The role of institutions and social learning in soilconservation innovations: Implications for policyand practice

Yinager Dessie a,*, Uwe Schubert b, Maria Wurzinger c, Michael Hauser a

aCentre for Development Research, University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences, Vienna, Austriab Institute for the Environment and Regional Development, University of Economics and Business, Vienna, AustriacDepartment of Sustainable Agricultural Systems, University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences, Vienna, Austria

e n v i r o n m e n t a l s c i e n c e & p o l i c y 2 7 ( 2 0 1 3 ) 2 1 – 3 1

a r t i c l e i n f o

Published on line 23 December 2012

Keywords:

Innovation actor

Institution

Social learning

Gully rehabilitation innovation

Innovation networks

Ethiopia

a b s t r a c t

Numerous economic, technical, and social challenges hinder farmers from adapting and

adopting soil conservation measures in Ethiopia. Yet, some successful soil conservation

measures are emerging in projects dedicated to sustainable natural resource management.

This paper explores the role of institutions and social learning in changing the conventional

top down technology transfer challenges to conditions that are conducive for soil conser-

vation. The study was conducted by considering a successful soil conservation case in

Ethiopia. Semi-structured interviews and workshops were used to collect data. In addition,

the review of pertinent documents and literature was considered to complement this

analysis. Innovation history analysis has been used as an approach to analyze the important

events in the innovation process.

The findings show that social learning has created opportunity for more understanding

on soil conservation and the emergence of less hierarchy amongst actors. It has also created

space for the application of both indigenous and scientific knowledge in the innovation

process. Farmers’ organizations and their institutions are viewed as the core to the

innovation process in leading and facilitating social learning, and in the formulation of

bylaws. Hence, based on our case study we suggest that social learning and local level

institutions may encourage soil conservation whenever lack of common understanding on

soil conservation problems and solutions exists among the actors.

# 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/envsci

1. Introduction

The understanding of soil conservation innovations requires

analyzing the complex relationships that occur among various

actors and institutions. The behaviors of actors are governed

by institutions (North, 1990). Actors consider the costs and

benefits of certain behaviors and act according to their

underlying values and preferences specifically, based on the

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +43 1 47654 2962; fax: +43 1 47654 2969.E-mail address: yingerdessie@gmail.com (Y. Dessie).

1462-9011/$ – see front matter # 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reservedhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2012.10.020

information they have about the state of the world, the

intention of other actors and the threat of social sanctions

(Rudd, 2004). In soil conservation, actors must agree on a

number of common rules and procedures that govern their

behaviors and facilitate the collective action needed for soil

conservation (Spielman et al., 2009). In order to reach an

agreement, some form of interaction is needed to allow actors

an opportunity to define their interests, to exchange knowl-

edge and to mobilize resources. As Rist et al. (2006) suggested

.

e n v i r o n m e n t a l s c i e n c e & p o l i c y 2 7 ( 2 0 1 3 ) 2 1 – 3 122

social learning is one option to exchange knowledge among

actors. Social learning encourages the innovation processes

through the generation and dissemination of knowledge

(Roling, 2009; Spielman et al., 2009). Spaces such as social

networks, platforms and social movements play a significant

role in the generation and dissemination of knowledge (Steins

and Edwards, 1999).

Based on the literature, in sub-Saharan Africa, different

efforts were made to reverse soil degradation through the

introduction of learning platforms, institutions and various

actors in the agricultural extension system. Although these

efforts have produced some success, only a few conservation

technologies have been adopted on a wider scale (Shiferaw

et al., 2009; Ekop and Osuji, 2003).

In Ethiopia, the Ministry of Agriculture has made consider-

able efforts to reverse the long-term soil erosion problems

through the promotion of soil conservation innovations such

as terraces and checkdams (Hurni, 1993; Bekele, 1997; Bekele

and Holden, 1999; Bekele, 2003). The efforts include provision

of hand tools, training of farmers and providing incentives

such as food-for-work in food insecure districts (Tefera and

Sterk, 2010). However, most studies show that the efforts

made so far have not succeeded in triggering voluntary

adoption of conservation innovations (e.g. Bekele, 1997; Tefera

and Sterk, 2010). For instance, most of the soil and water

conservation structures were destroyed during the regime

change in 1991 (Bewket, 2007). Reasons for failure were related

to the top-down approach in planning and implementation

during the Derge regime (Beshah, 2003). In other words, the

conservation measures neither address the farmers’ needs

nor their prevalent farming system (Bewket, 2007).

In the 1990s, some measures were taken to involve farmers

through a participatory watershed management approach;

yet, experts from agriculture still dominate the design and

introduction of technologies. This has been confirmed by

recent studies of Gebremedhin et al. (2006) and Spielman et al.

(2011), in which three major challenges were identified. The

first challenge is related to the design and implementation of

soil conservation policies, which places emphasis on formal

organizations for the innovation process. A continuous focus

exists on linear modes of technology transfer, from experts to

the farmers. Secondly, facilitation of innovation among

farmers with experts, researchers, and NGOs was not an easy

exercise. The ability to bring those possessing indigenous

knowledge closer to those possessing scientific knowledge

determines the facilitation of the innovation process. This was

a difficult task due to the top down and supply driven nature of

the agriculture extension system. Thirdly, a challenge also

exists on how actors interact among themselves and with

institutions. This challenge was associated with difficulties

related to, for example, agreeing on rules and procedures,

creating trust, and the monitoring of opportunistic behavior.

The Ethiopian government recognizes the important role of

innovation systems in transforming agriculture and this

thinking has been reflected in its strategies. For instance,

the Agricultural Development-Led Industrialization (ADLI)

strategy of Ethiopia outlines the important roles of govern-

ment organizations (research, extension and education

service) as pillars of the country’s formal innovation system

(MOI, 2002). It also promotes the adoption of new agricultural

technologies to increase agricultural productivity, with the

primary objective of transforming the agriculture based

economy to an industry based economy overtime. The current

Growth and Transformation Plan of Ethiopia (GTP) further

underscores the important role of agriculture in the economy.

GTP covers wide sectors such as agriculture, mining, trade and

industry, rail network, road, telecommunications, energy,

health, and education. In the agriculture sector it focuses on

agricultural productivity, research and natural resource

management (MOFED, 2010). It also emphasizes the need to

strengthen research–extension–farmer linkages through re-

search–extension–farmer councils. The agricultural research

strategy programs mainly cover crop sciences, animal

sciences, soil and water conservation, and agroforestry. Until

1994, the agriculture research was taking place under the

national Institute of Agricultural Research. After 1994, most of

the research centers were transferred to regional governments

following the decentralization policy of the country (FDRW,

1999). However, the research has limited scope to address the

real problems of farmers and most importantly the linkage

between researches–extension–farmers has not been strong

due to the limited interaction between farmers, experts, and

researchers thus, the dissemination of successful innovations

is limited (Belay and Degnet, 2004).

