Participatory integrated watershed management: Evolution ... · Participatory integrated watershed management: Evolution of concepts and methods in an ecoregional program of the eastern

www.elsevier.com/locate/agsy

Agricultural Systems 94 (2007) 189–204

AGRICULTURALSYSTEMS

Participatory integrated watershed management: Evolutionof concepts and methods in an ecoregional program of the

eastern African highlands

L. German a,*, Hussein Mansoor b, Getachew Alemu c, Waga Mazengia d,T. Amede e, A. Stroud a

a African Highlands Initiative (AHI/ICRAF), Eastern Africa, Plot 13, Binayomba Road, Bugolobi, P.O. Box 26416, Kampala, Ugandab Selian Agricultural Research Institute, P.O. Box 6024, Arusha, Tanzania

c Holetta Agricultural Research Centre, c/o P.O. Box 2003, Addis Ababa, Ethiopiad Areka Agricultural Research Centre, Southern Region, P.O. Box 6, Awassa, Ethiopia

e CIAT/AHI, c/o ILRI, P.O. Box 1412, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia

Received 29 January 2005; received in revised form 29 June 2006; accepted 10 August 2006

Abstract

This paper focuses on the conceptual evolution of watershed management within the context of an action research program operatingin the highlands of eastern Africa, as informed by both theory and practice. Following a review of the watershed management literature,and brief program and methodological overviews, the paper explores in detail the concepts of ‘‘participation’’ and ‘‘integration’’ inwatershed management. Conceptual and methodological dimensions of the terms are discussed in the context of a watershed implemen-tation process, clarifying how ‘‘watershed issues’’ are defined by local users, how ‘‘stakeholders’’ are defined with respect to those issues,and how participation and integration may be operationalized in practice. Data are selectively chosen from different pilot sites to illus-trate how concepts underlying watershed management have been refined, and methods improved. It is clear that ‘‘participation’’ in prob-lem diagnosis and program implementation must move beyond community-level fora to socially-disaggregated processes and explicitmanagement of trade-offs to diverse groups. Secondly, integration does not come about through implementation of parallel interven-tions, but rather through an explicit analysis of potential trade-offs and synergies of interventions to diverse system components, andstrategies to define and reach systems-level goals. Each approach requires attention to ways to optimize returns to diverse social groupsand system components while minimizing negative spin-offs. The paper concludes with a discussion of implications for agriculturalresearch and development in the eastern African region.� 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Participatory watershed management; Systems; Integrated natural resource management; Eastern Africa

1. Introduction

Fresh water is expected to become the most limitingresource in many parts of the world in the near future (Gle-ick, 2000; Postel, 1997; Postel et al., 1996). This has led to asurge in funding for watershed management programs

0308-521X/$ - see front matter � 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

doi:10.1016/j.agsy.2006.08.008

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +256 41 220602/712 220600; fax: +256 41223242.

E-mail address: [email protected] (L. German).

(Shah, 1998; UNCED, 1992). Given this new funding cli-mate, there has been a surge in actors involved inwatershed management programs. Yet as often occurs asinterests soar in response to funding levels rather thanendogenous developments, an imbalance emerges betweendevelopment aims and outcomes (Hinchcliffe et al., 1995;Rhoades, 2000; Shah, 1998). Therefore, there is an urgentneed to take a critical look at the motives for watershedmanagement, the beneficiaries, and methods used to reachspecified objectives.

mailto:[email protected]

190 L. German et al. / Agricultural Systems 94 (2007) 189–204

This paper highlights forms of watershed managementemerging in the global arena, focusing on a participatoryintegrated watershed management (PIWM) program beingimplemented under the African Highlands Initiative (AHI),an ecoregional program operating in the highlands of east-ern Africa. The bulk of the paper highlights recent progressmade in operationalizing concepts underpinning PIWMon-site through the design and testing of approaches forenhancing participation of heterogeneous groups of peoplemanaging highland watersheds and integration of land-scape-level components and processes. The paper fills animportant gap in the watershed management literature bycontributing to methods and approaches for participatorywatershed management, and by illustrating how the statedobjectives and beneficiaries influence the design ofwatershed management programs.

2. Watershed management

2.1. The political ecology of watershed management

The recent surge in funding and interest in watershedmanagement must be looked at closely in terms of its polit-ical foundations. Political ecology helps to shed light onhow the agendas of different actors in the global systemshape how ideas are shaped by political interests and lever-aged toward particular ends (Agrawal and Gibson, 1999;Leftwich, 1994). It is no different within the watersheddomain (see Shah, 1998), where multiple actors see in theapproach a means to accomplish disparate objectives. Thishas resulted in multiple visions of the ‘‘watershedapproach’’. Among agronomists, it is seen as a means ofscaling out technologies, primarily those for soil and waterconservation or environmental protection more generally(see analysis by Hinchcliffe et al., 1995). For the waterresource sector and policy-makers, it is seen as a meansfor enhancing environmental services and public goodsemanating from upper watersheds for the society at large(FAO, 2000; IIED, 2004). Among conservationists, it isviewed as a framework for enabling trans-boundary natu-ral resource management (NRM) (van der Linde et al.,2001), in which livelihood concerns are often addressedonly to the extent that they help to further conservationgoals. Yet among social scientists and others, watershedmanagement is seen as a framework for enhancing collec-tive action and equity in natural resource access and gover-nance, or livelihood problems that cannot be solved at thelevel of the farm or household (Meinzen-Dick et al., 2002).

A critical question that we must ask ourselves to unravelthe political ecological foundations of watershed manage-ment aims and methods (in terms of who benefits andwhose agendas are furthered by the approach) is,‘‘watershed management for whom?’’ A clarification ofthe intended beneficiaries, whether local users, society atlarge or diverse external stakeholders (i.e. agricultural, con-servation or health organizations), is needed to define every-thing from watershed objectives to watershed boundaries,

stakeholders and methods. If implemented for the benefitof local users, for example, boundaries can be defined bythe issue at hand – whether inscribed within a set of contig-uous farms, the micro-watershed at other spatial scales. Ifthe aim is water provision for society at large, then bound-aries become the basin. If for scaling out technologies orreforming policies, administrative units may be equally use-ful units of analysis and intervention. Any attempt to oper-ationalize watershed management must therefore begrounded in a preliminary statement of aims, beneficiariesand the nature of problems to be addressed.

2.2. Participatory, integrated watershed management

In participatory integrated watershed management, theapproach can be qualified through two aims. First, the pro-cess must be participatory in terms of the particular issuesto be worked on, and how related activities are carried out(Hinchcliffe et al., 1995; Rhoades, 2000; Turton and Far-rington, 1998). A critical question to ask when formulatinga participatory watershed management agenda is, ‘‘Whywould a farmer want to think beyond the farm level?’’.Only by gaining clear answers to this question can a partic-ipatory watershed approach be developed. Participatoryproblem definition also implies that the relevant bound-aries for interventions are not necessarily the ‘‘watershed,’’but perhaps units defined by non-biophysical parameters(administrative or cultural units) or at other scales (forexample, a set of neighbouring farms or a particular land-scape niche). It must therefore be treated as a hypotheticalunit of analysis until participatory diagnosis confirms thatproblems conform to hydrological boundaries.

Second, the process must be integrated. While differentpeople may define integration differently, a commonapproach is to emphasize the integration of disciplines(technical, social and institutional dimensions) (Bellamyet al., 1998; FAO, 1977; Reddy, 2000) or objectives (conser-vation, food security, income generation) (Shah, 1998).While it is increasingly clear that the success of watershedmanagement programs rests on the integration ofconservation with livelihood goals, and technical with insti-tutional interventions (Reddy, 2000; Shah, 1998), few pro-grams have effectively achieved such integration in practice(Rhoades, 2000; Shah, 1998). It is therefore essential thatany approach integrate an understanding of the principlesoperating within natural and social systems (Meinzen-Dicket al., 2002; Reddy, 2000).

3. The African highlands initiative

The African Highlands Initiative is an ecoregional pro-gram of the Consultative Group for International Agricul-tural Research (CGIAR) and the Association forStrengthening Agricultural Research in Eastern and Cen-tral Africa (ASARECA). The program operates in bench-mark sites of the eastern African highlands that sharesimilar characteristics: high population density, declining

L. German et al. / Agricultural Systems 94 (2007) 189–204 191

agricultural productivity, and limited economic opportuni-ties. Since 1995, the AHI has worked in partnership withnational agricultural research systems (NARS) of Ethiopia,Kenya, Madagascar, Tanzania and Uganda to develop newworking approaches that enable improved farm- and land-scape-level natural resource management among ruralcommunities. Research and funding during Phases 1 and2 of the AHI emphasized farm-level natural resource man-agement, primarily through technological innovation. Inrecognition of the strong interactions among land usersand components (trees, cropland, water, livestock) at land-scape level, Phase 3 aims to address broader dimensions ofNRM beyond the farm level. This has catalyzed fundingfor what has become a full-fledged emphasis on participa-tory, integrated watershed management and the develop-ment of methods to operationalize this approach.Important lessons are now emerging for agriculturalresearch and development (R&D) in the eastern Africanregion.

