Professional Documents
Culture Documents
I | , a -
' 1a
\ iC / ^ fI zLi nr LA! !h C , /y l'1 +
t I L
I
illustratedby projectexperiences
in Zanzibar
by
1997
NaturalResources Institute
Universityof Greenwich
CONTENTS
Preface
Chapterl: INTRODUCTION x
Chapter5: CONCLUSION x
Bibliography
BOXES ACCOMPAI\TYINGTHE TEXT
INTRODUCTION
"Reversingtraditionalattitudes
to developmentresearchthereforemearuuniting researchand practice,
understandingand action, researcherand researched,into a single unitary process. And this in tum
impliesthat researchers must acceptto be changedby the resultsof their researc[ mustbe accountable
to the subjectsof their researc[ and must be preparedto seethe valueof their work judged according
to its relevancein improvingthe livesofthe peopleconcemed.This doesnol meanthat all researchthat
is relevantalso hasto be 'directly participatory'. Researchwhich analysessimilaritiesand differences
over time and spacecan be extremely'relevant', but the usefulnessof such'secondary'researchwill be
a function of its effectivenessin changingattitudes among the powerirl in a direction which will
ultimatelyenablethelesspowerfulto thinkandact for themselves." (Edwards1994:281)
A brief outlile
The structureof the book can be summarisedas follows. In chaptertwo we will
examine what local knowledge and practice are and why they are important.
Conventionalunderstandingsof knowledgeand practice are strongly influenced by
the 'indigenousknowledgedebate'and the way in which it has developed. This
debatecan be characterized in terms of the (incomplete)shift from a 'naive' to a
'sophisticated'conception indigenous
of knowledge'(IK). The naiveconceptionof
lK is overwhelminglytechnical,while the sophisticated conceptionemphasizes its
social (political, economic,etc.) dimensions.The latter is an improvementon the
former, but it still focusesnarrowly on 'knowledge'and has led to a number of
impracticalproposalsfor practrce.
It is more satisfactoryto treat knowledgeas just one aspectof practice, and to put
more effort into understanding differentmanifestationsof local practice. Different
ways of doing this are suggestedby recent social developmenttheorists, and we
examinethe relativeusefulness of these,with particularreferenceto 'structuralist'
and'actor-oriented'approaches. Havingestablished the needto analysehow practice
changesovertime,we thentum our attentionto the meaningof 'local'. Conventional
approaches to IK (andpractice)focusalmostexclusivelyon one set of actorsin the
developmentarena,membersof the (usuallyrural) 'community' By contrast,we
expandthe definitionof local to includethe knowledgeand practiceof otheragents,
including govenrmentand non-govemmentorganisations(NGOs), and even pro.iects
themselves.
Chapter three looks at how local knowledge and practice can be engaged at
community level. Different methodsand approachesare examined,starting with the
'participatory' packages
standard and including ParticipatoryRural Appraisal (PRA).
Theseare found wantingin a numberof respects, especiallywhenthey are used(as
they usually are) in an inflexible and uncreativeway. They often provide no more
than a superficial understandingof local knowledge and practice, and an
insufficientlydevelopedmeansof engagingthem. The secondpart of the chapter
considersaltemativeapproaches which addressthesedeficiencies.The needto use
different methods and approachesstrategically, and against a background of a
coherentunderstanding of localpractice,is emphasized.
Someof the main points in the text are illustratedwith boxesusing casematerial
from our working experiencein Zanzibar,in particularwith the ZanzlbarCashCrops
FarmingSystems Project(ZCCFSP)andthe JozaniChwakaBay Conservation Project
(JCBCP). It shouldbe emphasized that theseare not intendedto illustrateall the
points of the argument,althoughsomeboxesdo relateto points madeat different
placesin the text, in somecasesin differentchapters(to this extentthe locationof
someboxesin the text is fairly arbitrary).It shouldalsobe notedthat theseboxesare
not intendedto providea comprehensive reviewof all tlre activitiesof the projects
concerned, andthat we havebeendeliberatelyselective.
REDEFTNING
LOCAL KNOWLEDGEAND PRACTICE
Introduction
What peoplesay and what they do are not necessarilycorrelated. Our own approach
is to give priority to practiceand treat people'sverbalpronouncements (including
thoseelementswhich we useto reconstruct their 'knowledge')asjust one aspectof
their practice. We believethat expressionof ideasis an integralpart of practice,
while their reformulationas 'knowledge'may reflectthe observers'own practiceas
much as that of their subjects. We recognize,however,that the understanding of
theseissuesby manydevelopment practitioners'hasbeeninfluencedby the growing
demandthat they shouldtake accountof indigenousknowledge'when formulating
their own practice. The title we have given to this book acknowledges
this fact,
although our text suggeststhe need for adopting a broader and more flexible
approach.
T'heimportanceof indigenous
knowledge'
Indigenousknowledgeas technicalkttowledge
Indigenousknowledgeas indigenouspractice
The naive conceptionof lK, with its over-emphasison the technical and its
over-simplisticview of the easewith which IK can be appropriated,lacks this deeper
sociologicalperspective.Accordingto its advocates, the sophisticated conceptionof
IK makesup for this failing, and requiresdevelopmentpractitionersto deal with the
issuesit raisesheadon. The essaysin BeyondFarme,,First (ScoonesandThompson,
1994)providesomeindicationof how theymight approachthis tash especiallythose
workingin agriculturaldevelopment.The basicmessage (at leastof the editors'own
contribution)is that theyshouldplungethemselves into the complexitiesof practice,
reflectingcritically upon their own as well as others'; acting not just as smiling
facilitators but also as canny catalysts and crafty negotiators in the fields and
battlefields of knowledgebefore them. However, Beyond Farmer Firut promises
morethanit deliversandsuffersfrom someofthe sameblind spotsas its predecessor
(Chamberset al., 1989). Farringtondrawsattentionto someof these,the first of
which is particularlyrelevanthere:
"[One shortcoming]is
an inadequateconceptualis8tion of the interactionsamongknowledge,the forms
(i.e. technologies) in which it might be applied,and the processes (i.e. innovation)of applyingit.