Some successful soil conservation innovations, however,

have been realized in Ethiopia. The gully rehabilitation

innovation in the Amba Zuria watershed is one example.

Here, success stories in land management are defined by the

area of land in which soil and water conservation measures

were adopted (FAO, 2002). Before the implementation of the

Sustainable Utilization of Natural Resources project in Amba

Zuria watershed, soil erosion was a big challenge in the area.

Literature (e.g. Desta et al., 2000) shows that the North Gondar

zone including the case study area has been severely affected

by soil erosion and estimates show that between 51 and 200

tones/hectare of soil is lost every year. Moreover, in the case

study area the main pedestrian paths were blocked due to the

damage caused by gully erosion. Hence, farmers had difficulty

traveling to the nearby market or attending any public event

(GZADO, 2010). The soil degradation problem in this area was

the prime reason for the introduction of the Sustainable

Utilization of Natural Resources project in Amba Zuria. The

core issues of the project were organizational development of

land user communities, conservation of soil and water

resources and promotion of innovation activities to increase

agricultural production (SUNRPO, 2010). Activities such as

adoption of stone terraces and checkdams, spring and

irrigation development, afforestation, and building access

roads were practiced. Especially in gully rehabilitation

program, many gullies were rehabilitated and changes were

realized promptly. For instance, after two years of rehabilita-

tion work, the gullies are now grounded at level and no gorges

have been seen on the site, farmers are now harvesting grass

and foraging leaves for cattle feed from these rehabilitated

gullies (GZADO, 2010).

Moreover, due to the intervention of the project stone

terraces were adopted in 360 ha of farmland, 8.5 km of gullies

were rehabilitated, and in order to stabilize the check dams

461,210 tree seedlings, and 300,998 grasses were planted in the

years between 2007 and 2010 (GZADO, 2010). Watershed

e n v i r o n m e n t a l s c i e n c e & p o l i c y 2 7 ( 2 0 1 3 ) 2 1 – 3 1 23

association, watershed bylaws and farmer groups also

emerged as the result of the implementation of the project.

Hence, the success story of this project could be an ideal

demonstration to examine how conventional soil conserva-

tion innovation challenges have been changed to conditions

that are conducive for gully rehabilitation innovation

In the literature, most of the innovation studies in Ethiopia

focus on crops. For instance, in the innovation study by

Spielman et al. (2011), it was investigated how practices

related to the adoption of oil seeds, apiculture, nontraditional

beans, potatoes, and onions fared. Their study shows that

public extension and administration exerted over smallholder

networks, potentially crowd out market based civil society

actors, and thus limit beneficial innovation processes. There

are also some innovation studies in non-crop sectors such as

fodder production. Ayele et al. (2012) did an innovation study

on fodder and their study indicated that interaction and

learning in networks; and on farms can promote innovation.

There are also other innovation studies (e.g. Gebremedhin

et al., 2006) which focus on elaborating the approaches of the

agricultural research, education and extension systems of

Ethiopia at the macro level. In previous soil conservation

studies, little is known about how actors’ interactions and

institutions have promoted the adoption of soil conservation.

In an attempt to fill part of this knowledge gap, we examined

how the conventional challenges of soil conservation were

addressed in the Amba Zuria watershed.

The paper is organized as follows: first, the theoretical

concepts related to agricultural innovation systems are

discussed, then, after discussing the methodology, results of

the analyses and discussions follow. Finally, the conclusions

are presented.

2. Conceptual framework

The agricultural innovation system (AIS) perspective has

become an increasingly applied approach to explain how

innovation takes place and how and by whom benefits are

gained out of complex technological and institutional change

processes (Assefa et al., 2009). It has been used to analyze

institutional and technological changes in agricultural devel-

opment (Spielman et al., 2009). Among others, the World Bank

has begun to use AIS concept in order to focus on

strengthening knowledge and technologies, rules, and the

interaction of actors (World Bank, 2007). In AIS there is a

significant shift from the conventional linear perspectives on

technological change to emphasizing the actors’ involvement

in the innovation process, their actions and interactions and

the formal and informal rules that influence their practices

and behavior (Spielman et al., 2011). This shift is important

when studying agricultural innovations because of the

sector’s growth and development. This development is

increasingly influenced by complex interactions among

public, private, and civil society actors and by rapidly changing

market and policy regimes that affect knowledge flows,

technological opportunities, and innovation processes (Spiel-

man et al., 2009). Thus, the individual innovation perfor-

mances of farmers cannot be seen in isolation from the inputs

of the other system actors for two reasons. Firstly, innovation

is based on different kinds of knowledge possessed by

different actors: indigenous knowledge (which farmers pos-

sess) and scientific knowledge (which experts possess) (Hall,

2006). Secondly, due to lack of resources and sufficient power,

no single actor pursues his/her innovation goals without

taking into account other actors (Aarts et al., 2007).

Innovation may result from new forms of coordination

within a network of actors (Leeuwis, 2004) or as Ayele et al.

(2012) suggested, it may also result from interactions and

learning in networks, and on farms. In this process, actors that

contribute to innovation processes, actions and interactions,

and the institutions that condition behaviors and practices

have to be considered (Spielman et al., 2011). However, in

reality the innovation related information flow is actually

embodied in various actors who are not networked or

coordinated (Hall, 2006). For instance, in most cases small

farmers do not have adequate human and social resources to

integrate within innovative actors’ networks or do not operate

in an institutional environment in which such networks easily

form (Spielman et al., 2009). A successful innovation process is

determined by the extent to which innovative actors acquire

sufficient capabilities, resources, and exchange information.

Innovation is not simply trying something new but represents

the attempt of successfully integrating a new idea or product

within a process and is the result of networking and

interactive learning among a heterogeneous set of actors

(Leeuwis, 2004). It requires the creative use of different types of

knowledge in response to social or economic needs (OECD,

1999). This knowledge could be indigenous or scientific.

Indigenous knowledge in this paper is related to the

knowledge farmers possess in soil conservation activities

such as putting straw and other crop residues to stabilize

stone bunds, and their knowhow on flood flow directions. On

the other hand, the experts’ knowledge on soil conservation is

acquired through formal education and training and is called

‘‘scientific’’. For instance, experts with the aid of different

tools train farmers on how to design the dimensions of water

ways, check dams and terraces.