It is important to take a look at the foundations ofwatershed management within the AHI, given the variabil-ity of objectives and approaches falling under the‘‘watershed management’’ umbrella. The program’s aimis to operationalize a participatory, integrated watershedmanagement approach to address problems of immediaterelevance to highland communities. This means that it isa largely endogenous approach in terms of the motivesfor change (i.e. NRM problems identified by watershed res-idents themselves) and the ultimate beneficiaries (upperwatershed residents). Principles guiding the design and test-ing of approaches within AHI include equity, sustainabilityand local empowerment. While higher-level actions in thenear future will be restricted to district-level institutionaland policy interventions in support of watershed-levelactions, it is possible that such ‘working watersheds’ will

Table 1Characteristics of African highlands initiative benchmark sites in Phase 3

Site Benchmark site

Attributes Areka Ginchi

Ethiopia Ethiopia

Altitude (meters above sea level) 1800–2600 >2200Population density (/km2) 400–600 100–200Enterprises Enset, wheat, pea, maize,

barley, sorghum, sweetpotato, faba bean,horticulture, communalgrazing

Barley, pwheat, orotationcroplandgrazing

Irrigation None NoneLivestock trends Low numbers and

decreasing; intensivemanagement

High numaccess to

Forest/wood-lot access Medium (tree plantingcommon)

Limitedremnant

Market integration Limited, some off-farmemployment

Medium

Adapted from AHI, 2001.

be integrated into higher-level (watershed or basin) man-agement initiatives at a future date.

4. Methodology for approach development

4.1. Research sites

Research was conducted in four AHI benchmark siteslocated in the highlands of eastern Africa: Lushoto Districtin the East Usambara Mountains of Tanzania, Vihiga Dis-trict in western Kenya, and Ginchi and Areka Woredas incentral and south-central Ethiopia, respectively (Table 1).Each region is characterized by high population density,natural resource degradation and declines in agriculturalproductivity – posing significant challenges to farmers toprovide for the growing population while maintaining theproductivity of basic resources (water, food, fuel, fodder).Benchmark sites are delineated by topographical bound-aries (micro-watersheds), encompass from 6 to 9 villages,and lie within larger administrative units (Districts orWoredas) where some of the activities take place. Theyserve as the testing grounds for methodology developmentand enable comparative synthesis at the ecoregional level.

4.2. Research objectives

Research objectives within AHI may be defined at abroad program level, as well as at watershed level – wherethey are defined in relation to the specific problems identi-fied by land users. The program-level objective in Phase 3may be stated as, ‘‘To develop and test an approach forparticipatory integrated natural resource management atwatershed scale.’’ Sample watershed-level objectives areillustrated in the section on ‘‘Integration in WatershedManagement.’’

Lushoto Vihiga

Tanzania Kenya

1100–1450 1500–1700200–300 600–1200

ulses, irish potato,ilseeds, seasonalfrom individualto communal

Maize, banana, tea,coffee, horticulture invalley bottoms, high-valuetrees, zero grazedlivestock

Maize, beans,horticulture, somecoffee, tea, sugar caneand semi- intensivedairy

Seasonal Riparian areas onlybers yet decreasing;grazing land good

Small numbers anddecreasing; zero-grazedmostly.

Low numbers butstable.

(planting limited;forest is distant)

Medium to high (mostlycultivated; natural forestsare protected)

Limited (onlycultivated; highpopulation limitsaccess)

Medium to good (tea,vegetables)

Medium to good


4.3. Evolution of concepts and methods in the AHI: action

research

Action research and social learning approaches are cen-tral to the evolution of concepts and methods within theAHI. The ‘validity problem’ in action research has beenthe subject of both criticism and scholarship, and meritsattention here. Different from controlled experiments, com-plete replicability in action research is not possible. To keepone’s ‘‘intellectual bearings in a changing situation’’(Checkland and Holwell, 1998, p. 13), claims to validityrequire a ‘‘recoverable research process based on prior dec-laration of the epistemology in terms of which findingswhich count as knowledge will be expressed’’ (Checklandand Holwell, 1998, p. 9). This consists of an area of con-cern, a framework of ideas, and a methodology (Check-land, 1991; Checkland and Holwell, 1998). It is to thesedimensions that the paper now turns.

The overall area of concern is sustainable livelihoods indensely-settled highlands of eastern Africa experiencinghigh levels of natural resource degradation and poverty.The area of concern may also be expressed with respectto the particular program contributions to this dilemma.These include development and testing of more effectiveapproaches for agricultural research and development insupport of highland residents in the management of naturalresources at landscape or watershed level, and their institu-tionalization within research and development institutionsthroughout the region. Phase 3 of AHI focused specificallyon approach development for ‘‘participatory, integratedwatershed management’’ – defining the watershedapproach around issues of local concern and using an inte-grated, multi-sectoral approach.

The framework of ideas guiding the research looks atthe complementarities or disconnect between the objective(addressing landscape-level NRM problems of local inter-est) and current approaches used by research and develop-ment institutions in the region. The latter include anemphasis on individual decision-making on farm-levelinnovations, strategies targeting single components of thesystem (crop, livestock, soil, tree, water), and aggregateapproaches to ‘‘participation’’ operationalized throughcommunity fora. The framework is defined in this waydue to the emphasis on institutional change. Key valuesunderlying knowledge acquisition move beyond the pre-dominant value operating in the development arena(income generation) to include sustainability and equityconcerns. These become an important lens throughwhich approaches under development are scrutinized, asmanifest in part through efforts to operationalize the con-cepts of ‘‘integration’’ and ‘‘participation’’ in watershedmanagement.

The methodology used to develop and test methods inpractice consists largely of an iterative process of reflectionand implementation at site and regional levels, where prac-tice informs concepts and vice-versa. This paper follows adiagnostic phase across all benchmark sites, in which

diverse social groups (by gender, age, wealth and landscapelocation of households) were systematically consulted onlandscape-level natural resource management problemsthat affect them. All of the action-based learning is there-fore focused around watershed management issues previ-ously identified and prioritized by local residents,grounding methods development in problems of localimportance. These include common property resource(CPR) management problems, negative trans-boundaryinteractions (among neighbouring farms and villages),problems of resource access and distribution, and areasfor which limited collective action hinders agricultural pro-ductivity and livelihoods more generally (German, 2003).

While a central office or regional research team assists inthe coordination of strategic research and interventionsand to synthesize findings at regional level, national scien-tists in each benchmark site develop methodology on-siteand carry out the bulk of the work with watershed resi-dents. As the action research process unfolds, site teamswork with one or more regional research fellows to develop‘‘best bet’’ approaches to facilitating change, test them withcommunities, and improve upon them before implementingmore broadly. Thus, while most ideas are generatedthrough a ‘‘constructivist’’ approach (Chambers et al.,1992; Rodwell and Woody, 1994) to knowledge generationand social learning on-site, regional staff enhance cross-fer-tilization of ideas between sites. The latter enables a morerobust approach through cross-site comparison, andgreater regional integration (Fig. 1). While this cross-fertil-ization helps to strengthen the approach followed as well asthe regional research dimension, sites are encouraged toinnovate during each phase of watershed management(diagnosis, planning, implementation, monitoring) toenable testing of a diversity of approaches and enhancecomparative learning between sites.

The nature of issues identified in AHI benchmark siteshas also enabled a more explicit understanding ofwatershed ‘‘integration’’ and ‘‘participation.’’ While severalforms of integration can be identified, the most prominentinclude: (a) managing interactions between and benefits todiverse watershed-level components (trees, water, livestock,crops, soil); and (b) a multi-disciplinary (multi-sectoral)approach to integrate biophysical, social, market and pol-icy interventions. Operationalizing ‘‘participation’’ aroundspecific issues allows it to becomes less associated with aparticular methodology (i.e. Participatory Rural Apprai-sal), and more linked to underlying values of equity andempowerment. It therefore assumes multiple meanings,from local ownership of the process (from problem identifi-cation to planning and implementation) to collective action

(in terms of widespread motivation and participation, andmore negotiation of processes and outcomes) and moreequitable benefits to diverse user groups.