Knowledge, on which the book focuses,is only one componsnlof innovation: others include the
complementaryinputs - whetherland,labour or capital- necessaryto put new ideasinto practice. The
vast literature documentinglocallevel conflict over physicalaccessto resourcesis ignorcd- If it hod
beentakeninto account,therewould havebeenlessoptimismaboutthe willingnessof"the community"
to wotk togetherin prioritisingneeds,about the possibilitiesof arriving at an agreedagenda,about the
apparentpermanence of "unanimous"decisionsoncethe team of outsidershasdeparted,and about the
capacityof participatory methodsto resolveconflict."(1995:5)
l0
line of reasoningand its implicationsfor the IK debateare refened to Popper's
disputewith the FrankfurtSchool(Habermasincluded)and relatedwritings. For
presentpurposes,however,we havesaidenoughabouttheory,andwill retumnow to
our centraltheme:practice.
An anthropologicalperspective
A practical problem
The IK debatehas diverted attention away from the needto understandand engage
people'spracticeand the theoristshaveonly recentlybegunto recogtrisethis need.
What impactshasthis had upon developmentpractice? The majority of practitioners
are now awareof the declaled importanceof IK, althougha significant proportionof
them havenot progressedbeyondthe naive conceptionof IK as technical knowledge.
Relativelyfew field workersknow how to elicit or use IK creativelyand many
continue to treat it as somethingwhich threatensto make their work unnecessarily
complicated.Their understanding of, and ability to deal with, people'spracticeis
ll
evenmoreundeveloped.This is not surprising,becausethe literatue placesso little
emphasison the importanceoflocal practice,andhardlyany guidanceis providedon
how to understandand engageit. The standardtoolkits for participatorydevelopment
only promotea superficiallevel of understanding
andengagement, focusingmore on
the technicalaspectsof local practice(seechapterthree). Practitionersare left to
follow their own instincts,and while someland on their feet, othersdo not. This
problemis perhapsmost acutein projectswith explicitly technicalgoals,but not
uncommor in thosewith an institutional focus.
Understandinglocal practice
t2
Indonesia,andthe consequent over-supply anddrasticfall in world marketpricesover
the pastdecade,havehad a devastatingimpact on Zaruibar's clove industry and the
nationaleconomyasa whole. Accordingto currentmarketpredictions,thereis little
hopethatpriceswill recoverto anlthinglike their formerlevels. The futureprosp€cts
for large-scaleclove productionin Zanzibarare thereforegrim, and while clove
farming has not suffereda suddendeath,it is certainlyin a stateof accelerating
decline.
13
The typicalresponse ofclove farmen hasbeento expandsubsistence productionin a
piecemealfashionby plantingcassava andbananasin scatteredplots. Many ofthese
plotshavebeenopenedup in patcheswherecloveshavedied from SuddenDeath,a
diseasewhich is known to attackpoorly-managedplantationsmore readily than those
which are well cared for and which app€arsto be tkiving in proportion to the
increasingneglect of the clove farms. For farmers,cassavaand bananashave the
obviousadvantageof being familiar food crops which can help to plug the gap
previouslyfilled by food purchases;any surplusescan be sold. There is also a
growing market for bananas,which are being traded in increasing quantities to
UngujaandespeciallyZanzibartown. Farmershavebeenslow to expandproduction
of other altemativecashcrops,partly becauseof their lack of confidencein the
markets,andpartly becauseof the constraintsmentionedabove.
l4
developmentresearchers shoulddevelopanalysesin the 'middle ground' between
top-downtheory and bofiom-upempiricism,both to accountfor the patternsof
divenity which have scuttled grandtheory and to bridge the gap betweenacademic
developmentstudiesand the work of practitionersin the field. To some extent,
researchershave begun to do this, and the contributionsto RethinkingSocial
Developmentillustratedifferentapproaches to this problem. Booth's discussionof
'neo-structuralist
the relationbetweenthe political-economy' and 'actor-oriented'(or
'agency-oriented')approaches
advancedby different contributorsis particularly
pertinent- Although he concedesthat eachapproachhassomethingto ofler the other,
he ultimately choosesto subscribeto the former. One way out of this 'minor
impasse'is to think of themashavingdifferentbut complementary applications.The
neo-structuralistapproachis particularly relevant to the understandingof practice,
whereas an actor-orientedapproachhas a much more obvious rcle in engaging
practice. The reason for this is deceptivelysimple: understandingrequires
generalization,whereasengagemententails interaction between people and/or the
institutionsto whichtheybelong.This distinction,however,shouldnot be carriedtoo
far; understandingand engagingpractice are not just complementaryactivities, but
canandshouldbe dialecticallycombinedby development practitioners.
l5
The villagesin theseso-calledmarginalareashavethe most traditionalsocial and
economicorganization.Theywereleastaffectedby the large-scale transformation of
the islandwhich accompanied the introductionofthe plantationeconomyin the l9th
century,and thereforeconform more closely to the historical pattem of rural Swahili
communityorganizationfound all along the East African coast. To this extent,they
representthe outcomeof a long processof adaptationwhich is evident in their
exploitationof the diverseresources availableto them,on land as well as in the sea.