Institutional features such as actors’ norms and rules that

form the basis for interaction also contribute to innovation

(Klerkx et al., 2010). One form of such interaction is social

learning which allows actors to express their interests, to

understand each other, and to exchange knowledge (Rist et al.,

2006). Following the AIS perspective, our case study examines

the role of institutions and social learning in dealing with the

conventional innovations challenges such as linear modes of

technology transfer which does not adequately take the

farmers’ views into account. In addition, the role institutions

and social learning play for the application of indigenous and

scientific knowledge in soil conservation has been examined

using the case study.

3. Study area and research methods

3.1. Overview of the study area

For this study, data was collected from Amba Zuria watershed

in Ethiopia. The watershed is located in Gondar Zuria district.

It covers 835 ha of area and has 555 watershed association

e n v i r o n m e n t a l s c i e n c e & p o l i c y 2 7 ( 2 0 1 3 ) 2 1 – 3 124

members. It is located 30 km from Maksegnit, the town center

of the district. The watershed, according to the local agro-

climatic classification of Ethiopia, is categorized under Woina

Dega agro ecological zone (1500–2300 m above sea level) and

has 800–1200 mm annual rainfall and an average annual

temperature between 17.5 and 20 8C (MOA, 2000). The rainy

season starts in June and ends in September. The livelihood of

the farmers is based on mixed farming, both crop and

livestock production. Barley, wheat, and maize are the major

crops in the area. According to GZADO (2010), around 80% of

the area of the watershed falls between 8 and 30 degree slope

and soil erosion is immense in both farm and grazing lands. To

reverse the land degradation, soil conservation innovations

were promoted especially after the introduction of the

Sustainable Utilization of the Natural Resources project. The

project covers activities such as organizational development,

adoption of soil conservation innovations, irrigation, and road

construction. It was supported technically by the German

Agency for Technical Cooperation (GIZ) and was financed by

the German Development Bank (KfW). Although the aims of

the project were diverse, our study focuses on gully rehabili-

tation, one of the main goals of the project (SUNRPO, 2010). A

case study approach (Patton, 1990) was used as a research

strategy as it allows systematic investigation based on key

informants’ rich information about the case study area.

3.2. Research methods

For the analysis of innovation system interaction at the micro

level, Spielman et al. (2009) indicated that innovation history

analysis, focusing on important events, is a useful method.

This method has also been applied in mainstream innovation

systems’ analysis where it is referred to as innovation journey

analysis (Van de Ven et al., 1999). Data was collected through

semi-structured interviews, document reviews, and in work-

shops. It was conducted from July to December 2010. The

interviewees include agriculture experts, public administra-

tors, watershed committee members, researchers, farmers

and experts from GIZ and KfW. Interviewees from government

and non-governmental organization were identified on the

basis of their involvement in the activities of the project. In

addition, secondary data from meeting minutes and perfor-

mance reports were also used to identify the farmers involved

in gully rehabilitation. Interviewees were asked semi-struc-

tured questions mainly on the extent of soil erosion damages,

project history, gully rehabilitation innovations, institutions

involved, actor’s interactions, and about social learning. In

total, 20 key informant interviews were conducted. Topics

such as challenges and potentials of the project, interactions

Table 1 – Interview sites and number of interviewees.

Interview sites

Agricultureexperts

Publicadministrators

Watcom

On farm/at work place 3 3

Workshop 2 1

Note: GIZ (German Agency for Technical Cooperation), KfW (German Dev

of actors, the role of institutions and social learning in soil

conservation were also discussed among the participants of

the workshop. Table 1 shows the interview sites and number

of interviewees.

The narratives from in-depth interviews, and workshop

were transcribed. The transcripts were analyzed with the aid

of ATLAS.ti (Version: 6.1.16, Berlin, Germany) computer

software. This software has been used in innovation history

studies (e.g. Klerkx et al., 2010) to reconstruct agency–

structure interactions, and in the study of social interactions

and communication skills (e.g. Kurokawa et al., in press;

Yoshida et al., in press). Coding the transcripts using this

software saves more time than manual coding and it also

helps to identify the themes/categories based on the frequen-

cy of the codes. This analysis was complemented with the

analysis of a range of internal documents (e.g. meeting

minutes) and external documents (e.g. policy documents).

In the following section, we described the important events

that shaped the specific interactions between the innovation

network and their institutional environment. In order to do so,

we divided the timeline of the project into loci a, b and c (Fig. 1).

‘Locus a’ shows the interaction of actors with their institu-

tional environment. ‘Locus b’ describes the events that shaped

the facilitation process of the adoption of gully rehabilitation.

‘Locus c’ shows the events that encouraged the accommoda-

tion of the views of actors. We have named those groups of

interviewees whose citations we use as Ag.Ex. (Agriculture

expert), Pub.Adm. (Public administrator), Wat.Com. (Water-

shed committee), Res. (researcher), GIZ (GIZ expert), KfW (KfW

expert), and Far. (farmer). To differentiate the agriculture

experts from GIZ or KfW experts, we used simply ‘‘expert’’ to

indicate ‘‘agriculture expert’’.

4. Results

4.1. Locus a: interaction of innovation actors with theirinstitutions

According to interviews and meeting minutes, the Federal

Food Security and Disaster Prevention Office (EFSDPO)

initiated the establishment of a project in Amba Zuria

watershed in 2004. In the same year, EFSDPO was in talks

with potential partners such as GIZ and KfW to mobilize

technical and financial support. After a series of discussions, a

memorandum of understanding (MOU) was signed between

EFSDPO, GIZ, and KfW in 2004. The MOU at the federal level

was instrumental in getting support for the project and to

continue further discussions with the regional authorities. In

Interviewees

ershedmittee

Researchers GIZexperts

KfWexperts

Farmers

1 2 3 1 7

1 1 1 1 17

elopment Bank).

