48. FarmingSystefirs'Agriculture and Human Values,8, 37 , Canoll, T. (1992) Intermediary NGOs: The Supporting Link in Grassroots Development.WestHartford, Connecticut:KumarianPress. Carter, L (1995) Alley Farming: Have Resutrce-poorFmmers BeneJited?,ODI NaturalResource Perspectives, No.3. Carter,J. (1996) RecentAppr<nches Participatory ForestResource to Assessment ForestryStudyGuide2). London: ODL @ural Development

Cerne4 M. (ed.) (1985) Putting People First: Sociologiml Variables in Development ProjectJ. Baltimore: The JohnHopkinsPress. Chambers,R. (1983) Rural Development: Putting the Lost First. Longmans. London:

Chambers, R. (1993) Challengtng the Professions: Frontiers for Rural Development.London: Intermediate Technology Publications. Chambers, (l99aa) 'The Originsand Practice Participatory R, of Rural Appraisal', lf orld Deve lopment,22, 953-969, Chambers, R. (1994b) 'Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA): Experience',WorldDevelopment, 1253-1268. 22, Analysis of

Chambers, (1994c) 'ParticipatoryRural Appraisal@RA): Challenges, R. Potentials - | 454. andParadigm',Wor Deve ld lopment,22, 1437 Chambers,R. (1995) Poverty and Livelihoods: WhoseReality CountsT, IDS Discussion Paper D347. No. Chambers, Pacey, and Thrupp,L. A, (eds.) (1989) Farmer First: Farmer R., A., Innovation and Agricultural Research. London: IntermediateTechnology Publications. Colchester, (1995) 'Salvaging M Nature: Indigenous Peoples, Protected Areasand BiodiversityConservation', UNNSD SocialDevelopment News, 12,14. Comwall, A., Guijit, I. and Welboum, A. (1993) Acknowledgtng Process: Challengesfor Agria tural Reseqrch and Extension Methdologt, IDS Discussion Paper No.D333. Cornwall, A. and Jewkes,R. (1995) 'What is Participatory Research?', .Socjal -167 . Science Medicine, 4l , 1667 6 and Critchley,W., Reij, C. and Wilcocks,T. J. (1994) 'IndigenousSoil and Water Conservation:A Review of the Stateof KnowledgeandProspects Building for on Tradition', Iand Degradationand Rehabilitation,5,293-314. Davies,S. (1994) 'Introduction: Informatio4 KnowledgeandPower', IDSBulletin, 25 (2), 1-r3. Davis,E. W. (1995) 'Ethnobotany: Old Practice, New Discipline', R. E. An A in (1995). 40-51. Schultes S. von Reis(eds.) and Dei, G. J. S. (1988) 'Crisis and Adaptationin a Ghanaian Forest Community', AnthropologicalQumterly, 6l (2), 63-72.