Agriculturehasa longhistoryin thesecommunities.Shiftingcultivationon the coral
rag,especiallyof sorghumandmillets,hasbeenpractisedfor morethana 1000years,
and the modified vegetationof Pemba'scoral rag, whereonly two dry forestsof any
sizeremain(RasKiuyu andMsitu Mkuu on theMichewenipeninsula),is t}e resultof
this practice. Rice growingin the shallowvalleys,and cultivationof other crops,
includingbananasand root crops,on the higherland betweenthese,also hasa long
history.
l6
Genderissuesare an importantcomponentof this situation. Whereaswomen havea
relativelylimited role in agriculturein the plantationareas,they providethe bulk of
the labour in the lowlands of Pembaand produce nearly all the food crops with
minimal assistancefrom men. The coral rag, however,is traditionally a male
preserve,and it is men who havebegunto cultivate cashcropson this land, although
women'sgroupshavealsobeeninvolvedin the recentwave of tree planting. It is
likely that furtherexpansionof agricultureon the coral rag will increasinglyimpact
on genderrelations,and that this will not necessarily be to women'sadvantagein
termsof their accessto resourcesand the proceedsfrom them. Planners,researchers
and extensionists will have to considerthis issuecarefully,both in planningtheir
work with farmersand in providing appropriateadvice. Gendersensitivity shouldbe
an essentialcomponentin the developmentof a participatoryapproachto agricultural
developmentthroughoutZawibar, but especiallyin areaslike the lowlandsof Pemba
wherewomenalreadyplaya leadingrole in farming.
Theimporlanceof change
Apart from this generalfailing, the recommendedtools and techniquesfor PRAs are
inadequatefor addressingquestionsof change, especially in the hands of
inexperienced researchers.While local historiesand time lines "can be extremely
importantin highlighting someof the causesof certainproblemsor how changeshave
t7
occurred"(Nabasaet al., 1995:27),theirelicitationoften produceslittle morethana
chronologyof importantevents. Other tools are explicitly orientatedtowardsthe
collection of syrchronic information. Wealth ranking, for example,providesa
snapshot of perceiveddifferentiationin the economicstatusof households at the time
the exerciseis undertaken.The causesof inter-household di{ferentiationare not
usuallyconsidered beyondstatements ofthe obvious(suchas 'households headedby
widows are in the poorestcategory'). As a result,field workersoften assumethat
householdmembership in the categories they haveelicitedis moreor lesspermanent.
As anthropologists havelong beenat painsto point out, this is not necessarilythe
case. Households, and the largerdomesticgroupsto which they belong,invariably
movethrougha'developmentalcycle'during which their economicstatuschanges.
A householdassignedto one particular 'wealth category' may well fall into a
different category some years later, and householdsat different stages of the
developmentalcycle may appearto belong in the samecategorywhile they are
actuallymovingin verydifferentdirections.
t8
Agricultural developmenthas proceededat a much faster pace on Unguja than on
Pemba,partly becauseof the proximity of Zanzibartown and its growing market for
agriculturalproduce.The growthof eggplantfarmingin Gambaisjust one example
among many on Unguja; others include orangefarming in Ndijani (central Unguja)
andmangoproductionandexportin Muyuni(southwest Unguja).
Since then, eggplant production has continued to expand in Gamba and the
surroundingvillages- The processof expansionhas been greatly assistedby the
evolutionof a collectivemarketingsystem,flrst institutedin 1994. This system
parallels,and in somewaysis more successful than,the systemoperatedby orange
farmersin Ndijani in cenhalUnguja. It is entirelythe productof local innovationand
collaboration,and is designedto ensurethat the market is never flooded and that
prices therefore remain more or less constant through most of the three-month
harvestingperiod. In the first year of its operation,the two villages involved took
tums to markettheir andwereset for the maximumquanti
19
which they could taketo marketon any singleday. In the 1995season,the system
had expandedto coverfive villages;eachtook a daily tum to markettheir produce
without any limit on the amountof producethey could send. Farmersanticipatethat
the systemwill be furthermodifiedin 1996,andareevenconsideringits adaptationto
at leastone other vegetablecrop, tomatoes. So far, it has worked well, and farmers
arepreventedfrom sellingout of tum by carefulpolicing.
20
The recordofZCCFSPandsimilarprojectsin assessing andpredictingthe impactsof
agriculturaldevelopment hasbeenmixed. ZCCFSPwas instrumentalin highlighting
the need to evolve sustainableagricultural practices,given the inherent fragrlity of
Zanzibar'ssoils. Farmersdo not always perceivethe dangersof environmental
degradationuntil the damagehas been done, and a strong ciue can be made for
developingparticipatorystrategiesto tackle this issuein anticipationof future events.