2004

2009

2005

2006

2007

2008

The EFSDPO ini�ated the pro ject id ea

The ADPFSO , GIZ, and KfW si gned M OU

The EFSPDO, GIZ, and KfW si gned M OU

The guidel ine for the r egional stee ring co mmi�ee wa s appro ved

Regional steering com mi�e e establ ished

The fi rst proj ect launchi ng work sho p cond ucted

The guidel ine for the r egiona l stee ring co mmi�ee appro ved

Focal person for the proj ect a ssigned at distr ict level

Farmers’ field da ys and e xpe rience s har ing tours

Training on so il co nse rva�on ap pro aches

Regional wor kshop he ld

The watersh ed associa� ons establishedWatershed by law s a pprov ed

Monthly and quarter ly eval ua�on start ed

Farmers’ field da ys

Monthly and quarter ly eval ua�on conduc ted

Farmers‘ field da ys

Locus

aLocus

cLocus

b

2004

2010

Farmers‘ gr oup for med

Fig. 1 – Timeline of SUNRPA project, interaction loci, and important events. Note: EFSDPO represents Federal Food Security

and Disaster Prevention Office, ADPFSO (Amhara Disaster Prevention and Food Security Office), GIZ (German Agency for

Technical Cooperation), KfW (German Development Bank), MOU (Memorandum of Understanding), and SUNRPA

(Sustainable Utilization of Natural Resources Project of Amhara).

e n v i r o n m e n t a l s c i e n c e & p o l i c y 2 7 ( 2 0 1 3 ) 2 1 – 3 1 25

the same way, at the regional level, MOU was signed between

the Amhara Disaster Prevention and Food Security Office

(ADPFSO), GIZ, and KfW in 2005. In order to achieve the

different objectives of the project, a regional steering

committee was established. The members of this committee

include representatives from ADPFSO, the Amhara Agricul-

tural Development Bureau, the Amhara Rural Road Authority,

the Amhara Water Resources Development Bureau, GIZ, and

KfW.

In collaboration with federal partners and spearheaded by

regional representatives, the inauguration workshop bringing

together farmers, experts, GIZ and KfW was launched in 2005.

Ever since the launch of the first inauguration workshop,

subsequent discussions about soil conservation were held

with farmers, public administrators, GIZ, KfW, and experts.

The interviews with experts show that at the early stage of the

project, there was no binding guideline for actors to work

together. Whenever public organizations met, they acted

mainly as representatives of their organizations and they did

not negotiate over their organizational interests. Narratives

suggest that such lack of consensus building prevailed during

the initial project phase. In addition, interviewees state that

government actors were overloaded with other activities that

were not related to soil conservation. The following statement

made by KfW reveals:

District agricultural offices were overloaded with a lot of

activities in addition to the watershed activities. The same

was true for local public administrators. This was one of the

limitations in the network. (KfW)

During the initial project phase, the interaction between

actors was characterized by conflicts between farmers and

experts, and conflicts among farmers themselves. The causes

of conflicts among farmers were related to flood management.

Interviews with experts suggest that some farmers, mostly

non-adopters of soil conservation measures, continued their

traditional practice of redirecting floods from their farm to

others’ farms which was against the project’s flood manage-

ment approach. The project’s approach to reduce flood related

conflicts was through the adoption of gullies and terraces.

Evidence for such forms of non-compliances of farmers with

project interventions is found across several interviews, for

example:

At the beginning, the relation between actors was not good.

There were conflicts between farmers on flood manage-

ment. (Ag.Ex.)

Interviews also suggest that conflicts emerged between the

watershed committee and experts due to the expert’s

interference with the responsibilities of the watershed

association. Experts were used to intervene to replace the

watershed committee by others without the consent of the

watershed association. An important event that promoted the

interaction of actors was the introduction of watershed

bylaws. The section of the bylaws which outline the need

for learning was an important instrument to create more

understanding on soil conservation and to encourage the

interaction of actors. Interviews show that after the introduc-

tion of bylaws the number of learning platforms increased

e n v i r o n m e n t a l s c i e n c e & p o l i c y 2 7 ( 2 0 1 3 ) 2 1 – 3 126

from 57 in 2007 to 147 in 2010. Farmers and experts were

exposed to farmers’ field days (FFDs) which have brought a

solution for some of the conflicts related to flood manage-

ment. For instance, Amba Zuria farmers having observed the

activities of model farmers how adopting soil conservation

innovations can reduce flooding and the need to develop a

positive relationship between experts and farmers, new

understandings on soil conservation started to emerge. These

field visits were the source of inspiration for Amba Zuria

farmers to adopt soil conservation innovations. A farmer

described his view on the section of the bylaws that encourage

learning as follows.

We focused on learning from each other rather than

applying the punishment of the bylaws. (Far.)

However, there were different views on the implementa-

tions of the watershed bylaws between experts and the

watershed committee. The following statement exemplifies

how the experts experienced the implementation of bylaws:

Sometimes watershed committee members may not be

serious about implementing the bylaws due to social

reasons such as relative issue. In such cases the association

members complain. (Ag.Ex.)

Some of the relatives of the watershed committee

members have favored their kinfolks which allowed them

to attend more field day visits and trainings than non-family

members. However, watershed committees do not share this

complaint. The chairperson of the watershed association

explained the implementation of the bylaws as follows:

[. . .] I am following the implementation of the bylaws. Any

member of the association who is not abiding by the bylaws

will be punished. (Wat.Com.)

However, most of the interviewees indicated that the

bylaws have encouraged learning to take place. In addition

to the bylaws, the regional steering committee has devel-

oped guidelines. The section of the guideline which gives

due attention to monitoring has encouraged the coordina-

tion and functioning of regional, district and local organiza-

tions. According to some interviewees, after the formulation

of the guideline, 48 steering committee meetings were

conducted to monitor and evaluate the performance of the

project. Steering committees meet and evaluate the perfor-

mance of the watershed activities every three months. After

desk performance evaluation, discussions at the field level

with the presence of watershed committee members,

experts, and farmers were also conducted. Interviews show

that the guidelines have encouraged the interaction of

actors.

[. . .] regional and district representatives meet and evaluate

the progress. [. . .] after finishing the meeting, evaluation on

the spot, in the watershed, follows. Discussion on the site

was part of the learning process. [. . .] everybody accepts

his/her assignment and acts according to the consensus

reached in the meeting. (GIZ)

However, the involvement of the district agricultural

development and public administration offices was limited

in terms of reaching the farmers, and in attending meetings.

The expert from KfW expressed his experience as follows:

Because of a lot of responsibilities, some district office

heads sometimes did not attend meetings. (KfW)

In addition, there was no involvement of researchers in this

project due to the weak link they had with the local

organizations. A researcher described the involvement of

his organization as follows:

So far there was no involvement. There is no linkage. But in

the future we are thinking to work with those that work in

the development of watersheds. (Res.)

In general, work overload, the weak link to the network of

local actors, and favoring of family members were the main

weaknesses of actors’ interactions. Regarding the strengths,

the sections of the bylaws and guidelines that encourage

learning and monitoring had a positive outcome for the

interaction of actors and this could be one potential reason for

the increase of gully rehabilitation from 1.5 km in 2007 to

8.5 km in 2010 (GZADO, 2010). Thus, the presence of bylaws

and guidelines has a potential to increase actors’ interaction,

and this interaction may lead to more understanding of soil

conservation solutions.