These normative understandings beg the question,‘‘whose concepts, whose understanding?’’ McClintocket al’s ‘‘Metaphors for Reflecting on Research Practice:Researching with People’’ (2003) helps to clarify the rela-

a Regional Research Team, a small interdisciplinary team providing support to Site Teams in disciplines underrepresented within the NARS.

(2) RRTasynthesizes (1) Preliminary (3) Research and lessons and approaches Development Development On- (Site-Regional Linkages); and Testing of Site Informed by Quality Control Methods Regional Analysis &

Research Framework

REGIONAL SITE

Pooled/Processed Ideas

Fig. 1. Site-regional linkages in AHI.


tionship between project staff and watershed residents inthe creation of new understanding. Two metaphors jointlydescribe this relationship: research-as-facilitation andresearch-as-narrative. The first process is about facilitatinglearning by the participants themselves by creating ‘‘oppor-tunities for everyday research.’’ Watershed residents areengaged in their own learning processes that would nothave taken place without the role of AHI-as-facilitator.Yet creation of new understanding (the content ofresearch) must move beyond the watershed residents them-selves, as we are not only facilitating solutions to localproblems – but distilling general lessons on the approachthat can be utilized by a broader set of research and devel-opment institutions in the eastern African region.Research-as-narrative helps to capture this second dimen-sion of researching with people. This metaphor describesa process in which research is used to give coherence tothe process of discovery by describing and reflecting onexperience. While the second of the two metaphors is theessence of the present paper, it is profoundly influencedby the first; the very fact that concepts and methods haveevolved within AHI attests to the determining influenceof experience and the people shaping that experience (bothwatershed residents and AHI research teams) on theauthors’ understanding.

As this paper is as much about concepts and methods asit is about findings, data presented in the pages that followare often chosen selectively for their role in illustrating aprinciple or concept. The paper is not intended as a synthe-sis of findings, but rather a synthesis of concepts and meth-ods under development. Apparent disparities in findingsalso stem from the social learning approach used todevelop and test new approaches in each site, in whichselect methods were only tested in single sites or slowlyspread from one site to another as ‘‘best practices’’ areidentified.

5. ‘‘Participation’’ in watershed management

‘‘Participation’’ means different things to different peo-ple. All too often, however, it is taken to mean mereturn-out at community fora, a grossly inadequate proxy

for true participation in decision-making and benefits.Throughout the diverse stages of watershed management,we have experimented with diverse forms of participation,from equity to representation in decision-making to nego-tiated decisions and actions.

5.1. Participation in problem definition

The political ecology of watershed management suggeststhat those involved in defining the watershed managementapproach will have important influence on the definition ofobjectives and methods. It is therefore important to look athow the questions asked, and the methodologies utilized,influence the outcomes of problem definition in watershedmanagement. An iterative approach to the development ofdiagnostic methods was utilized, both in terms of differen-tiated planning processes by the different site teams(enabling subsequent cross-site comparison), and imple-menting and adjusting the approach in practice. Site teamstested both proscriptive (testing of pre-determined check-lists) and constructivist approaches (participatorymapping, historical trends analysis) to diagnosis to comple-ment the strengths and weakness of each. Following across-site comparison of emerging questions for diagnosingwatershed problems in each benchmark site, an integratedchecklist was developed and tested in one of the sites(Lushoto, Tanzania) to monitor the relationship betweenquestions asked and elicited responses. The strong diver-gence in responses when watershed management issuesare elicited in different ways (Table 2) clearly illustrateshow the formulation of questions influences the definitionof problems. Reliance on proscriptive checklists alonecan make watershed diagnosis subject to the bias of exter-nal facilitators who frame questions. On the other hand,not all of the problems identified through checklists werecaptured through more constructivist approaches. Thissuggests that triangulation of both research questions anddiagnostic methods may be most effective for a robust diag-nosis of watershed problems.

Open-ended interviews were also conducted selectivelyin the diagnostic phase to cross-check whether emergingquestions asked in semi-structured interviews were

Table 2Correlation between questions and elicited responses in Lushoto benchmark site

Research question Elicited responses

1. What activities could benefit from collective action? Soil and water conservation, farmyard manure application, banana plantingMaintaining community bullCommunity mill construction and operationMaintenance of roads and community buildingsManaging water sources and irrigation infrastructure

2. How do activities of neighboring farmsand villages influence your livelihood?

Eucalyptus spp. on farm boundaries compete with crops and dry soil in neighboringfarmlandNeighboring fields harboring rodents, pests and weedsStray fire from neighbors’ fieldsFailure of upslope neighbors to conserve their plots, harming crops fromuncontrolled drainage/erosionLack of respect for farm boundaries

3. Are there any natural resourcemanagement conflicts?

Land shortage/boundary encroachmentFree grazingTheft of crops and village treesTraditional vs. modern beliefs on NRMLimited drinking/irrigation water

4. Are there any problems associated withthe management of communal property?

Water shortage (drinking, irrigation)Water pollutionFires and theft in village forestImpact of crops and Eucalyptus spp. on water availability


sufficient in capturing the full range of issues affecting localresidents. In one case, this enabled identification of a majorissue affecting the livelihoods of women, namely the declinein fuel wood access due to changes in forest cover andaccess. Recognizing that the evolving list of questions beingused to elicit local perceptions of key watershed problemsdid not effectively elicit this problem, an additional ques-tion was added to the semi-structured interview protocol– namely, ‘‘How have land use and landscape changes overtime influenced livelihoods?’’ While the methodology wasbeing developed for subsequence use by outside facilitatorsof watershed management, the idea was to design a processthat would enable subsequent facilitators to adequatelycapture a robust list of salient problems faced by differentlocal interest groups.

Another critical issue are the methods used to identifywatershed problems. The community forum is the mostpopular approach to problem definition due to widespreadexperience with Participatory Rural Appraisal techniquesand lower transaction costs. However, in recognition ofthe influence of more outspoken individuals on effectiveparticipation, approaches aimed at greater social disaggre-gation were tested within the AHI. Individual interviewsand focus group discussions were both utilized. While indi-vidual interviews are more advantageous for understandinghow perceptions differ within different groups, focus groupdiscussions were found to foster greater rapport and debateover elicited responses. To identify the key watershed prob-lems from the standpoint of diverse social groups, focusgroup discussions by gender, age and wealth were utilizedin several benchmark sites. In other sites where there is aclear patterning of landholdings on the landscape, land-scape location (i.e., upper vs. lower slope) was an addi-tional basis for focus group formation. Once the issues

were identified, they were compiled into single lists andranked. For the ranking procedure, individual interviewswere utilized to capture inter-group variation in responses.Ranks were compiled into watershed averages, as well asgroup averages (by gender, wealth, age and landscape posi-tion). Results demonstrate the critical importance ofsocially-disaggregated problem diagnosis (Table 3). Issuesreflecting female domains of activity such as domesticwater supply receive a much higher rating by women thanby men, while issues affecting male rights (i.e. rights to landand irrigation water) and responsibilities (road mainte-nance) are prioritized more highly by men. Similarly,wealth influences how issues requiring significant resourceinputs (labour, capital) are ranked. Finally, landscape posi-tion influences the relative access to drinking and irrigationwater, and the corresponding ranks for these issues.

Participation in problem definition can also be opera-tionalized through the identification of strategic leveragepoints or ‘turn keys’ from a social perspective. One wayto do this is to identify issues of high importance to mostsocial groups. This can be done by contrasting the ranksgiven by different social groups to watershed issues fallingwithin each category (as in Table 3) or overall. An examplefrom Lushoto illustrates how trans-boundary issues areprioritized by different groups (Table 4). Here, out of all11 trans-boundary issues identified in the watershed, only3 or 4 are considered highly by most groups.