The increasingprivatizationof the coral rag near Gamba,and the replacementof
shifting cultivation with permanent grain and vegetable production, parallels
developmentswhich are taking place throughoutthe coral rag lands of Zawibar. It
remainsto be seenwhetherthe 'Ndijani solution' (fruit tree productioncombined
with intensivemanuring)or somethinglike it will evolveelsewherein the islands.In
Gamba,new agoforcstry practiceson the coral rag are still in a tentative stageof
development,but cattle-keepingand the potential for manuring appear to be in
decline.
zl
knowledge','local knowledge','existinglocal knowledge','indigenousagricultural
knowledge','indigenousecologicalknowledge'etc.). They are also the primary
subjects of anthropology and social development research in its structuralist
manifestations.However,the actor-oriented approachto socialdevelopment research
and practiceencourages a wider conceptionof local practicewhich doesnot limit it
to its traditionalor assumeddefinition. This is the conceDtion
which we adoptin the
followingdiscussion.
It is ironic that many of the insights of British social anthropolory (or at least the
classical structural-functionalistversion of it) developedfrom a need to understand
and engage the practice of local institutions as part of the wider project of
colonialism.The decisionto implement'IndirectRule' produceda flurry of research
on local institutionsand practiceby both administrators and govemment-employed
anthropologists. Theresultsofthis researchhadmanylongJastingconsequences, and
althoughit is no longerpoliticallycorrectto agreewith their goals,the methodsthey
usedcontain both both positive and negativelessonsfor the present. Unfortunately,
they did not beginto questiontheir own practice,or analysecriticallythe institutions
which they had created and worked with, until they had lost their mandate to
intervene. Participatorydevelopmenthas (we hope) very diflerent goals: this is no
excuse,however,for us to approachour work with an equalmeasureof sophistication
ard naivety.
22
Conclusion
23
CHAPTERTHREE
UNDERSTANDING
AND ENGAGINGLOCAL KNOWLEDGE
AND PRACTICE
Introduction
The main problem with participatory approachesis not so much what they do, or
encoumgepractitionersto do, but what they do nor do, or discouragepractitioners
from doing. Participation,in the senseof interaction,is an essentialcomponentin
any attempt to understandand engagethe knowledge and practice of others, but
without further specificationit either lacks content,or containsonly that which the
differentparticipatorymethodsprovide. If we ask 'Participationwith whom?',then
we receivean answerwhich is both over- and underdeterminedat the sametime. In
everydayapplication,participationis generallyrestrictedto one setof interactionsin
the development arena: the interactionbetween'us', the development practitioners,
and 'them', the rural peoplewith, and on whom, we practise. The agentsand actors
on either sideof this equation,however,tend to be treatedashomogenousclasses.
Apart from the appllicatiionof stock formulaesuchas 'resource-poor households',
'female-headed households' etc.,relativelylittle attentionis paidto the importanceof
socialandeconomicdifferentiationamongthe intended'beneficiaries'of projects,or
among the various 'owners' of projectsthemselves,practitionersincluded. The
failure to identiS the beneficiariesclearly is frequentlyassociatedwith a poor
understanding of the socialand culturalcontextsin which they think and act. The
social,political and economicdimensionsof practice,includingknowledge,tend to
be weakly apprehended, if at all, by conventionalparticipatorymethodsand practice.
The 'sophisticated'conceptionof IK is helpingto correctthis,but hasyet to 'trickle
down' to most practitioners,many of whom continueto operatewith the 'naive'
conceptionof IK astechnicalknowledge,in the contextof the equallynaivepopulism
of standardparticipatoryapproaches.
Although the results of PRA can be, and often are, a vast improvement on the
outcomesof more traditional styles of investigationand engagement(including
formal surveysandtopdown modesof researchand extension),they frequentlyfail to
match expecations and create additional expectationswhich cannot be met. In
individual cases,this kind of failure can be blamedon inadequateplanning,poor
implementation,and insuffrcientfollow-up; which in tum can be blamed on
inadequateunderstanding of the PttA processon the part of insufiicientlytrained
participants and other poorly preparedagents(such as NGO decision-makersnot
directly involved in undertakingPRAs). To a largeextent,however,the methodology
itselfcan be blamedfor the failure, andthe fact that PRAsare badly conductedcan be
seenasa functionof naiveover-optimism on the partoftheir proponents.
The PRRAs were usedto move towardsa more participatory approachin MALNR
andprovidedtraining opportunitiesandan exposureto participatoryresearchmethods
and tools. However,ttrey generatedlittle action in the communitiesinvolved (with
the exceptionof thosewhich later becameFRG sites)and reflectedthe project's
objectivesmore than thoseof the local participants-This was partly becausethe
PRRAs'role in the researchprocesswasnot clear,resultingin their usefor defining
cash crop constraintsand opportunitiesin the classic style of farming systems
research(FSR). The use of the term ParticipatoryRapid Rural Appraisal ratherthan
PRA was in itself a problem. The rapid and elicitativenatureof the researchstill
predominated. The sametoolkit, which included a wide array of tools (semi-
structuredinterviews,time-lines,mapping,transects, calendarsand rankingactivities
of various kinds) was used in each of the villages. The opportunity for further
training was not adequatelyfollowed up, and the developmentof the use of these
tools wasneverreally given suflicient attention.
Lack of experiencein the useof PRA methodsmeantthat there was little analysisof
socialandeconomicdifferencesat householdor village level and,despitethe useof
time-linesandothermethods,the understanding ofthe development of agriculturein
Zanzibarin its socialand historicalcontextremainedpoorly understood.A second
seriesof PRAswascarriedout later in the project,partlyto gain furtherinformation
on farmers'knowledgeand practice. Theseweretermed'mini-PRAs'and were,in
effect, intensivestudiesof local farming systemsand livelihoods. Focusingon
membersof the FRGs rather than whole villages, the mini-PRAs were action-
ientated:the researchthemeswhich from collective were taken
backto the FRGs,modifiedwith their suggestions, and convertedinto joint research
plans. The tool-setusedwas more basicand encouraged more effectiveuseof the
tools and ownershipover the process;only semi-structured interviewsand farm
observationswere employed. The research process was also more integrated,
involvingall the membersofthe researchteamin all the stagesfrom initial checklist
brainstormingto collectiveanalysisof the results. Greateremphasiswas placedon
tracing changesin the farming system,identi$'ing existing opportunitiesrather than
constraints,and understandingfarmers' knowledgeand practicein their local context.