Dore, R. (1994) 'Why Visiting SociologistsFatl', World Development,22 (9), 1425-1436 Drinkwater,M. (ed.) (1994) Former Participafion and Farmer Research Groups: Worlahop Commentary and Papers, proceedings of an ARPT National Workshopheld at Kabwe,Zambia,1-6February1993. Drinkwater, M. and Sutherland, A. (1994) 'Evaluationof FarmerParticipationin ARPT', in M. Drinkwater (ed.)(199\. 2-59 Edwards, M. (1989) 'The Irrelevance of Dwelopment Studies', Third World Quarterly,1l (l). Edwards, M. (1994) 'Rethinking Social Development: The Search 'Relevance", for in D. Booth(ed.)(1994). 279-297. Eyben, (1991)'TheProcessApproach',paperpresentedtotheNaturalResrrurces R. AdvisorsConference, Bangor,July 1991. Fairhead, J. (1991) Indigenous Technical Knan'ledge ond Natural Resource Managementin Sub-SalwranAfrica: A Critical Reiew. Chatham:Natural Resources Institute. Farringto4 J. (1994) Public Sector Agricahural Extension: Is There Ltfe After Strilctural Adjustmezt?, ODI NaturalResource Perspectives, No.2. Farringto4 J. (1995) Review of 'Beyond Farmer First', Tropical Agriculnre Associatron Newslelter,15(2), 5-6. Farrington,J. (1996) Socio-economic Methds in Natural Resources Resemch,ODI Natural Resource Perspectives No.9. Farrington,J. andMartin, A. (1988) Farmer Participation in Agricalnral Research: A Reviewof Concepts Practices,ODI Occasional mtd PaperNo.9. Fernandez, M. E. (1994) 'Gender and lndigenous Knowledge', Indigenous Knantledge Development and Monitor,2 (3), 6-7. Fernandez,P. (1995) 'Indigenous Seed Practices for SustainableAgriculture', Indigenous Knowledge and Development Monitor,3 (1). Feyerabend, P. (1975) Against Method: Outline of an Anarchistic Theory of Krutwledge London: Verso. Fisher, R. J (1995) 'Local Knowledge of Dryland Salinity in the Hunter Valley, Australia',Indigenous Kntwledge and Development Monitor, 3 (l), 13-14. Frazer,J, G. (1923-26) TheGoldenBough (third edition). London.
4

Freire, P. (1996) Pedagogt of the Oppressed(trans. M. B. Ramos). London: PenguinBooks. Gibson, C. G. and Marks, S. A. (1995) 'Transforming Rural Hunters into Conservationists: Assessment Community-based An of Wildlife Managernent Programs Africa', WorldDevelopment, (6),941-957 in 23 . Grandin, B. E. (1988) Wealth Ranking in Smallholder Communities: A Field Mmtuol. London: Intermediate Technology Publications. Grimble,R., Chan,M-K, fulionby, J. and Quan,J. (1995) Treesand Tradenfs' A StakeholderApproach to Naturql ResourceManagement,IIED Gatekeeper SeriesNo.52. Hasler,R. (1995) Political Ecologiesof Scale: TheMulti-tiered Co-management of ZimbabweanWildlife Resources,IIED (in association with The CAMPFIRE Collaborative Group) Wildlife andDevelopment Series, No.7. Hassaneiq N. and Kloppenburg, J. (1995) 'Where the Grass Grows Again: Knowledge Exchange in the SustainableAgriculture Movenent', Rural Sociologt,60 (4), 72l -740. Hobley, M. and Shah, K. (1996) What Makes a Local Organisation Robust? Evidence Perspectives, I 1. No. from India and Nepal, ODI NaturalResource Howes, M. and Chambers, (1979) 'IndigenousTechnicalKnowledge: Analysis, R Implicationsand lssrues'IDS Bulletin, lO, 5-11. , Hulme,D. (1995) 'Projects, Politicsand Professionals: AltemativeApproaches for ProjectldentificationandProjectPlann;ng' Agricultural Systems, ,2ll-233. 47 , IDS Workshop (1989) 'Farmer's Knowledge, Innovations Relation Science', and to in R. Charnbers al. (eds.)(1989),3l-38. et IIED (1994) ll/hose Men? An Ovemiewo/ Comrrunity Apprmches to Wildlife (a Mcmagement report to ODA). London: IIED. ISNAR (1994) Report of a Workshop: Sttengtheningthe Role of Farmers' Organizations in Technologt Developmentand Transfer, ISNAR Briefing Paper, No.15. Jacksoq C. (1993) 'Doing What ComesNaturally? Women and Environmentin -1963. Dwelopment', lYorld Development, (12), 1947 2l Kendon, G., Walker, D. H., Robertso4 D., Haegitb M., Sinclair, F. L. and Muetzelfeldt,R. L (1995) 'Supporting Customised Reasoningin the AgroforestryDomain', TheNewReviewof ApphedExpen Systems, 179-192.