5.2. Participation in planning

Decisions on farm-level innovations, while often involv-ing group work, are generally made at the level of thehousehold and applied to private property. Watershed-level interventions have the potential of enabling

Table 3Socially-disaggregated ranksa of selected watershed issues in Lushoto benchmark site

Watershed issue Socially-disaggregated ranks

Men Women Eldersb Youth Highc wealth Low wealth Upper slope Lower slope

Water issues

Limited access to potable water M VH – – – – VH MInsufficient irrigation water in the dry season H L – – – – H MIndividual ownership of springs L H – – – – – –

Trans-boundary issues

Insufficient respect for farm boundaries M VL – – – – – –

Other land management

Need for group tree nurseries M VH VH VH VH VH M HLack of improved seed H VH VH VH M VH VH H

Infrastructure

Need for cooperation in road maintenance VH L – – M VH – –

a The total number of issues ranked (n = 28) are not shown here, but only those issues for which significant differences were found in average responsesgiven by different social groups. Very High (‘‘VH’’) refers to average ranks of 1–5 (1 being of greatest importance); High (‘‘H’’) to average ranks of 6–10;Medium (‘‘M’’) 11–15; Low (‘‘L’’) 16–20; and Very Low (‘‘VL’’) greater than 20.

b Elders were defined by local residents as greater than 60 years, and youth as younger than 30.c Local residents defined their own wealth categories based on local indicators (landholdings, livestock holdings and quality of housing), established cut-

offs between categories and classified households accordingly.

Table 4Top three trans-boundary issues by social group, Lushoto benchmark site

Gendera Age Location

Women Men Elder Youth Upper slope Lower slope

Theft of others’ property 2 3Trans-boundary pest and disease effects 1b 2 2 1

Lack of respect for farm boundaries 3Stray fire crossing farm boundariesRun-off from upslope cultivation 1 1 1 2

Non-respect for communal land boundaries 3 3 2

Shade from boundary treesRun-off from upslope Black Wattle treesDrying of land from boundary trees 2 3 3 1

Rodents from fallowed landFree grazing across boundaries

a Age classes have the same cut-offs as in Table 3.b Figures in bold font indicate trans-boundary issues priority highly by three or more social groups.


technological interventions to work better from both tech-nical and social standpoints, given the strong interactionsbetween neighbouring landscape units (farms, individualand private property, etc.). The question then becomeshow to ensure equity in such negotiated outcomes, in termsof moving from potentially interest-based to more equita-ble decision-making. Watershed action plans must be nego-tiated among diverse users with different priorities andlevels of influence. When attempting to ensure effective par-ticipation in watershed planning, several issues should betaken into consideration: (a) the level at which planningis carried out, (b) whether to plan for multiple issues simul-taneously or around specific issues, and (c) how to addresssocial trade-offs in decision-making.

Regarding the level at which planning is carried out, prac-titioners have a tendency to take the watershed as the appro-priate level of diagnosis and planning – compelled both toconform to watershed boundaries and to simplify the ‘‘com-munity-project interface’’ for practical purposes. Yet there

are important implications of watershed-level planning andimplementation in which representatives of each villagecome together to take key decisions for the entire area. Thefirst of these is that levels of participation are compromised.Geographical and demographic barriers hinder participa-tion by influencing the effort that must be expended inattending planning sessions and influencing the number ofvoices that may be heard during group discussions. Equallycritical are psychological barriers to participation within lar-ger, less familiar groups, which hinder the participation ofless empowered and outspoken groups. One possible solu-tion, watershed planning with community representatives,poses new problems. First, representation in name doesnot imply representation in practice, as those involved inplanning will more often than not plan according to theirown priorities and benefits than for those they are supposedto represent. This poses a problem in terms of elite capture ofprogram benefits. Furthermore, unless high-quality feed-back mechanisms are put into place, the broader watershed

Table 6Niche-specific stakeholders, Lushoto district, TZ

Niche Stakeholders

Farm boundaries Owners of boundary trees, neighbouringfarmers, missions, churches

Forest buffer zone Farmers in buffer zone, Ministry of NaturalResources and Tourism

Watering points Individual landowners, water usersWithin farmland Individual household members (by gender, age)


community will have little understanding of decisions takenand therefore little incentive to participate. Several strategiesfor addressing these constraints are currently under develop-ment within the AHI.

The first involves decision-making at the watershed levelonly after watershed units (village or other) elect represen-tatives and establish a plan for more widespread feedbackand validation once preliminary decisions have been taken.Yet for this to be effective, performance criteria for electedrepresentatives should be established prior to the identifica-tion of individuals due to the tendency for elected represen-tatives to reflect existing power dynamics rather thanrobust leadership criteria. The second strategy involvesgreater devolution of decision-making and managementwithin the watershed, moving to higher levels of negotia-tion only for those issues that demand it.

The second consideration when seeking effective partic-ipation in watershed management is whether to developgeneral watershed action plans, or plan around specificissues. While the former enables an integrated approachto planning, the latter is more suited to an emphasis onstakeholder equity. This involves the identification ofstakeholders specific to each issue, followed by multi-stake-holder negotiations at village or watershed level. A stake-holder approach minimizes involvement to only thosewho have a direct ‘stake’ in the issue at hand, and lendsitself more easily to effective representation – since forany given issue the individuals directly involved in negoti-ation will hold views that approximate those of their con-stituents. It is also preferable in terms of the depth ofplanning, given that a single issue is addressed at a timeand the nuances of different perspectives made central toanalysis and planning. Stakeholders can be defined in anumber of ways – according to the issue at hand (Table5), or specific sub-components of these issues that definemore specific stakes (see tree niche example, Table 6).

A final consideration for enabling effective participationis how to anticipate and manage the benefits and costs ofinterventions to diverse groups. Only by acknowledging suchsocial trade-offs during the planning phase can solutions –and the benefits derived from them – be negotiated by differ-ent user groups. Without explicit acknowledgement of suchdifferential impacts and the development of strategies tomanage processes and benefits more equitably, collectiveaction will occur at the expense of equity rather than as ameans to further it (Ramırez and Berdegue, 2003). An exam-ple from Ethiopia helps to illustrate this better. During thewatershed exploration exercise, researchers identified con-flict among neighbouring villages due to limited water

Table 5Local interest groups holding a ‘‘stake’’ in specific watershed issues

Issue Stakeholders

Input quality Stockists, farmers (byWater Those implicated (owPoor governance Local leaders, diverse

a Farmers with different resource endowments will rely on different types of

resources. Villages with more water were being visited byfarmers and livestock from neighbouring villages. Pathsthrough the farms and villages were being blocked as a man-ifestation of resistance to water sharing. As we work todevelop watering points in the watershed and water quantityand quality are positively affected, neighbouring villages arelikely to want access to these water resources. A solutionmay, therefore, be the source of a future problem (in thiscase, water resource conflicts), a problem that can be antici-pated from what is known about the current situation. Weare currently developing strategies for facilitating communi-ties to consider such potentialities up front, and to developan approach for managing watering points once ‘‘devel-oped’’. This might include negotiations among neighbouringcommunities to develop structures and rules of governancefor the resource given anticipated demands on the resourcein the near and distant future, and strategies for periodicre-negotiation of these strategies under changingcircumstances.

To better target such efforts at negotiated planning, it isimportant to consider the conditions under which collectiveaction, negotiation and/or formal by-laws (as opposed to amore individualized approach) are needed to enableimproved NRM and equity. Thus far within the AHI, threescenarios have been encountered which would requirenegotiation in planning to ensure effective participation:

� Negotiation of any program benefits among allwatershed residents, so that criteria for the design ofimplementation processes and/or selection of early andlate beneficiaries are agreed upon and transparent;� Negotiation among participants in innovations that may

have an overly negative impact on certain groups, andthe parties likely to be affected; and� Re-negotiation of rights and responsibilities among

existing and new user groups where an intervention islikely to cause conflict through increased demand overa resource.

wealtha), suppliersners of springs, tree lots), those most affected (irrigating farmers, women)local constituents (relatives of local leaders vs. others), district

inputs, requiring that these divergent ‘stakes’ be made explicit.


5.3. Participation in implementation

Fostering effective participation during implementationcan be seen in terms of greater numbers of participants,or in terms of negotiation of rights and responsibilitiesamong diverse groups. For the first of these, collectiveaction is seen as a vehicle for greater access to programbenefits due to higher numbers of participants. Yet as men-tioned above, collective action can be achieved throughboth voluntary and authoritarian means and either furtheror reduce existing inequities (Ramırez and Berdegue, 2003).It is therefore critical that collective action be seen as a con-ceptual framework for enabling equitable stakeholderinvolvement in implementation processes. For this, a sys-tem for ensuring that rules of governance established dur-ing the planning stage are implemented in practice. It isalso important to consider that rules established at the out-set are ‘best bet’ approaches, and not yet tested in practice.As such, overly rigid adherence to established rules can beas detrimental to program success and effective participa-tion as non-adherence to rules (Kloppenburg, 1983; Nem-arundwe and Kozanayi, 2003). A flexible yet accountablesystem of governance can be best achieved through an iter-ative social learning process, in which jointly agreed mech-anisms for ensuring equity are tested, monitored from theperspective of diverse social actors based on problems theyencounter during implementation, and modified accord-ingly. This, in turn, requires a participatory monitoringand evaluation system that encourages active reflectionon the implementation process, and timely capture of prob-lems and adjustment.