(The generalaccountsof agriculturaldevelopment presentedin Boxes2.3,2.4, and
2.5 havebeenadaptedfrom the reportsof thee of thesemini-PRAs).
Severaldifferentrankingexercises
werecarriedout by ZCCFSP,
developmentof a candidatecash crops matrix; and (b) a method to quantify
indigenoustechnicalknowledge(QuIK). The first methodwasnot aimedspecifically
at incorporating
localknowledgein its design,but the secondmethodwas.
PRA fares little better in assistinglocal peopleto define their problemsand the
possiblesolutionsto these. The problem orientationof PRA has alreadybeen
discussedin Chaptertwo. Askingpeoplewhattheir problemsare,andwhat solutions
they can envisage, is not necessarily the best way of identifliing needs and
opportunitiesandthe structuralfactorswhich underliethem; it shouldcertainly not be
the only way. PRA often resultsin a 'shoppinglist' of local wishes;and it is not
unusualfor the agencyconductingit to selectjust one or two itemsfrom this list for
furtheraction. Researchand development activitiesinevitablyraiseexpectationsin
the communities in which they are undertaken;PRAs do this to an even greater
degreethan normal,but frequentlyfail to deliver.
However, using the PRA packageis not necessarilythe best way to achieve
participationor train field staff, especiallyif the outcomesof an exerciseare
superficial or inaccurate;participation is pointless if it leads to unfulfilled
expectationsand misguidedproposalsfor action. Similarly, there is no point in
trainingfieldworkersto usetechniques whichdo not necessarily
producedthe desired
resultsandwhich may discourage themfrom thinkingfor themselves.A muchbetter
approachis to 'unpack' PRAsand usevariousPRA tools in a more selectiveway;
recognisingwhateachcanandcannotachieve,andcombiningthem,wherenecessary,
with other(in somecasesmore'traditional')methods.
Ironically,the mostusefultechnique,'semi-structured
interviewing',is a 'traditional'
technique drafted into the PRA package under a new and technical name.
Open-endedinterviewing hasbeenaroundfor much longer than PRA and is usedby
anthropologistsand others as a standardmeans of eliciting and exchanging
informationin the field. Asking peoplequestionsand respondingto their queriesis
an everydaysocial activity, not just the principalelementin so-called'participant
observation'.Trainingfield staffto do this well, andto recordthe outcomesof their
interactions,is relativelyeasy,as most peoplepossessbasic discursiveskills. In
additionto participatingdirectlyin otherpeople'sactivities,talking and listeningto
them is one of the most powerlulmeansavailablefor establishingand maintaining
socialrelationships (or engendering'participation').As we will seebelow,effective
communicationis essentialto understanding and engaginglocal knowledgeand
practicein any context.
Diflerent approachesto on-farm trials were tried, someof which were subsequently
modifiedor rejected.For example,pilot trials basedon the commercialdevelopment
of a single crop were dropped. Within a given area,farmerswere identified (opento
any farmer), potential traders were found, and planting materials were distributed.
The mainproblemswith were: the difliculty of conectlyidentifringa crop with real
scope for expansionto commercial scale; the usual problems of farmers'
expectations;and the difficulty of providing sufficient good quality planting material
at the right time.
l0
changingpractice,and identificationof potentiallysustainablemanagement options.
A casestudy approachwas adopted,and differencesin practiceaccordingto gender
and land tenurearrangementswere identified. This helpedin the targetingof species
accordingto householdandgenderneeds.
The pros and cons of working with FRGs,farmer networksand various intermediate
forms of institution,havebeenextensivelydiscussedin the literature(for example,
Drinkwater, 1994). Participatoryresearchwith FRGsundoubtedlyhas the potential
for buildingon local knowledgeandpractice;ideally,researchprioritiesshouldarise
from the problemsand opportunitiesfacedby the farmers within the group. If it is
well chosenand representative, new ideasor technologiesdevelopedby the group
will be relevantto a wide sectionof the farmingcommunitywithin the area. Froman
organizational pointof view, it is easierto work with a groupof 15 farmersthanwith
individuals. If farmersdrop out, otherscanjoin; therewill be a groupmemoryof
what hasbeendone,and thereis more chancethat activitieswill continueif project
assistanceends. The leaming processwill be quicker as farmerscan exchange
information and leam from each others' experiences. Other potential benefits of
group co-op€rationinclude sharingresources,collectivemarketing,and attracting
attentionfiom other organizations.FRGscan providea mediumfor trainingboth
researchand extensionstaff, and the farmersthemselves.
Some problemswere common to both the FRGs and the AF network becausethe
network was also researcher-created and neededresourcesto bring its members
together. However,the individuals and groups comprisingthe network were more
'natural' in a way that the FRGswere not; the problems
of representativenesscould
be overcome becausetheir geographicaldispersal covered much more variation,
including socio-economicvariation, and enabledmore effective targeting. Networks
alsohelpto dissolvethe research andextensiondichotomy.