4.2. Locus b: facilitating the innovation process toaccommodate indigenous and scientific knowledge

Interviews suggest that at the early stage of the project, there

was a lack of farmers’ participation in plenary meetings which

were organized by experts. In these meetings, farmers who

attended did not express their views due to the lack of

awareness of soil conservation measures. As a result, only a

few farmers showed interest in the project ideas while most of

them opposed it. An important event, which initiated farmers’

participation, was the establishment of watershed association

and farmers groups. The idea of establishing a watershed

association and farmers’ groups was the result of the first

FFDs. Amba Zuria farmers have realized from that visit the

important role of the watershed association in promoting

participation of farmers and in facilitating discussions. After

several meetings the watershed association was established

in 2007. The association is headed by an elected farmer

committee. During FFDs and formal meetings, enough space

and time was provided by the chairperson of the committee

for experts and farmers to interact and voice their opinion

freely. The interviews show that farmers were more willing to

express their views when the watershed committee facilitated

the discussion due to the existing relationship between the

farmers and their facilitator which paves the way for the

emergence of mutual trust. An interviewee from GIZ

expressed his view as follows:

After the establishment of the watershed association, [. . .]

the participation level increased. [. . .] the farmers’

group was organized based on their closeness in social

e n v i r o n m e n t a l s c i e n c e & p o l i c y 2 7 ( 2 0 1 3 ) 2 1 – 3 1 27

interaction. This has made the mobilization of farmers

possible. (GIZ)

Interview transcripts also show how the formation of the

watershed association affects the participation of house-

holds with a labor shortage. Some households do not have

enough manpower to construct checkdams during gully

rehabilitation. Female headed households, elders, and

farmers with health problems were identified as the ones

that were vulnerable to labor shortage. In order to solve this

challenge and to promote learning among the group

members, the association proposed the formation of farm-

ers’ groups in 2008 and since then, farmers have started

working in groups. Working in groups has also provided a

solution for some of the existing labor shortage problems.

Members of a farmers’ group were involved in the

construction of checkdams on farms owned by household

heads suffering from labor shortage. This type of coopera-

tion has contributed positively to interaction and for the

establishment of personal relations and the emergence of

emotional ties among the farmers.

Working in groups has contributed a lot, because it has

created an opportunity to interact and know each other and

share knowledge. (Far.)

The watershed committee evaluates the performance of

farmers’ groups. Experts, the watershed committee and

farmers’ group members participate in the evaluation. During

this process, each group reports the way they constructed the

checkdams. Based on their indigenous knowledge, some

farmer groups put straw and soil in between stones to

stabilize the checkdams. At the same time farmers had

difficulty in keeping the dimensions of the check dams. In

such cases, experts applying scientific knowledge showed

them how to design and take measurements. This type of

interactions in the field encouraged the recognition and

appreciation of scientific and indigenous knowledge.

The participation of farmers and their engagement in

learning processes fostered the understanding of both

scientific and indigenous knowledge. This was possible

especially, by focusing on personal experiences rather than

scientific explanations. (GIZ)

After evaluating the performance of each group, innovative

practices were identified and these practices were recom-

mended to the poor performers.

After the daily work gets finished, group members, group

leaders, watershed committee, and development agents

discussed the activities performed on that day. [. . .] Bad

performers are advised to see the work of good performers.

The good performers explain how they did it. This way of

communication has helped a lot. (Wat.Com.)

This type of evaluation and discussion created opportu-

nities especially for farmers to express their personal

experiences. This encouraged experts with a scientific

background to discuss gully rehabilitation innovation on the

level of personal experiences rather than based on theoretical

explanations. This process helped experts to learn from

farmers and led participating actors to believe that people

have different knowledge and these different types of

knowledge are complementary to each other. A farmer who

participated in one farmer group discussions described his

practice of applying indigenous and scientific knowledge as

follows:

We use straw and other materials, compost for example,

[. . .] to protect the soil from flood leakage between the

stones of the bund. This was not advised by the experts. [. . .]

but we accept the width of the stone bund. [. . .] as per the

advice of the experts. (Far.)

Summarizing, the performance evaluation of farmers’

groups at the field allowed both experts and farmers to

understand each other’s knowledge. In this process, farmers’

groups and the watershed association have played an

important role in facilitating the learning process and

disseminating knowledge.

4.3. Locus c: understanding the views of actors

Interviews with public administrators show that during the

initial stage of the project most farmers were against the

project ideas due to the lack of awareness farmers had on soil

conservation measures. At this stage, experts used to facilitate

and lead the discussions and this approach did not create a

conducive environment for the participation of farmers and to

take advantage of their knowledge.

At the beginning, the participation of actors especially the

farmers was insufficient, almost non-existent. Farmers

opposed the project due to the negative perception they

had of soil conservation measures. For instance, some

farmers complained about the possibility of the existence

of rodents in stone bunds. (Pub.Adm.)

The negative perception farmers had on soil conservation

was challenged when they were exposed to FFDs. For instance,

to avoid rodents in the terraces, putting straw and soil in

between stones was recommended by model farmers. When

experts and farmers started to learn from each other, farmers

understood that experts lack some knowledge related to, for

example, the flow of direction of floods on farm lands which is

an important indigenous knowledge to be made use of when

choosing the appropriate soil conservation measure.

From experience, we know in which areas high pressure

flood comes. So we tell the group or the experts what to do

in such cases. [. . .] the experts based on this information tell

what to construct and how to construct. In this way we

learn from each other. (Far.)

Interviews with experts show that farmers also lack the

knowledge of designing checkdams. The checkdams con-

structed by farmers collapse very easily. One of the experts

described the farmers’ experience on checkdam construction

as follows:

e n v i r o n m e n t a l s c i e n c e & p o l i c y 2 7 ( 2 0 1 3 ) 2 1 – 3 128

The soil conservation measures did not protect against soil

erosion for long due to technical problems, so experts

technically supported the farmers. (Ag.Ex.)

During the FFDs, a lot of time and energy was invested to

identify the actors’ views and to integrate them into the

project. These discussions have encouraged farmers to

develop a positive attitude for soil conservation measures.

In this process, experts also began to acknowledge the

indigenous knowledge of farmers.

The checkdam was not stable. [. . .] farmers proposed a new

way. . .they constructed soil bunds at the back of the stone

checkdam. [. . .]. After constructing the soil bund, no

checkdam slided. (Ag.Ex.)