In recognition that not all ramifications of watershedinterventions will be anticipated, an effective monitoringand evaluation strategy is needed to capture trends in ben-efits capture and other social impacts as they emerge. With-out such monitoring systems in place that make thedistribution of benefits and social impacts explicit, it islikely that current interventions will become problems forcertain social groups and further existing inequities. Con-tinuous monitoring also enables continuous (re-)planning.This enables the ‘best approaches’ prescribed early on inthe planning process to be questioned and modified basedon the performance of established indicators and realitiesencountered during implementation (Chevalier, 2004; Hol-ling and Meffe, 1996).

While an optimal strategy for monitoring the impacts ofinterventions on diverse system components and social orstakeholder groups has yet to be determined in the contextof the AHI, it is clear that both rigor (in the sense of cap-turing diverse views) and efficiency must be considered. Thetrade-offs of external and participatory monitoring shouldbe weighed in terms of the ability of each to capture nuan-ces and political dynamics within a community, and theneed to minimize time investments of farmers and outsideactors. While socially-disaggregated monitoring could betaxing for facilitators and other participants, it may proveto be the only means to ensure effective ‘‘participation’’

(i.e. capturing negative impacts on less outspoken or morevulnerable groups) in societies governed by hierarchicaldecision-making processes. Ultimately, such external deci-sions on how to structure M&E to enchance equity shouldgive way to a more vibrant civil society in which more mar-ginalized groups can voice their own concerns.

6. Integration in watershed management

Similar to participation, ‘‘integration’’ means differentthings to different people. Within the AHI alone, addressingidentified watershed problems required several forms of inte-gration that were formerly absent in agricultural R&D. Thefirst of these was to manage benefits and spin-offs to diversewatershed-level components, including forest, water, live-stock, crop and soil components (both common propertyand interactions among individually-managed landscapeunits). This is required so that gains to one particular compo-nent (i.e. timber yield) do not have an overly negative impacton other components (i.e. water resources) – or on usersdepending on the viability of this other component for theirlivelihood. If a research or development actor were to expe-rience this form of integration, they would no longer befocused on their specific area of expertise (i.e. maximizingyield of a single crop) but rather on system-level goals (opti-mizing gains to diverse components) and the impact of alter-native interventions on these components.

Integration also means integrating diverse solutionsthrough a multi-disciplinary or multi-sectoral approach.This form of integration was required to address prioritywatershed problems through the integration and sequenc-ing of technical solutions with social, policy and marketinterventions. Fig. 2 is an idealized scenario of multi-sec-toral approaches to addressing watershed problems, illus-trating the many angles through which assumedly‘‘biophysical’’ problems can be addressed. While only afew of these dimensions have actually been employed forany given problem, it helps to keep in mind the diversityof strategies to be considered when supporting local com-munities to address identified watershed problems. Treesfound to be incompatible with certain landscape niches(springs, farm boundaries), for example, required not onlysubstitute species – a technical solution – but local negoti-ations between the owners of woodlots and tree lines andthe affected parties (a social solution). At times the resolu-tions reached through negotiations needed to be governedby formal byelaw reforms (a policy solution), or propelledthrough identification of environmentally friendly high-value trees (a market solution). This form of integrationhas required agricultural research and development practi-tioners to move far beyond their technological bias indevelopment interventions.

A third form of integration can be seen in the need tomanage interactions among diverse tenure systems, so thatinvestment in individual and private ‘‘goods’’ (i.e. economicreturns from trees planted on private property) can be bal-anced with investment in common and public goods

Key: = Bottleneck = Opportunity

Opportunities for value addition and improved returns; coupling natural capital investments with income generation.

Build upon local institutions (governance), knowledge and conflict resolution mechanisms.

Structures, rules and processes for effective decision-making and representation.

Technologies to diversify, intensify and increase farming system efficiency.

Support local by-law formulation & reform; advocacy on higher-level policy reforms.

Prioritised Watershed Problem

Policy Dimensions

Institutional Dimensions

Local Knowledge, Values, Practices,

Institutions

Marketing & Economic Dimensions

Technological Dimensions

Fig. 2. Multi-disciplinary and multi-sectoral integration in watershed management.


(i.e. water emanating from private property, which is influ-enced by tree location and species selection). This last formof integration can be aided by collective action theory, whichseeks a better understanding of the conditions required toenable greater investment in common property resourcesand public goods (Meinzen-Dick et al., 2002; Ostrom,1990; Pandey and Yadama, 1990; Wittayapak and Dearden,1999). This last form of integration can be treated in unisonwith the first, given that system ‘‘components’’ can bedefined in biophysical or legal (tenure) terms. Multi-stake-holder negotiations have proven effective in enabling com-promises to be reached between watershed residentsinterested in the status quo and those affected by it.

6.1. Integration in problem definition

During problem definition, integration can be achievedthrough a fully interdisciplinary exploration of watershedproblems (including biophysical, social, policy and marketdimensions) and through a systems analysis of componentlinkages. Research questions guiding problem and oppor-tunity identification in AHI benchmark sites are illustratedin Table 7. These questions are not meant as a template forwatershed exploration in other sites, given that biophysicaldimensions are given more systematic treatment than otherareas. It nevertheless illustrates a certain degree of interdis-ciplinarity in problem identification.

The second step, systems analysis of component link-ages, can be carried out once key watershed problems havebeen identified and prioritized. In each AHI benchmarksite, a list of biophysical issues was generated from theabove research questions through socially-disaggregated

problem diagnosis, grouping of like issues, and socially-disaggregated ranking of issues as described above. Inaddition to identifying issues of high importance to mostsocial groups, research teams grouped carried out theirown analysis of the functional linkages among discreteissues put forth by farmers (German et al., 2003a). The ideabehind this was to identify clusters of issues that could beaddressed simultaneously, so as to foster positive synergiesamong them and multiple returns (i.e. water, food, fodderand fuel). Efforts to conduct this analysis as a participatoryprocess have included historical trends analysis and partic-ipatory mapping, in which linkages among discrete land-scape-level processes are easily identified. The Tanzaniansite is also testing a strategy for a fully participatoryapproach to integrated micro-watershed planning withminimal outside guidance. The idea is to test in practicethe ability of groups of households residing within a contig-uous area of land to identify creative strategies for enhanc-ing positive interactions among landscape components andusers for improved livelihoods and conservation at land-scape level. This experience is too new to consolidate les-sons learnt.

6.2. Integration in planning

Integration in planning can be addressed from thestandpoint of both component integration and disciplinaryor sectoral integration. For the first of these, higher-levelsystem goals should be specified for each cluster in orderto avoid disintegration during planning. With a mandateto develop approaches for integrated watershed manage-ment of use by national agricultural research and extension

Table 7AHI regional research questions for watershed exploration (German et al., 2003b)

Primary questions Secondary questions

(Biophysical)What are the key NRM problems, from the

community’s perspective, requiring awatershedapproach or collective action?

1. How have changes in the landscape and land use over time influenced livelihood?2. Do on-farm management practices of your neighbors’ have any influence on your livelihood?

How about the management of resources by neighboring communities?3. Are there any NRM problems that could benefit from collective action?4. Are there problems associated with common property resources?5. Are there any conflicts associated land or NR management (within or between villages)?6. How do different groups (by gender, age, wealth or landscape position) prioritize these issues?

(Social/policy/market)What are the key opportunities (social capital,

policy mechanisms) and constraints (social &policy barriers) for enabling collective action inthe watershed?

1. What local social units (internal) and institutions (external) exist in the watershed? What are theircharacteristics (history, objectives, strengths & weaknesses, tendency to cooperate with othergroups, decision-making processes and importance to diverse social actors)?

2. Are there traditional practices or beliefs influencing NRM?3. Are there any NRM conflicts? Are there any traditional mechanisms for conflict resolution &

decision-making?4. Who are the influential individuals in the communities? How effective are they in community

mobilization?5. What brings people together for cooperation? Is there anything that keeps people from

cooperating?6. How do local, district or national policies influence land management & use of communal

resources? Do any of these policies influence collective action?7. What strengths & limitations exist for by-law enforcement?


systems, AHI has done a considerable amount of planningwith researchers to identify higher-level system goalsaround which integrated research and development inter-ventions can be structured. An example from GinchiBenchmark Site in Western Shewa Zone, Ethiopia, canhelp to illustrate the point. In Ginchi, two system clusterswere identified by interdisciplinary research teams to iden-tify where strong functional linkages exist among discretewatershed problems:

Soil and Water Conservation and Utilization (SWCU)

Cluster:

� Poor water quality� Water shortage for livestock and humans� Loss of seed, soil and fertilizer from excess run-off� Crop failure due to drought� Loss of indigenous tree species

Integrated Production and Nutrient Management

(IPNM) Cluster.