Local knowledge and practice shape, and are shaped by, patterns of social
differentiationandthe socio-cultural,historical,institutionalandpolitical contextsin
which they emergeandchangeover time. An understanding of the diversityof local
knowledgeand practiceimpliesa needto understand socialdifferencesin the local
context(suchasthe socialorganization ofthe family,kin, andcommunity;and social
relationsof power,gender,and land tenure)andhow theserelateto wider processes
of social,economicandpolitical change.This reflectsboth the 'actor-oriented'and
'neo-structuralistpolitical-economy'
approachesalready outlined and their
importancein understanding local knowledgeand practicein the contextof social
changeat the microandmacrolevel.
t4
Much of the recentliteratureon local knowledgesystemshighlightsthe importanceof
institutionalchangeat both the micro-andmacrolevel. At the microJevel,the need
to work with and throughexisting organisationsis an areaof specialconcem(Pretty,
1995;Scooneset al., 1994;Warrenet al., 1995) However,as Bebbingtonstates,
"despite the importance accorded it,
to the theme of local organisationsremains
underdeveloped"Q99a:212). The participatoryapproach,and the use of rapid PRA
methods such as Venn diagramming techniques to describe different Opes of
institution,doeslittle to overcomethis problem. An explicit institutionalapproachis
neededto providea thoroughanalysisof local institutionsand their complexand
sometimesconflictingpractices. An understanding of institutionaladaptationand
innovation(and the negotiationprocessesfrom which they emerge)asa form of local
practice is a useful entry point to this kind of analysis. Further to this is an
understandingof the changingconditionswhich give rise to institutional innovation.
Bebbingtonnotesthat if organizationsareto be the agentsof a strategywhich is based
on local knowledge,it is necessaryto "understandthe conditionsthat will structure
the possibilitiesandtendencies of that agency"(1994:212). This pointsagainto the
importanceof both structureand agencyapproachesto our understandingof local
knowledgeandpractice,and institutionalpracticein particular.
15
Observationis a simpleyet effectivetool for understanding local practice.Whether
informalor systematic,the needfor researchers to usetheir own observations as well
asthoseofthe local people,is againbasedon the premisethat what peoplesaythey
do often differs from what they actually do. However, the role of observationis
frequentlyunderestimated by practitionersengagedin participatoryresearch. This
may be partlybecausethey associate it with the moreconventional, time-consuming
and extractivemethodof 'participantobservation'usedin anthropological research.
The way forward may therefore involve a synthesisof the two (i.e. participatory
researchand participant observation)which recognizesthat both have somethingto
teachthe other (Nelsonand Wright, 1995).The practicalimplicationsof this are
clearlyspeltout by Richards,whoseinterpretation of 'participantobservation'in its
mostactivesenseis particularlyuseful:
"Where time and resourcespermit there is little
doubt that 'participant observation'(i.e. taking part
directly in the farm work, preferablyacrossa full farming season)is the best of thesediagnostictools
(Johnny,1979; Richards,1985). Some apparentlyfamiliar problemstake on an sltogethernew
significance whenseenfrom a participant's perspective"(1985:l5l).
The case study approachtakes a different starting point and begins with local
knowledgeand practicein context,ratherthan problemdiagnosis. It assumesthat
farmers and other actors are already conducting research, finding solutions to
problems,and sometimessharingthem with others(whetherintentionally by word of
mouth, or unintentionallyby demonstratingtheir efficacy). Casestudiesconcentrate
on understanding the processof innovation(technicalczd institutional),the meansof
its spread,and the existingpracticesor opportunitieswhich can be most effectively
engaged.In termsof the wider influenceswhich impedeor give rise to innovation,
the casestudy is most concernedwith the ways in which theseinfluencesare locally
perceivedand contextualized.The tool set for the casestudy is more basicthan for a
PRA and relies simply on semi-structured interviewsand farm observations.The
time frame dependson the resourcesavailable and the amount of researchalready
undertakenin the area. Furthercasestudiescarried out at regular intervalsand with
differentobjectiveswill maintainthe regularandcontinuedcontactto whichRichards
refers.
l7
for cashcropson both islands. Productionand marketingstudiescarriedout for a
wide rangeof cropsled to the formulationof cashcrop strategiesin collaboration
with farmersand traders. The developmentof a SpiceStrategyfor Pembaand the
ZaruibarMango Strategyare prominentexamples.All the casestudiesfocusedon
understanding local knowledgeand practicein the contextof developingcashcrop
productionand marketing,with an emphasison identifyingand further developing
e-ristingopportunities.Basedon the premisethat farmersand tradersare already
carryingout researchandfindingsolutionsto their problems,oneofthe attractionsof
this kind of approachis that it canbe usedto maximizescarceresources,
especiallyin
contemporary Zanzibarwherefundsfor researchareextremelylimited.
l8
An ethnobotanicalapproachto understandinglocal knowledgeand practice is
concemedwith the plant-human intenelationshipsat the interfaceof peoplewith their
environments.In the wordsof Alcom, "ethnobotany is the studyof contextualised
plantuse"(1995:24). Traditionally,ethnobotanical researchhasbeenframedby the
technicalapproachto IK andthe socialusesand management of planl specieshave
frequentlybeenoverlooked.Ethnobotanical studieshavealsotendedto be extractive,
for examplein their emphasisupon identifldngmedicinalplants for commercial
exploitation. More recently,however,someworkershavewidenedtheir conceptof
ethnobotanyand emphasizedthe needto concentrateon the ecologicalcontextsand
dynamic aspectsof plant-humaninteractions. This approachcan be particularly
fruitful if associated
with effortsto develop(or reinstitute)an ecologicallysustainable
agticulture. If ethnobotanicalsurveysare undertakenas part of a wider effort to
understandland tenure and other relationships(including genderdifferencesin
resource use and managementpractices), shifting the focus of interaction from
researchto actionand from understanding to engaging(seeBox 3.6) is only a small
step.