Kiome, R. M. and Stocking, M (1995) 'Rationality FarmerPerception Soil of of Erosion', Global EnvironmentalChange,5 (4), 281-295 Lakatos,I. andMusgrave,A. (eds.) (1970) Criticism ond the Growth of Knowledge. London: Cambridge UniversityPress. Lindskog, P. and Tengberg,A. O99q 'Land Degradatio4 Natural Resources and Local Knowledge in the SahelZone of Burkina Faso', GeoJoumal, 33 (4), 365-375. Long, A. (1992) 'Goods,Knowledge Beer: TheMethodological and Significance of Situational Analysis and Dscourse',in N, Long and A. Long (eds.)(1992). 147-170 Long,N. andvan derPloeg,I. D. (1989) 'Demythologizing Planned Intervention: An Actor Perspective', SociologiaRuralis, 29 (3/4), 226-249. Long, N. and van der Ploeg, J. D. (1994) 'Heterogeneity,Actor and Structure: Towards a Reconstitutionof the Concept of Structure', in D. Booth (ed,) (1994). 62-8e. Long, N. and Long, A. (eds.) (1992) Battlefieldsof Knawledge: TheInterlockng of Theoryand Practice in Social Researchand Developmenl. London and New York: Routledge. Longhurst, (1988) 'CashCropsandFood Security:CashCrops,Household R. Food Security Nutition' , IDS Bulletin, 19(2),28-36. and Mathias, E. (1995) 'Frameworkfor Enhancing Use of lndigenousKnowledge', the Indigenous Kna+,ledge Development and Monitor, 3 (2), 17-18. Maundu,P. (1995) 'Methodologyfor Collectingand Sharing Indigenous Knowledge: A Ca:c Shtdy', IndigenousKrcwledge and Development Monitor, 3 (2), 3-5. Mazur, R.E. and Titilola, T. S. (1992) 'The Social-economic Dimensions Local of Knowledge Systems African Sustainable in Dwelopment', SociologtaRuralis, 32 (2t3),264-286. Merrill-Sands, and Collioq M-H. (1992) 'Making the Farmers'Voice Count; D. Iszuesand Opportunitiesfor Promoting Farmer-Responsive Research',paper presentedto the |2th Anmml Farming Systems Sryposiazr, Michigan State University, 18 September. 13Mosse,D. (1994) 'Authority, GenderandKnowledge:Theoretical Reflectionson the Practice of Participatory Rural Appraisal', Developmentand Change, 25, 497-526.

Mosse,D., with the KRIPB ProjectTeam (1995) 'People's Knowledge' Project in Planning: The Limits and Social Conditiorrs of Porticirytion in Planning Agricultural Development, ODI Agricultural Research and ExtensionNetwork Paper No.58. Mosse, D., with the KRIBP Project Team (1996) Local Institutions and Farming Systems Development: T1roughts from a Project in Tribal WestemIndia, ODI AgriculturalResearch Extension and Networlg PaperNo,64. Nabasa,J,, Rutwara, G., Walker, F. and Were, C. (1995) Particirytory Rural Apprarsal: Practical kperiences. Chatham:NaturalResources Institute. Ndufa, J. K., Ohlsson, Swinkels, and Shepherd, D. (1993) 'Participatory E., R. K. Research Methods for Agroforestry Technology Development in Western Kenya', paper presentedto the workshop on Design, Implementation and Anolysisof On-farm Trials, Arlsha,28 June- 2 July. Nelson, N. and Wright, S. (eds.) (1995) Power and Participatory Development: Theoryand Practice, London: Intermediate Technology Publications. Niemeijer, D. (1995) 'Indigenous Soil Classifications: Complicationsand Considerations',Indigenous Knowledge ord DevelopmentMonitor, | (l\, 20-21. ODA (1992) The Process Approach to Projects, Technical Note No.4, Aid Economics SocialDepartment, and ODd London.