In summary, the FFDs served as an important event that

helped fill these knowledge gaps and accommodate the views

of all actors. During the FFDs, there was farmer-to-farmer

discussion, and farmer to expert discussions. Role model

farmers and experts narrated their personal experiences. This

type of learning approach opened up space for farmers and

experts to learn from each other and to accommodate their

knowledge in soil conservation solutions.

5. Discussion of results

The findings of ‘interaction locus a’ indicate that formalization

of partnership helps to integrate the actors at various levels.

For instance, the MOU outlines the major activities of the

project (e.g. soil and water conservation, irrigation, and road

construction), the source of the budget support, performance

reporting procedures, and monitoring and evaluation sche-

dules. The monitoring and evaluation section of the MOU has

created an opportunity for federal and regional actors to

interact and work together. The MOU was also complemented

by bylaws. The bylaws were mainly used to govern the

interaction of actors at the local level. The major components

of the bylaws that shaped the mode of interactions include:

the number of meetings supposed to be conducted every year,

agreed sanctions, procedures to prevent conflicts, when and

how to learn, procedures to elect watershed committee

members and their removal procedure when found guilty of

wrong-doings. Especially, the section of the bylaws which

outline when and how to learn had a positive impact on the

interaction of actors and on innovation adoption. The

performance evaluation of the watershed committee by the

association members every three months was instrumental to

encourage accountability and transparency. The practice of

judging members of the watershed committee either as a good

or bad performer enabled bad performers to correct their

mistakes before they came to the next meeting. This type of

monitoring and evaluation increased the number of interac-

tions among actors and their participation in meetings.

Moreover, the implementation of the sanctions of the bylaws

does not give more space for punishment. The emphasis for

reaching more understanding rather than applying monetary

punishment has enabled farmers to gain more time to

understand soil conservation problems and solutions.

In addition to the bylaws, the guideline was also used to

monitor and evaluate soil conservation activities and to

coordinate actors at various levels. In guideline topics such

as committee meeting schedules, members of the steering

committee, the responsibilities of the steering committee (e.g.

approving the annual work plan, budget support for the

watershed activities, supporting learning platforms, supervis-

ing and evaluating watershed activities), and monitoring

schedules were included. Every three months the project’s

activities were evaluated both at the field and desk by the

steering committee. This type of evaluation allowed every

actor to understand the performance of the project. The field

evaluation was especially useful due to the presence of

farmers and the presentation of their own experiences. A

mixture of field and desk evaluation was found useful to reach

all actors, especially farmers. This approach was integrated

into the guideline. The guideline encouraged the monitoring

and evaluation of activities and created more opportunity for

interactions. It also created more possibilities to identify the

weaknesses and strengths of the interaction. Weaknesses

such as insufficient participation of some government

representatives in meetings were also observed.

When the FFDs started, farmers and experts reported

observations made by model farmers on how soil conservation

can be successful. The FFDs enabled farmers and experts to

learn about the effectiveness of technologies and the impor-

tant role of flat hierarchies between actors in the interaction.

The participants of the FFDs were inspired by the success of

model farmers. This inspiration encouraged experts and

farmers to develop a positive attitude that encourage

interaction and learning from each other. Every year, more

farmers were participating in FFDs. Farmers and experts were

also interacting in farmers’ group discussions. Various such

groups exchange their experience in the field after construct-

ing their check dams and terraces. The existence of FFDs and

group discussions opened a communication space for the

development of positive interaction and to create more

understanding of soil conservation solutions. These interac-

tions have to be supported by the rules given in the bylaws.

This is because, as Hocde et al. (2009) suggested, bylaws

enhance the capacity for partnerships and enforce sanctions

when potentially counterproductive deviations emerge.

The findings of ‘interaction locus b’ indicate that the

organizational set up and localizing power creates a conducive

environment for the emergence and application of different

knowledge of actors. Communication pathways such as FFDs

enable actors to identify their knowledge gap, given the

existences of a positive interaction and understanding of the

problem at hand. Acknowledging the knowledge of others

could not be possibly occurring without the development of

mutual trust and positive understanding. This does not

emerge automatically as there are different interests among

the actors. This is the reason that conflicts were observed

during the early phases of the project. However, after the FFDs,

inspiration of farmers started to build and this paved the way

for the replication of what they had seen and observed. For

learning to take place local organization such as watershed

associations, and farmers’ groups were important

intermediaries between the community and government

offices. Our findings are also consistent with results in the

e n v i r o n m e n t a l s c i e n c e & p o l i c y 2 7 ( 2 0 1 3 ) 2 1 – 3 1 29

literature. For instance, the effectiveness of farmers’ organi-

zation for the adoption of soil conservation innovations was

also confirmed by Qasim et al. (2011) and Hocde et al. (2009).

Once the watershed committee started managing and

facilitating the learning processes, farmer groups were used

mainly to disseminate information among the group mem-

bers. In this case, group membership seems to support social

learning in the sense that group processes help to create a

common understanding (Muro and Jeffrey, 2008). Thus,

localizing power has to be considered in order to encourage

social learning and the emergence of new local actors.

‘Interaction locus c’ shows that exposing farmers and

experts to challenges exposed by model farmers, challenges

the status quo and this paves the way for the emergence of a

new understanding on soil conservation. This understanding

comes from acknowledging the views of other farmers and

experts that have experience. The narration approach enables

model farmers to talk about their personal experiences. This

process encourages farmers to express their views freely and

to judge the views of experts. For this to occur, facilitators are

needed. For our case study, when a farmer facilitated the

learning process, they were more relaxed and able to express

their views as they could rely on an already existing

relationship. This encourages the exchange and acknowledg-

ment of knowledge by experts and farmers. Our finding is

consistent with the social learning outcome of the ‘farmer-to-

farmer’ project of Swiss agriculture, in that: social learning

enabled the acknowledgment of indigenous and scientific

knowledge of actors involved in the process by flattening the

hierarchical relationships between the actors and by encour-

aging mutual questioning of the conventional approaches of

experts and farmers on soil conservation problems and

solutions (Schneider et al., 2009). In the same way, the study

by Cheng et al. (2011) showed that social learning is an

important element in building the knowledge of individuals

and groups.