t9
multipurpose trees and shrubs for agroforestry,involved an ethnobotanical
assessment of the usesand management of tree,shruband herb speciesfound in the
forestsand agricultural lands of the coral rag. Field researchwas carried out by a
teamcomprisingfarmers,foresters,agronomists, agroforesters,local botanistsand an
anthropologist. An important startingpoint was understandinghow land tenure and
genderrelationsinfluencedlocalpeople'saccessto, andconhol,of coralrag landand
how this in tum influencedtheir use and management of the indigenousspeciesit
supported.The informationcollectedduringthis exercisewasanalysedby the whole
researchteam, and then taken back to the farmers involved in order to generatea
discussionof agroforestry opportunitiesandfutureresearchplans.
20
Engagingsuccess
Conclusion
)l
Many more examplescould havebeenprovidedand somepointsmentionedbriefly
couldhavebeendevelopedfurther. However,it is hopedthat sufficientdirectionhas
beengiven to enablereadersto pursuethis task for themselves.So far, we have
focusedlargely on local knowledgeand practicein its narrow definition, where
'local' refersto the world of the primary
targetsof development
intervention.In the
next chapter,we will expandour argumentto a wider arena,and considerthe
knowledgeand practiceof projectsand the differentactorsand institutionsdirectly
associated with themat a moreinclusivelevel.
22
CHAPTER FOUR
Introduction
Theexternal interventiondebate
It is the ground betweenthese two positions, termed the hybrid model in this paper, that offers
opportunitiesfor the developmentof project methodologiesthat are both desirableand feasible. This
searchfor improvedmethodologiesis not for one optimal project identificationprocedure,but for the
production of a numberof altemativemethodologiesthat can be recognisedas being more or less
appropriatein certaincircumstances.It is not simply a questionof blueprintversusprocess(Sweet &
Weisel,1979),but a questionofwhich form ofblueprintor process, in whichcircumstances,
andevenof
what meansmay be used to irftegrateblueprint and processapproaches. For rural and agricultural
initiatives in developing countries, where uncertainty is high, knowledge is limited and intended
beneficiariesare commonlyperipheralto centresof local and national decision-makingpower, then
processapproacheswhich make a seriousattempt at beneficiaryparticipationand informal institution
buildingare likely to be mostrelevant.
Reg ( l99l ) arguesthat "If we want to give indigenousSWC [soil and water
conservation]and other forms of local environmentalknowledgea real chance,then
conventional projectdesignshouldbe thoroughlychanged":
"Many donor
agenciesfield a numberof missionsfor projert identification,preparationand appraisal.
Thesemissionsoften lake 3-4 weeksin the field followedby a similarperiodfor report writing at
headquarters,they involve severalconsultantsand gaps of severalmonths betweeneach missionare
common.Thisdesignchainis highlyinadequate. Projectidentification missions tendto spendhalftheir
time in the field talking to public administrators,staff of various ministries(agriculture,environment)
andto somerepresentatives ofthe targetgroup- oftenvillageelite. The restofthe time is spentin the
capitalon data collection(censusdata,pricedata,etc.) and on discussing with ministriesand donor
agencies.This type of identification missionis usuallynot in the positionto identi8/and analyselocal
perceptions,prioritiesandenvironmentalknowledge.Assumingsomecontinuitybetweenwhat hasbeen
identifiedandwhat hasbeenappraised,it is importantthat identificationmissionsget it right. Therefore
the emphasisduring designshould shift from appraisalto identification. A solution is to field small
identificationmissions (2 or 3 consultants
insteadof6 or 7), who know the regionwell andareprepared
to stay3 monthsin thefield."(Reij 1991:15).
Project objectives
ZCCFSPwas both an institutionin its own right and a part of other institutionsto
varying degrees. It was fundedby ODA who also directly employedsomeof its
expatriate TCOs (Technical Co-operationOflicers) and, through a different
arrangement,the APOs (AssocateProfessionalOfficers) attachedto the project.
OtherTCOswereemployedtkough NRI (which,until it was privatizedin the final
monthsof the project,was the 'scientific arm' of ODA) who managedZCCFSP.
Apartfrom supplyingfundingandstaff,ODA's mainrole wasto provideadvisoryand
relatedinputsvla the British DevelopmentDivision in EastemAlrica (BDDEA), its
regionaloffice in Nairobi, Kenya. The most important inputs were providedthrough
annualreviewmissions,includinga majormid-termrevieworganizedby BDDEA in
late1993.
Ihstitutionaloplions
(ii) to better addressthedistributional and rocial impactsofpolicies andprojectsby brealing down the
analysisto assessseparatelythe interestsof, and impactsof intervention o4 diferent stakeholders.