ODA (1994a) Renewable Natural Resources ResearchStrategt 1995-2005, final report, NaturalResources Research Department, ODd London. ODA (1994b) A Guide to the Renewable Natural Resources ResearchStrategt. London: ODA. Okali, C., Sumberg,J., and Faningon, J, (1994) Farmer Pmticipatory Research: Rhetoricand Realir!. London: Intermediate Technology Publications. Popper,K. (1959) TheLogrc of ScientificDiscovery. London: Routledge& Kegan Paul. Popper, K. (1966) The Open Society and its Enemies (fifth edition, revised). London: Routledge KeganPaul. & Prance, T. (1995) 'Ethnobotany G. Todayandin theFuture',in R. E. Schultes and S. von Reis(eds.)(1995) 60-68. Pretty, J. N. (1995) RegeneratingAgriculture: Policies and Practice for Susnirubility and Self-reliance. London: Earthscan Publications.

Pretty, J. N. and Chambers, R. (1994) 'Towards a Leaming Paradigm:New Professionalism Institutionsfe1 dgricu!ture', in L Scoones J. Thompson and and (eds.)(199a). 182-202. Rajasekaran, Warreq D. M. and Babu, S. C. (1991) 'IndigenousNatural B., ResourceManagernent for Systerns Sustainable Agricultural Development: A GlobalPerspective', Journalof International Development,3 1-15. (l), Reij, C. (1991) IttdigenousSoil and WaterConservafion Africa,IIED Gatekeeper in Series No.27. Richards, (1985) Ittdigenous P. Agricultural Revolution London: Hutchinson. Rocheleau,D. (1994) 'Participatory Researchand the Race to Save the Planet: Questions, Critique and Lessons from the Field', Agriaiture and Human Values,ll,4-25. Schultes, E. and von Reis, S. (eds.) R. (1995) The Scopeand Aims of Ethrnbotany in a DevelopingWorld. Lorrdon: Dioscorides Press. Scoones, Melny( M. and Pretty, J. N. (1992) TheHiddm Harvest: Wld Foods L, and Agricultural Systems: A Literature Reviewand Anrntated Bibliography. London: IIED. Scoones, andThompsoqJ. (1994) 'Knowledge,Power andAgriculture - Towards I. a TheoreticalUnderstanding',in L Scoonesand J. Thompson(eds.) (199a). t6-32. Scoones, and Thompson,J. (eds.) (1994) BeyondFarmer First: Rural People's I. Knanledge, Agriculnral Research and Extension Pracfice. London: Intermediate Technology Publications. Simpsoq B. M. (1994) 'Genderandthe SocialDitrerentiationof Local Knowledge', Indigenous Knowledge Development and Monitor,2 (3),2l-23 . Sinclair,F. L., Muazelfeldt, R., Robertsoq D., Haggitb M., Walker, D. H., Kendon, G. and Randell, D. (1995) Formal Representdtion and Use of Indigenms Ecologicnl Krumledge About Agroforestry, final report of ODA Forestry Research Programme ProjectR4731 . Sinclair, L., Walker,D. H., Joshi, Ambrose, andThapa, (1993) Useof a F. L., B. B. Based Systems in the Imprwement ol Tree Fdder Resources Farmland in the fustem Hills of Nepal: Pilot Phase,report of on researchundertakenin ODA Forestry and Agroforestry ResearchStrategy, Adaptive ProjectR5470.