� Feed shortage� Wood shortage� Soil fertility decline� Loss of indigenous tree species� Lack of income-generating opportunities

System-level objectives were then established not for dis-crete problems, but for the cluster as a whole:

Overall SWCU Cluster Objective: To enhance the posi-tive synergies between water, soil and tree managementin micro-watersheds.

Overall IPNM Cluster Objective: To improve farmerincomes and system productivity (crops, livestock, trees)while ensuring sustainable nutrient management in thesystem.

Finally, when the watershed management programintegrates research and development, higher-orderresearch questions can be established toward which eachcomponent contribution is ultimately linked:Primary Research Question, SWCU Cluster: How canNRM practices (SWC structures, tree planting, drainagesystems, etc.) enhance agricultural production/produc-tivity through decreased erosion while also enhancingspring recharge long-term?Primary Research Question, IPNM Cluster: How canincome be improved through increased agricultural pro-duction/productivity (crop, livestock, tree and nutrientmanagement) and marketing while also enhancing sys-tem nutrient stocks?

Following the identification of a higher-level systemgoal, component contributions to this integrated objectiveshould be clearly identified, particularly given the emphasisof conventional R&D on enhancing the performance ofsingle components rather than the system at large (Table8). Defining the role of different system components interms of the broader agricultural system and landscapeenables national agricultural research systems to betterrespond the system-wide problems faced by farmers, mov-ing beyond the Cartesian logic which assumes systemsproblems can be addressed piecemeal. Component contri-butions to system objectives for the Soil and Water Conser-vation and Utilization Cluster at Ginchi are illustratedgraphically in Fig. 3 (Ginchi Site Team, 2004). It is clear

Table 8Re-defining research and development objectives for greater component integration

Component Conventional objective Integrated objective

Soil Soil fertility and stabilization To optimize soil quality and stability, water quality, and the productionof food, feed and timber

Agroforestry Maximize the production of treeproducts To optimize the yield of tree products, crop yield, soil quality and waterdischarge

Crop Maximize the yield of edible and marketable plantproducts

To maximize the yield of edible plant parts and crop residues (for soilfertility and feed) without compromising soil fertility

Livestock To maximize the production of edible and marketablelivestock products (milk, meat, eggs, hides)

To optimize the production of livestock products (including dung) whilemaintaining or increasing soil fertility

Problem Integrated Solution

Water Degradation

High Run-Off

Indigenous Tree Loss

Spring Development

Niche-CompatibleAfforestation

Soil & Water Conservation

Integrated Watershed

Management

Fig. 3. Articulating component interactions in solutions to watershed problems at Ginchi Site, Ethiopia.

Table 9Perceived negative impacts of trees in two AHI benchmark sites

Lushoto, Tanzania Ginchi, Ethiopia

Arrests undergrowth Is bad for cropsCreates large shady area Dries springsHas aggressive root system Is bad for soil changes the taste of

spring waterLeaves bad for crops, soilHinders infiltration & increases

runoffHeavy feeder on groundwaterOut-competes other tree speciesDries valley bottoms


from this diagram that in addition to contributing to theirown component-specific objectives, activities falling withineach cluster must aim to achieve system-wide benefitswherever possible.

While not overtly participatory, this approach to clus-tering and identification of higher-level system goals wasnecessary to move multi-disciplinary R&D teams – largelyrooted in disciplinary thinking and interventions – beyondtheir conventional mandates and thinking. The approachbuilds directly on landscape or system ‘‘disconnects’’ iden-tified by local residents, and the resulting clustering hasbeen useful in enhancing awareness among farmers of cau-sal linkages at landscape level. A case in point concerns fuelscarcity in Ethiopia, in which increasing amounts of dungand crop residues are used for fuel at the expense of agri-cultural productivity. Researchers are contributing tostrengthen local understanding and commitment to collec-tive solutions, given the role of local institutions (whichdefine dung and crop residues as open access resources dur-ing free grazing periods) in exacerbating the problem bystrengthening incentives for farmers to ‘‘mine’’ their fieldsof biomass before the seasonal shift to free grazing.

While not immediately obvious, such strategiesacknowledge the component interactions and trade-offscharacterizing watersheds. The aim of such integrationwould be to avoid negative interactions (where maximizingone system objective hinders another) and to foster positive

synergies among system components. An example of suchcomponent trade-offs is illustrated in a tree niche analysisconducted in two AHI benchmark sites. Key informantsknowledgeable about the properties of indigenous and exo-tic tree species were asked to identify key species and spe-cies characteristics making them compatible with differentlandscape niches. Negative impacts of trees identified ineach of the two sites are compiled in Table 9, wheretrade-offs between gains to forest and other components(soil, crops, water) are clear.

Similar to efforts at achieving effective participation inwatershed management, it is useful to consider the condi-tions under which system interactions and trade-offs shouldbe addressed during the planning stages to enable optimal


(system-wide) benefits. Thus far within the AHI, two suchconditions have been encountered:

� where the intervention in any given component is likelyto have a negative impact on other system components(water, livestock, crop yield, soil fertility), and� where integrated planning is likely to enhance positive

synergies among components (multiple system benefits).

In terms of achieving sectoral or disciplinary integrationduring planning, two considerations have come to lightwithin the AHI. First, unless ‘‘other’’ dimensions of theproblem are made explicit during planning, biophysicalinterventions will take precedence. For each major interven-tion, it is therefore critical to cross-check identified solutionsby considering whether diverse dimensions (technical, social,policy, market) have been considered. An example from Gin-chi and Lushoto benchmark sites (Table 10) illustrates howdoing so ensures that complementary dimensions ofwatershed management are brought on board. Ensuring thatstrategies falling within each dimension are considered willhelp to address the second consideration, which is how toidentify and enable positive synergies among diverse typesof solutions. Three types of such synergies have been identi-fied thus far within the AHI. These are illustrated in Table 11,along with examples of each. The implication is that agricul-tural research and development practitioners need to movebeyond isolated, uni-dimensional solutions to explore howsuch synergies can unlock the potential to achieve multiplegoals simultaneously.

6.3. Integration in implementation

While a number of strategies have been developed and areundergoing implementation in AHI benchmark sites, lessonson the relative success of different approaches – or of similarapproaches sequenced differently – are only beginning toemerge. Nevertheless, it is possible to identify strategiesbeing targeted to ensure biophysical and multidisciplinaryintegration during early stages of implementation.

Table 10Technological, social and policy dimensions of niche-compatible afforestation

Technological Social and policy dimensions E

Niche adaptation trials Rules on nursery management benefits,responsibilities, sanctions

IdagalTree nurseries Negotiation of niche-compatible afforestation

(regulations on species’ location or density)

Table 11Types of synergies among diverse types of interventions

Nature of the synergy

Disciplinary or sectoral synergies (social, policy, technological)Income-natural resource management synergies

Synergy in short- and long-term solutions

To achieve integration of landscape-level components,there are several implementation options for any givenproblem. While the diagram in Fig. 3 would appear to sug-gest an implementation pathway, there are two clear possi-bilities for operationalizing this form of integration. First,teams of scientists and practitioners can work on individualcomponents (spring development, soil and water conserva-tion practices and niche-compatible afforestation) indepen-dently, yet ensure the work addresses system goals, asdefined in the overall cluster objective. The pitfall of takingthis option is that existing disciplinary biases will tend todisintegrate the approach into component-specificapproaches unless mechanisms are taken to ensureaccountability to the system goal. This can include the inte-gration of relevant disciplinary expertise on teams workingon each component, so that hydrologists, soil scientists andforesters (in addition to social scientists and communityfacilitators) jointly work on niche-compatible afforestation,for example. Other mechanisms include assigning a ClusterLeader to oversee implementation and adherence of eachcomponent to the higher-level system objective, anddetailed interdisciplinary planning in which the actions tobe taken in the name of integration are made clear toand debated by all team members.