6. Conclusions

Based on the lessons of our case study, social learning may

encourage the emergence of positive attitude about the

adoption of soil conservation innovations. It brings those

possessing indigenous knowledge closer to those that have

scientific knowledge through encouraging a two-way com-

munication between farmers and experts. In this process,

institutions, in particular local institutions, can play positive

roles in sustaining the learning processes and governing the

interactions of the relevant actors. In view of the great

potential of social learning and social institutions, we can

highlight four important implications for environmental

policies and practices:

(1) In communities where positive understanding on soil

conservation is lacking, soil conservation policies at the

national level should place more emphasis on investing in

learning platforms in order to enable actors to learn from

each other, to develop positive interaction and under-

standing of soil conservation solutions.

(2) In order to challenge the linear knowledge transfer

tradition, experts and researchers must not see them-

selves as leaders of the learning process but as part of it. In

this process, learning platforms may play a role to

understand the views of farmers and experts and for the

emergence of less hierarchical interaction pattern.

(3) In situations where facilitating the interactions of actors is

a problem, creating or establishing intermediary local level

actors and their institutions might encourage localizing

and internalizing the decisions related to the learning and

adoption of soil conservation innovations.

(4) In order to sustain the achievements of a project or

program, monitoring and evaluation mechanisms, both in

the field and at the desk, have to be in place and up-held

continuously.

As discussed in the results section, in order to scale out the

lessons of social learning and institutions of the project to a

wider geography, farmers and experts from other localities

need to learn from the experiences of such a project. This

would be effective if efforts are made to change the project-

based learning to organizational learning. The important

events which shaped the project such as organizational set

ups, partnership building, and monitoring and evaluation can

be adapted to other localities.

Soil conservation measures generally emphasize the

technical, financial, and ecological dimensions of technology

adoption. Moreover, far less attention has been given to the

role social learning plays in shaping the interaction of actors’

with the relevant institutions. It is thus important to take into

account how learning oriented understanding of soil conser-

vation can be practiced.

Acknowledgments

We wish to thank farmers, experts, and public administrators

for their support and permission to be interviewed. We also

would like to thank GIZ Amhara Regional Office and the North

Gondar Zone Sustainable Natural Resource Management

Office for their logistic contribution during the data collection.

We also thank the Austrian Development Cooperation and the

OeAD GmbH for their financial assistance.

r e f e r e n c e s

Aarts, N., Van Woerkum, C., Vermunt, B., 2007. Policy andplanning in the Dutch countryside: the role of regionalinnovation networks. Journal of Environmental Planningand Management 50 (6), 727–744.

Assefa, A., Waters-Bayer, A., Fincham, R., Mudhara, M.,2009. Comparison of frameworks for studyinggrassroots innovation: agricultural innovation systemsand agricultural knowledge and information systems.In: Sanginga, P., Waters-Bayer, A., Kaaria, S., Njuki,J., Wettasinha, C. (Eds.), Innovation Africa: EnrichingFarmers’ Livelihoods. Earthscan Publishing for aSustainable Future, London, Sterling, pp. 35–56.

Ayele, S., Duncan, A., Larbi, A., Khanh, T.T., 2012. Enhancinginnovation in livestock value chains through networks:

e n v i r o n m e n t a l s c i e n c e & p o l i c y 2 7 ( 2 0 1 3 ) 2 1 – 3 130

lessons from fodder innovation case studies in developingcountries. Science and Public Policy 39 (3), 333–346.

Bekele, A., 1997. A participatory agro-forestry approach for soiland water conservation in Ethiopia. Tropical ResourceManagement Paper 17. Wageningen University, TheNetherlands.

Bekele, E., 2003. Causes and consequences of environmentaldegradation in Ethiopia. In: Gedion, A. (Ed.), Environmentand environmental change in Ethiopia. Consultation Paperson Environment No. 1. Forum for Social Studies, AddisAbaba, Ethiopia, pp. 24–31.

Bekele, S., Holden, S., 1999. Soil erosion and smallholders’conservation decision in the highlands of Ethiopia. WorldDevelopment 27 (4), 739–752.

Belay, K., Degnet, A., 2004. Challenges facing agriculturalextension agents: a case study from South Western Ethiopia.African Development Review 16 (1), 139–168.

Beshah, T., 2003. Understanding farmers: explaining soil andwater conservation in Konso, Wolaita and Wello, Ethiopia,vol. 14. Tropical Resource Management Papers. WageningenUniversity, Wageningen, 245 pp.

Bewket, W., 2007. Soil and water conservation intervention withconventional technologies in North-Western highlands ofEthiopia: acceptance and adoption by farmers. Land UsePolicy 24 (2), 404–416.

Cheng, A.S., Danks, C., Allred, S.R., 2011. The role of social andpolicy learning in changing forest governance: anexamination of community based forestry initiatives in theUS. Policy and Economics 13 (2), 89–96.

Desta, L., Kassie, M., Benin, S., Pender, J., 2000. Land degradationand strategies for sustainable development in Ethiopianhighlands: Amhara region. Socio-Economics and PolicyResearch Working Paper 32. Nairobi, Kenya.

Ekop, O.E., Osuji, E.E., 2003. Participatory methodology ininformation dissemination: a case study of Oyo StateAgricultural Development Projects in Ogbomosho Zone.Food Africa. Internet Forum 31st March–11th April 2003,Internet Paper for Food Security, 7 pp.

FDRE (Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia), 1999.Agriculture Research and Extension Project: EthiopianResearch–Extension–Farmer Linkages Strategy. Ministry ofAgriculture, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.

FAO, 2002. Land and Agriculture. Challenges and Perspectivesfor the World Summit on Sustainable Development. Foodand Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome.

Gebremedhin, B., Hoekstra, D., Tegegne, A., 2006.Commercialization of Ethiopian agriculture extensionservice from input supplier to knowledge broker andfacilitator. Improving Productivity and Market Success(IPMS) of Ethiopian Farmers Project Working Paper No. 1.International Livestock Research Institute, Nairobi, Kenya.

Gondar Zuria Agricultural Development Office (GZADO), 2010.Summarized Annual Performance Reports of Amba ZuriaWatershed. Maksegnit, Ethiopia, 22 pp.

Hall, A., 2006. Enhancing Agricultural Innovation: How to goBeyond the Strengthening of Research Systems. World Bank,Washington, DC.

Hocde, H., Triomphe, B., Faure, G., Dulcire, M., 2009. Fromparticipation to partnership: a different way forresearchers to accompany innovation processes-challenges and difficulties. In: Sanginga, P., Waters-Bayer,A., Kaaria, S., Njuki, J., Wettasinha, C. (Eds.), InnovationAfrica: Enriching Farmers’ Livelihoods. EarthscanPublishing for a Sustainable Future, London, Sterling, pp.135–154.

Hurni, H., 1993. Land degradation, famine, and land resourcescenarios in Ethiopia. In: Pimental, D. (Ed.), World SoilErosion and Conservation. Cambridge University Press,Cambridge, pp. 27–62.