Southem, A. J. (1994) Acquisition of IndigenousEcological Knowledge about Forest Gardens in Kandy District, Sri Innka, unpublishedM.Phil. thesis, Universityof Walesat Bangor. Sumberg, and Okali, C. (1988) 'Farmers,On-farmResearch the Development J. and of New Technolory',Expl.Agric., 24,333-342. Sweet, C. F. and Weisel,P. F. (1979) 'ProcessversusBlueprint Models for DesigningRural DevelopmentProjects', in G. Honadle and R. Klauss (eds.) Internqtional Development Adninistration: Implementation Analysis for Development Projecls. New York: Praeger. 127-145. Thapa,B. (1994) Fmmers' Ecological Knowledgeabaut the Matngement and (/se of Fmmland Tree Resources the Mid-hills of fustem lr'epal, unpublished in Ph.D.thesis, University Wales Bangor, of at Thap4 B. (1995) 'Incorporation of IndigenousKnowledge and Perspectives in AgroforestryDevelopmett',AgroforestrySystems, 249-261. 30, Thapa,8., Sinclair, L. and Walker,D. H. (1995) 'Incorporation Indigenous F. of Knowledgeand Perspectives AgroforestryDevelopment in (Part 2: Case-study on the knpact of Explicit Representation Farmers'l(nowledge)', Agroforestry of Systems,30,249-261. Thiollay, J. M. (1995) 'The Role of TraditionalAgroforestsin the Conservation of RainForest Bird Diversity Sumatra', in Conservation Biologt,2,335-353. Thompso4 J. (1995) 'Participatory Approachesin GovernmentBureaucracies: Facilitating the Processof Institutional Change', World Development,23 (9), 1521-r554. Thompsoq J. (1996) 'Moving the Indigenous KnowledgeDebate Forward?', Deve lopmentPolicy Review,14, 105-1 12. Thompson, and Scoones, (1994) 'Challenging PopulistPerspective: J. I. the Rural Peoples' Knowledge, furicultural Research, and Extension Practice', Agricahure and Human Values,I l, 58-76. Thrupp, L. A. (1989) 'Legitimizing Local Knowledge: From Displacementto Empowermentfor Third World People', Agricalture and Human Values, 6, t3-24. Uphotr, N. (1992) Local institutionsand Participationfor SustaitableDevelopment, IIED Gatekeeper Series No.3l. [various] (1994) Linking Farmers' Organisationsand Resemchers:Four Case Studies,ODI AgriculturalResearch ExtensionNetwork PaperNo.50. and

Walker, D. H. (1994) A Knowledge-based Systems Apprmch to Agroforestry Research ad ktension, unpublishedPh.D. thesis, University of Wales at Bangor. Walker,D. H., Sinclair, L. andKendo4 G. (1995) 'A Knowledge-based F. Systems Approach to Agroforestry Researchand Extension', AI Applicatiotts, g (3), 6t-72. Walker, D. H., Sinclair, L. and Thapa,B. (1995) 'Incorporation Indigenous F. of Knowledgeand Perspectives AgroforestryDevelopment in @art l: Rwiew of Methodsandtheir Applications)' AgroforestrySystems,30, 235-248. , Warrerq M., Slikkerveer, J. andTitilol4 S. O. (1989) 'Indigenous D. L. Knowledge Systems: Implications for Agriculture and International Dwelopment', Teclmologtand Social Change,ll. Waneq D. M., Slikkerveer, J. and Brokensh4D. (eds.) (1995) The Cultural L. Dimension of Development: Indigenous Kn<mledge Systems. London: Intermediate Technology Publications. Webber,L. M. and Isoq R. L. (1995) 'Participatory Rural AppraisalDesign: Conceptual Process and lswes' , Agricultural Systems, , lO7-l3l . 47 WelbourqA (1991) 'RRA andthe Analysis Difference', of RM Notes,14, 14-23. Wells, M. P. (1995) Bidiversity Conserwtion and lncal Peoples' Development Aspirations: New Priorities for the 1990s,ODI Rural DevelopmentForestry NetworkPaper l8a. No. Young, A. (1989) International. for Soil Consemation. Wallingford: CAB

2. ZANZIBAR

FAO (1995) Formulation of a National Forest Policy for knzibar, report to the Govemment the United Republicof Tanzania.Rome: FAO. of Goldmaq H. V. (1996) A Comparative Studyof Swahili in TwoRural Communities in Pemba,Zanzibar, Taruania,unpublished Ph.D. thesis,New York University. Kitwana, M., Kombo, Y. H. and llarvey, S. (1996') Wakulina rn Kilimo Mseto hnzibm, Forestry Technical Paper No.32, Sub-commissionfor Forestry, Commissionfor Natural Resources,Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock and Natural Resources. Zanibar.