The second option to ensure component integration is toimplement each of the component activities through a sin-gle set of activities, for example by focusing activities on‘‘Integrated Watershed Management’’ rather than individ-ual components as in Fig. 3. Within the AHI, this approachhas been planned in two ways that differ in terms ofsequencing of activities. The first entails the physical pro-tection of springs with cement structures (‘‘spring develop-ment’’) to enhance enthusiasm about project activities,followed by integrated afforestation and soil and waterconservation activities in different landscape units (GinchiSite Team, 2004). One assumption inherent in thisapproach is that if spring development – as the most imme-diate solution to a highly-prioritized issue – is used as anentry point, outcomes of future R&D investments will begreater due to increased community trust and enthusiasm

conomic dimensions

entification of alternative high-value trees to support stakeholderreements (i.e. removal of harmful species) through provision of livelihoodternatives

Example

Niche-compatible afforestation, as in Table 10Introducing high-value crops with soil fertility managementpractices and conservation structuresSpring rehabilitation with a longer-term integrated watershedmanagement approach

Facilitation Plan for Integrated Watershed Management, Lushoto BMS (a) Awareness creation through feedback of watershed findings, in particular the complex

linkages between hillside erosion and valley bottom fertility, hillside management (physical structures & vegetation) and spring discharge, and existing problems (increased erosion due to iron sheet roofing) and possible solutions (water capture to enhance availability to domestic water and reduce erosion).

(b) Establish an integrated watershed management competition by offering integrated services (technical assistance and materials for water reservoirs, technical assistance on soil and water conservation and niche-compatible afforestation; organizational and by-law support) in exchange for high-quality negotiated action plans and social mobilization at micro-watershed level.

(c) Interventions in select micro-watersheds (up to 3) to further develop and implement action plans. Findings and lessons from prior and current working groups (linked technologies, tree niche analysis, spring management) will be fed into the integrated watershed management approach to enhance impact.

(d) Impact studies to document the impacts of the above methodology in relation to other approaches being utilized (including technology dissemination approaches targeting individual farmers and isolated approaches to spring management).

Box 1. Facilitation plan for integrated watershed management, Lushoto benchmark site.


(Ibid). The second approach, planned for implementationin Lushoto Benchmark Site, does not assume this andrather ensures that the high-priority entry point is usedas a stimulus for more integrated and long-term watershedplanning from the outset (Mowo, personal communica-tion) (Box 1). The difference between these two approacheslies in the sequencing of activities, and in the expectedimpact this will have on community willingness to investnot only in short-term solutions (spring development) butin long-term natural resource management investments(i.e. niche-compatible afforestation or soil and waterconservation).

In addition to considering the level at which integrationis operationalized (at the level of objectives and researchquestions, as in the first example, or of activities as in thesecond), it is important to include a monitoring and evalu-ation system that seeks to ensure integration through peri-odic re-assessment. For the purposes of componentintegration, monitoring must assess the impacts of activi-ties on diverse system components. Therefore, whethermonitoring is carried out by component (niche-compatibleagroforestry, spring protection) or by system (integratedwatershed management), monitoring must address theimpact of activities on diverse components (water, livestock,crop yield, soil fertility). To operationalize this, it is impor-tant to: (a) consider all potential interactions between theactivity conducted and different components, and (b) toidentify priority indicators from scientific and local per-

Table 12System interactions and indicators for niche-compatible afforestation in Lusho

Potential interactions Indicators

Crops – competition or compatibility (nutrient,light, hydrological and allelopathic interactions)

Does not arrestcan be pruned tonot extract too m

Soil – nutrient interactions; erodibility Does not hinderleaves decompos

Springs – water quantity; taste Does not changeeffect on spring d

Livestock – provision of feed; effect on grazing land Makes good feedresidues used as2 years (for graz

Trees – competition or compatibility with other species Does not inhibit

spectives that will be monitored for each. Examples ofpotential effects and indicators for afforestation activitieshave been developed with farmers from Lushoto and Gin-chi benchmark sites, and are presented in combined form inTable 12.

In terms of multidisciplinary integration, it became clearduring early stages of implementation that monitoring andevaluation of all program activities will benefit from inter-disciplinary dialogue. In a recent case, it was found thatquality control was being determined in purely technolog-ical terms due to the strong biophysical basis of site teamexpertise, in effect marginalizing social and policy dimen-sions despite joint planning on these issues. Two lessonscan be derived from this experience. First, it is importantthat interdisciplinary planning be done in detail, down tothe level of activities and the approach to be used to carrythem out. Second, interdisciplinary planning should specifythe sequencing of activities, so that principles specific toeach discipline or sector are well integrated into thesequencing of technological and other interventions. Insocial terms, how to motivate and mobilize the communityto balance short- with long-term benefits, and farmerinvestments with project inputs (as in the spring develop-ment example), becomes critical. In economic terms, mar-ket opportunities should be identified prior to theselection of the agro-enterprises or crop varieties to befield-tested to counter the supply-driven emphasis of small-holder farming systems (Ostertag Galvez, 1999). Finally,

to, Tanzania and Ginchi, Ethiopia

undergrowth; leaves have neutral or positive effect on crop growth;reduce shade; canopy holds onto rain and releases it slowly; doesuch water from soil.infiltration/enhance run-off; neutral or better effect on soil fertility;e easily.the taste of water; has a shallow root system and neutral or positiveischarge.for livestock; has neutral or positive effect on crop growth (crop

feed); serves as shade for livestock; seedlings survive browsing aftering areas).the growth of other tree species.


and most important during the implementation phase,both intermediate planning (required to adjust action plansto field realities) and monitoring and evaluation (of allactivities, independent of their disciplinary or componentfocus) should be done by multidisciplinary teams at projectlevel and by multiple local stakeholders. This ‘‘constructiv-ist’’ form of planning and evaluation, in which multipleviews are consulted and negotiated, is one of the funda-mental principles of social learning and adaptive manage-ment (Chevalier, 2004).

Finally, several insights may be drawn from the chal-lenges faced in staying integrated during the implementa-tion stage. First, integration is a continual challenge,given the role of disciplinary biases in favoring certainviewpoints and approaches, and the institutionalizationof disintegration (in university training, the division ofdepartments and programs, peer review, etc.). The AHI istesting a number of approaches for ensuring ongoing inte-gration: (a) mutual capacity-building to reach a commonunderstanding of the goal; (b) team and cluster manage-ment to ensure that each component keeps the primaryobjective and research question in mind during the imple-mentation phase; and (c) regularly scheduled meetings atprogram and community levels to share experiences, evalu-ate and re-plan.

7. Discussion and conclusions

This paper highlights some of the challenges and poten-tialities of moving beyond a focus on farm-level agricul-tural productivity concerns driving current agriculturalresearch and development to encompass landscape-levelinteractions, multi-stakeholder interactions and the trade-offs or synergies characterizing these. It explores how con-cepts and methods for Participatory Integrated WatershedManagement have evolved within AHI through bothreflection and action, focusing on how the concepts of‘‘participation’’ and ‘‘integration’’ have been operational-ized in practice. Far from representing a simple processof scaling out farm-level technological innovations, partic-ipatory approaches to watershed management require ashift of attention to both the ecology and the politics ofnatural resource management (who wins and who loses).

This paper fills an important gap in the watershed man-agement literature by illustrating how key principles (par-ticipation, integration) can be operationalized in practice.By taking a step-by-step look at diverse stages of watershedplanning and implementation, the paper illustrates keychallenges faced and principles to be applied when tryingto enable widespread participation and landscape-levelintegration. Approaches developed thus far for integratedand participatory diagnosis, planning and implementationare outlined, citing specific examples that will enable otherR&D actors to learn from the AHI experience.

While significant progress has been made in operational-izing a particular form of watershed management (inte-grated, small-scale, and driven by endogenous motives

for change), much remains to be done for internalizing les-sons learnt and scaling up the approach. One of the keychallenges lies in managing a complex, ambitious agendain which diverse types of trade-offs and synergies must beidentified and managed – both social and biophysical.While the paper presents tools for managing complexityand stakeholder interests, moving from trade-offs to syn-ergy will ultimately involve a creative process that is bothcritical and experimental. It is likely to require integrationof local and scientific knowledge and the diversity inherentwithin each. It will also require a critical approach to mon-itoring that questions assumptions, is explicit about whowins and loses, and in which unanticipated spin-offs arecaptured.

A second challenge lies in the gap between current insti-tutional arrangements, which foster disciplinary planningand action and isolate research from development (Ham-mersley, 2004), and those required to operationalize inte-grated planning and action, research and development.To test new institutional arrangements for more wide-spread application of the approach, it is important to takea systematic look at the tasks and skill base required tooperationalize PIWM, and the degree to which existinginstitutions can be mobilized to fill the gap. Funding foraction research and social learning approaches to testnew types of institutional arrangements and linkages canbe a starting point from which broader experiences aredrawn and strategies formulated.