Klerkx, L., Aarts, N., Leeuwis, C., 2010. Adaptive management inagricultural innovation systems: the interactions betweeninnovation networks and their environment. AgriculturalSystems 103 (6), 390–400.

Kurokawa, I., Yoshida, T., Lewis, C.H., Igarashi, R., Kuradate, K.The plurilingual lounge: creating new world views throughsocial interaction. International Journal of InterculturalRelations. Available online 19 May 2012, in press.

Leeuwis, C., 2004. Communication for Rural Innovation:Rethinking Agricultural Extension. Blackwell Science,Oxford.

Ministry of Agriculture (MOA), 2000. Agro-Ecological Zonation ofEthiopia. Addis Ababa, MOA, Ethiopia, 20 pp.

Ministry of Finance and Economic Development (MOFED), 2010.Growth and Transformation Plan (2010/11–2014/15), VolumeI Main Text. MOFED, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.

Ministry of Information (MOI), 2002. Agricultural DevelopmentLed Industrialization Strategy. Addis Ababa, MOI, Ethiopia,280 pp.

Muro, M., Jeffrey, P., 2008. A critical review of the theory andapplication of social learning in participatory naturalresource management processes. Journal of EnvironmentalPlanning and Management 51 (3), 325–344.

North, D.C., 1990. Institutions, Institutional Change andEconomic Performance. Cambridge University Press,Cambridge.

Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development(OECD), 1999. Managing National Innovation Systems. OECD,Paris, France.

Patton, M.Q., 1990. Qualitative Research and EvaluationMethods, third ed. Sage, CA.

Qasim, S., Shrestha, R.P., Shivakoti, G.P., Tripathi, N.K., 2011.Socio-economic determinants of land degradation in Pishinsub-basin, Pakistan. International Journal of SustainableDevelopment and World Ecology 18 (1), 48–54.

Rist, S., Chidambaranathan, M., Escobar, C., Wiesmann, U.,2006. It was hard to come to mutual understanding: themultidimensionality of social learning processes concernedwith sustainable natural resources use in India, Africa andLatin America. Systemic Practice and Action Research 19 (3),219–237.

Roling, N., 2009. Conceptual and methodologicaldevelopments in innovation. In: Sanginga, P., Waters-Bayer, A., Kaaria, S., Njuki, J., Wettasinha, C. (Eds.),Innovation Africa: Enriching Farmers’ Livelihoods.Earthscan Publishing for a Sustainable Future, London,Sterling, pp. 9–34.

Rudd, M.A., 2004. An institutional framework for designing andmonitoring ecosystem-based fisheries management policyexperiments. Ecological Economics 48 (1), 109–124.

Schneider, F., Fry, P., Ledermann, T., Rist, S., 2009. Sociallearning processes in Swiss soil protection the ‘from farmer-to-farmer’ project. Human Ecology 37 (4), 475–489.

Shiferaw, B., Okello, J., Reddy, R.V., 2009. Adoption andadaptation of natural resource management innovations insmall holder agriculture: reflections on key lessons and bestpractices. Environmental Development and Sustainability11, 601–619.

Spielman, D.J., Davis, K., Negash, M., 2011. Rural innovationsystems and networks: findings from a study of Ethiopiansmallholders. Agriculture and Human Values 28 (2), 195–212.

Spielman, D.J., Ekboir, J., Davis, K., 2009. Developing theart and science of innovative systems enquiry:alternative tools and methods, and applications to sub-Saharan African agriculture. In: Sanginga, P., Waters-Bayer, A., Kaaria, S., Njuki, J., Wettasinha, C. (Eds.),Innovation Africa: Enriching Farmers’ Livelihoods.Earthscan Publishing for a Sustainable Future, London,Sterling, pp. 72–78.

e n v i r o n m e n t a l s c i e n c e & p o l i c y 2 7 ( 2 0 1 3 ) 2 1 – 3 1 31

Steins, N., Edwards, V., 1999. Platforms for collective action inmulti-use common pool resources. Agriculture and HumanValues 16 (3), 241–255.

Sustainable Utilization of Natural Resources Project Office(SUNRPO), 2010. Annual Plan of Amba Zuria Watershed.Bahir Dar, Ethiopia, 11 pp.

Tefera, B., Sterk, G., 2010. Land management, erosion problems,and soil and water conservation in Fincha watershed,Western Ethiopia. Land Use Policy 24 (4), 1027–1037.

Van de Ven, A.H., Polley, D.E., Garud, R., Venkatamaran, S., 1999.The Innovation Journey. Oxford University Press,New York.

World Bank, 2007. Enhancing Agricultural Innovation: How togo Beyond the Strengthening of Research Systems. TheWorld Bank, Washington, DC.

Yoshida, T., Yashiro, K., Suzuki, Y. Intercultural communicationskills: what Japanese businesses today need. InternationalJournal of Intercultural Relations. Available online 26 May2012, in press.

Yinager Dessie is a research fellow of the Center for DevelopmentResearch at the University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences(BOKU), Vienna, Austria. He studied local and regional develop-ment from Erasmus University of the Netherlands and his re-search focus is on analysis of institutions and social learning in theadoption of innovations related to natural resource management.Over the last 20 years, he has coordinated the implementation ofdifferent development projects.

Uwe Schubert is a retired professor of Environmental and UrbanEconomics at the University of Economics and Business in Vienna(WU). He has doctorates in law and political science from theUniversity of Vienna and a PhD in economics from the Universityof California, San Diego. He was on the faculty and served as achairman of the Department of Economics at the Institute forAdvanced Studies in Vienna before joining WU, where he partici-pated in and coordinated numerous national and internationalresearch projects. He is presently the vice-president of the Societyfor International Development, Vienna Chapter.

Dr. Maria Wurzinger is a senior scientist at the University ofNatural Resources and Life Sciences. She studied agriculture witha focus on livestock production. She obtained a PhD in animalbreeding and her research focus is on analysis of livestock pro-duction systems and design of community-based breeding pro-grams for low-input systems in Latin America and Africa. Morerecently she started to look into innovation systems in the agri-cultural sector.

Dr. Michael Hauser is director of Center for Development Researchat the University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences. He is anagro-ecologist by training. Over the past ten years, he worked onsustainable agriculture, natural resource management and liveli-hood transition, largely in sub-Saharan Africa with some exposureto Asia. A central focus has been on innovation and changeprocesses in agriculture. He conducts graduate and post-graduatecourses on livelihood systems and participatory methods.