Koenders,L. feport.

(1992a)

Agriculture in Pemba: Facts and Figures, unpublished

Koenders, L, (1992b) Faurn of PembaIsland: A Checklistof AnimatsOcctrring on Pemba Island, Tanzonia (PublicationNo.l). Dar es Salaam: Wildlife Conservation Societyof Tanzania. Koenders,L. (1992c) Flora of PembaIsland: A Checklist of Plant Species (Publication No.2). Dar es Salaam:Wildlife Conservation Societyof Tanzania. Kombo, Y. H. (1996) IndigenousTrees AgroJorestry:High Potential Species for for the Coral Rag of Unguja, ForestryTechnicalPaperNo.29, Sub-commission for Forestry,Commission Natural Resources, for Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock andNaturalResources, Zanzibar. Krain, E. (1994) Land Terure in Zanzibar,discussion paper,NCDP. ODA (1993) Repolt on a Visit to Zanzibar: Mid-term Reviewof Tnnzibar Cash Crops Farming Systems Project,2g Novernber- 3 December1993. Nairobi: BDDEA. Smitb P. D. (ed ) (1992a) Agricaltural Reseorch Development hnzibar: An and in Anolysk of the Literature. Bangor: Centrefor Arid Zone Studies,Universityof North Wales. Smith, P. D. (ed,) (1992b) A Bibliography of Agrictrltural Resemch and Developmentin hnzibar (two volumes). Bangor: Centre for Arid Zone Studies, Universityof North Wales. de Villiers, A. K. (1996) QuanfifuingIndigenousKnowledge: A Rqid Methodfor Assessing Crop Performarrce without Field Trials, ODI Agricultural Research andExtensionNetwork PaperNo,66. Williams, A. and Jum4 K. M. (eds.) (1996) Local Management Plan Preparation Guidelines(draft), Conservation Village ForestrySub-sections, and Commission for NaturalResources, Zanzibar. (1949) Williams, R. O. The Useful ond OrnamentalPlonts in Zanzibor and Pemba. Zanibu: Government Printer.

A full set of ZCCFSPreports is availableat NRI, as well as in the former project library in the Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock and Natural Resources, Forodhani, Zauibar.

ll

About theauthors

Martin Walsh is a social anthropologist in the Social Sciences Departmentof the Natural ResourcesInstitute in the University of Greenwich, a Visiting Research and Fellow in the Schoolof African and Asian Studiesin the University of Sussex. He has extensive practical and research experience rural and urban development Africa, and in in hasworked in a variety of sectors a freelance (1985-92),a as consultant ResearchFellow in the University of Sussex(1992-94), and as the social anthropologiston the ODA-fundedand NRl-managedZavibar Cash Crops Farming Systems Project (1994-96). His most recent consultancywork has focused upon biodiversity conservation and communitywildlife management. holds a M.A. and Ph.D. in social He anthopology from the University of Cambridge,and has published widely in differentfields.

Sharon Haney is a freelanceconzultant currently working with a CARE-funded conservation project in Zaruibat. She has wide experience agroforestryand farmer participatoryresearch, of focusing upon the social aspects of local ecological knowledge in community-based naturalresource management. hasworked in the She Pacific(1990-92),South-east Asia (1988-89), and East Africa (1987, 1993-96),with both NGOs and bilateral agencies a variety of local in and nationalinstitutionalsettings. Until recentlyshewas carrying out agroforestry research for the ODA-funded Zavibar Cash Crops Farming Systems Project, working in collaboration with the FINNIDA-funded, Zanzibu ForestryDevelopment Project. Sheholdsa B.Sc. in Agriculture from the University of Westem Sydney (Hawkesbury), Australia,and a M.Sc. in Agriculture,Environmentand Development from the Universityof East Anglia.

Master your semester with Scribd & The New York Times

Special offer for students: Only $4.99/month.

Master your semester with Scribd & The New York Times

Cancel anytime.