A fourth challenge lies in staying integrated when mov-ing from systems thinking to systems action. Agriculturalresearch and extension institutions in sub-Saharan Africahave been exposed for two decades to the farming systemsapproach, yet research objectives, variables and outputs –and the resulting technologies advocated by extension –continue to have a strong disciplinary bias. Exposure seemsto have enhanced ability to talk in systems terms, but notto modify research behavior. In the watershed managementprocess within AHI, the systems approach to planning gen-erated considerable interest among site teams, yet whenmoving to operationalize research there was a tendencyto divide up tasks along disciplinary lines and to lose inte-gration in the process. This challenge lies in the Cartesian,disciplinary paradigms through which professionals learnto understand reality, requiring greater attention to sys-tems thinking and constructivist modes of knowledgeacquisition within formal education.

Another key challenge lies in forging stronger linkagesbetween research and development, to raise the status ofdevelopment and action-based research. For this, univer-sity training, institutional mandates and incentive systems,and opportunities for social learning at local and institu-tional levels must be given close consideration if the inte-grated mandate embodied in PIWM is to be enabled.

These challenges highlight key directions for the pro-gram in the coming years. AHI’s mandate to move beyondpilot work and disseminate concepts and methods through-out the region will require not horizontal expansion, but


vertical institutional change. Linkages with universities,NGOs and agricultural research and extension institutesare required to enable the paradigm shifts required to takeexperiences beyond isolated pilot sites to the eastern Afri-can region. The most recent initiatives have included initi-ation of a regional capacity building effort with follow-upmentoring, and proposal development to fund actionresearch on institutional arrangements for operationalizingthe approach.

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to acknowledge the conceptualcontributions of AHI Site Team members from Ethiopia(Holetta Agricultural Research Centre, Areka AgriculturalResearch Centre), Kenya (Kari Agricultural ResearchInstitute) and Tanzania (Mlingano Agricultural ResearchInstitute, Selian Agricultural Research Institute). We arealso indebted to our donors (the Rockefeller Foundation,SDC, the Netherlands and Norwegian governments,IDRC, the EU and DFID) for their generous financialsupport.

References

Agrawal, A., Gibson, C.C., 1999. Enchantment and disenchantment: therole of community in natural resource conservation. World Develop-ment 27 (4), 629–649.

Bellamy, J.A., McDonald, G.T., Syme, G.J., 1998. Evaluating integratedresource management. Society & Natural Resources 12, 337–353.

Chambers, D.E., Wedel, K.R., Rodwell, M.K., 1992. Qualitative researchmethods and the constructivist paradigm in the evaluation of socialprograms and policies. In: Chambers, D.E., Wedel, K.R., Rodwell,M.K. (Eds.), Evaluating Social Programs. Allyn and Bacon, Boston,pp. 288–332.

Checkland, P., 1991. From framework through experience to learning: theessential nature of action research. In: Nissen, H., Klein, H.,Hirscheim, R. (Eds.), Information Systems Research: ContemporaryApproaches and Emergent Traditions. Elsevier, Amsterdam.

Checkland, P., Holwell, S., 1998. Action research: its nature and validity.Systemic Practice and Action Research 11 (1), 9–21.

Chevalier, J.M., 2004. The social analysis system. Available from:<www.sas-pm.com/>.

FAO, 1977. Guidelines for Watershed Management. FAO, Rome.FAO, 2000. Land-water linkages in rural watersheds: introductory note.

Land-Water Linkages in Rural Watersheds Electronic Workshop, 18–27 October, 2000, FAO, Rome.

German, L., 2003. Beyond the farm: A new look at livelihood constraintsin the highlands of eastern Africa. AHI Brief A2, 2 pp.

German, L., Stroud, A., Alemu, G., Gojjam, Y., Kidane, B., Bekele, B.,Bekele, D., Woldegiorgis, G., Tolera, T., Haile, M., 2003a. Creating anintegrated research agenda from prioritized watershed issues. AHIMethods Guides B4, 45 pp.

German, L., Stroud, A. Amede, T., Opondo, C., Mowo, J., 2003b. AFramework for Strengthening Site-Regional Research Linkages. AHIMethods Guides E2, 33 pp.

Ginchi Site Team, 2004. Site team watershed action plan 2004–2005.Holetta Agricultural Research Centre, Technical Reports, May 2004.

Hammersley, M., 2004. Action research: a contradiction in terms? OxfordReview of Education 30 (2), 165–181.

Hinchcliffe, F., Guijt, I., Pretty, J.N., Shah, P., 1995. New horizons: theeconomic, social and environmental impacts of participatorywatershed development. IIED Gatekeeper Series 50, pp. 3–20.

Holling, C.S., Meffe, G.K., 1996. Command-and-control and the pathol-ogy of natural resource management. Conservation Biology 10 (2),328–337.

International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED), 2004.Developing markets for watershed protection services and improvedlivelihoods. Report of the Implementation Phase Planning Workshop,January 28–30, 2004, London, IIED.

Kloppenburg, J.R., 1983. Group development in Botswana: the principlesof collective farmer action. Research in Economic Anthropology 5,311–333.

Leftwich, A., 1994. Governance, the state and the politics of development.Development and Change 25, 363–386.

McClintock, D., Ison, R.L., Armson, R., 2003. Metaphors of research andresearching with people. Journal of Environmental Planning andManagement 46 (5), 715–731.

Meinzen-Dick, R., Knox, A., Place, F., Swallow, B., 2002. Innovation inNatural Resource Management: The Role of Property Rights andCollective Action in Developing Countries. IFPRI, Washington, DC,317 pp.

Nemarundwe, N., Kozanayi, W., 2003. Institutional arrangements forwater resource use: a case study from southern Zimbabwe. Journal ofSouthern African Studies 29 (1), 193–206.

Ostertag Galvez, C.F., 1999. Identifying and assessing market opportu-nities for small rural producers. Tools for Decision-Making in NaturalResource Management 7. CIAT, Cali, 173 pp.

Ostrom, E., 1990. Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutionsfor Collective Action. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 270pp.

Pandey, S., Yadama, G.N., 1990. Conditions for local level communityforestry action: a theoretical explanation. Mountain Research andDevelopment 10 (1), 88–95.

Postel, S., 1997. Last Oasis: Facing Water Scarcity. W.W. Norton andCompany, New York, 239 pp.

Postel, S.L., Daily, G.C., Ehrlich, P.R., 1996. Human appropriation ofrenewable fresh water. Science 271, 785.

Gleick, P.H., 2000. The World’s Water: 2000–2001. Island Press,Washington, DC, 335 pp.

Ramı´ rez, E., Berdegue, J., 2003. Collective action to improve rural livingconditions. Fondo Mink’a de Chorlavı, Santiago, 6 pp.

Reddy, V.R., 2000. Sustainable watershed management institutionalapproach. Economic and Political Weekly (September), 3435–3444.

Rhoades, R., 2000. The participatory multipurpose watershed project:Nature’s salvation or Schumacher’s nightmare? In: Lal, R. (Ed.),Integrated Watershed Management in the Global Ecosystem. CRCPress, London, pp. 327–343.

Rodwell, M.K., Woody, D., 1994. Constructivist evaluation: the policy/practice context. In: Sherman, E., Reid, W. (Eds.), QualitativeResearch in Social Work. Columbia University Press, New York,pp. 315–327.

Shah, A., 1998. Watershed development programmes in India: emergingissues for environment-development perspectives. Economic andPolitical Weekly (June), A66–A79.

Turton, C., Farrington, J., 1998. Enhancing rural livelihoods throughparticipatory watershed development in India. ODI Natural ResourcePerspectives 34, 1–4.

UNCED, 1992. Agenda 21: Programme of Action for SustainableDevelopment. The United Nations, New York, 294 pp.

van der Linde, H., Oglethorpe, J., Sandwith, T., Snelson, D., Tessema, Y.,2001. Beyond Boundaries: Trans-Boundary Natural Resource Man-agement in Sub-Saharan Africa. Biodiversity Support Program,Washington, DC, 166 pp.

Wittayapak, C., Dearden, P., 1999. Decision-making arrangements incommunity-based watershed management in northern Thailand. Soci-ety & Natural Resources 12, 673–691.

http://www.sas-pm.com/

Documents

Participatory integrated watershed management: Evolution ... · Participatory integrated watershed management: Evolution of concepts and methods in an ecoregional program of the eastern