Considerationis also gjvento trade-ofls betweendiferent policy objectivesand priorities (in particular
betweenenvironmental, economicandequityconsiderations)." (1995:4: italicsin the original)
Ownership and sustainability are perhaps the two most important issues to be
consideredwhen determiningthe institutional form of projects; they are key
considerationsfor institutional interventionat any level and are inextricably
intertwined.To a largeextent,the natureofan institution'sownershipwill determine
its capacityto persistover time, so it would be a mistaketo plan for sustainability
without payingcarefulattentionto ownership.'Ownership'is not a simplevariable
in this contextasmanydifferentinstitutionsmay havea stakein the project. Unless
thereare goodreasonsfor treatingparticularprojectsas one-offin-out interventions,
the emphasisshouldalwaysbe on giving local institutionsas large a sharein the
ownershipof projectsas possible;this will meangiving them control over project
resowces,not just 'paper' shares. Potentialownersor part-ownersmight include
government institutions, NGOs and community-basedorganizations. In some
contexts,it may be appropriateto designprojectsin sucha way that they subsequently
'melt into' an existinginstitutionalframework,disappearing as local institutionsin
their own right. Altematively,theymayremainasindependent local institutionsonce
expaftiatestaffhavebeen replaced.
l0
Much the samecan be saidaboutthe institutionswhich projectsthemselvescreate.
Mosseet al. (1995)discussthe needto identirythe socialconditionsfor sustained
participationwithin rural development projects.Theysuggesttwo linesof attack: to
build into projectsthe ability to analyseand interpretproblems,needsand priorities
as social constructs;and to identifu appropriatesocial contexts(local groups)for
planningandsustainability.SA andSE havethe potentialto fulfil muchofthis work
with a more explicitly institutional focus. The refinement of SA, and the
developmentof methodsfor ensuringSE, also have potentiallykey roles in the
understanding and engagingof local knowledgeand practicein the wider sense.
Although SA and SE are, in effect, elementsof an actor-orientedapproachto
understandingandengaging,they arenot suflicient for all our purposes.SA is not the
sameas structual analysis,thoughthey sharethe sameacronjryn.
Institutiondl actors
ll
was attachedto the Ministry of Trade,Industryand Marketing). In spite of this, there
was a remarkabledegreeof collaboration,and many researchexerciseswere
undertakenjointly (the social anthropologist,in particular,commutedbetweenthe
two islands,asdid his colleagues,althoughlessoften).
t2
Whenemployingeitherexpatriateor nationalpersonnel, carefulconsideration should
be given to the skills requiredby the project. Althoughmultidisciplinaryteamsare
often preferred,they may not be entirely satisfactoryif the expatriatescome from a
rangeof disciplinesbut their nationalcounterpartsare mainly mono-disciplinary.
Multidisciplinarityin itself doesnot necessarily promoteinder-disciplinarity;thereis
oftentoo muchspecialization within teamsand an over-emphasis on technicalrather
than institutional skills. Technical skills are sometimesbest acquiredthrough
consultancy; whenplanningprojects,seriousthoughtshouldbe givento creatingan
effectivebalancebetweenlong-termappointmentsand consultancies.Either role
may be given to nationals,and in somecontextsthe emplolnnentof local staff and
consultants canbringdistinctadvantages (for instance,in termsof familiaritywith the
project area, local language(s), and the institutionsinvolved). The formation of
mixed teamsof expatriatesand nationals,working as equals,is an obviousway of
overcomingthe 'us andthem' syndromereferredto above.
Implicationsfor policy
A strategtfor lhefuture'l
This criticism is valid, but limited by the focus on local knowledge in its
conventional, restrictedsense.Why is the RNRRSonlyaresearchstrategy?Thereis
nothingwrongwith researchas such(andnothingintrinsicallywrong with 'Western
scientificpractice',at leastin its lessdogmaticmanifestations),
but research(either
ours or theirs) must be put into practice. Natural resourcesdevelopmentand
managementappearto have been overlooked. If the RNRRS actually does guide
DFID practiceuntil 2005, the short-termoutlook is grim. This is a criticism,
however,only of the letter (and implied spirit) of the text. DFID is a complex
organizationwith manydifferentstakeholders, includinginstitutionalactorswho are
well awareof theseproblemsand capableof addressing them. The proof will be in
their practice.
Multiple strategies
t4
havenot, eitherbecausethey haveactivelyresisteddoing so, or becauseare largely
ignorantofthe partici patorymovement.
t)
generation(farming included), the creation of casual, unskilled employment
and'safetynets'.
opportunities,
Conclusion
l6
CHAPTERFIVE
CONCLUSION
The following bibliographyis divided into two parts: (1) works relatingto our main
text and the generalissuesdiscussedin it, and (2) works dealing specificallywith
Zavibar and the project experienceswe have used to illustrate the text. We have
includedin it a numberof works which arenot cited directly in the t€xt, but which we
have found useful in the course of preparingand writing it. It does not pretend,
howwer, to be a comprehensive bibliography,either of the mainthemeswe discussor
of the political economyandhistory of dwelopmentinterventionsn Zmzibar.
I. GENERAL
Blaikie, P., Brown, K., Stocking,M, Tang,L., Sillitoe,P. and Dixon, P. (1996)
'UnderstandingLocal Knowledge
and the Dynamicsof Technical Changein
DevelopingCountries', paper presentedto the Socio-economicMethodologies
Workshop(ODANatural ResourcesSysternsProgramme),29-30 April.
Carew-Reid,J., Prescott-Allen,
R., Bass,S. andDalal-Clayon,B. (1994) Strategies
for Nafional Susainable Development: A Handbookfor their Plarning and
Implementation London: EarthscanPublications.
Eyben,R. (1991)'TheProcessApproach',paperpresentedtotheNaturalResrrurces
AdvisorsConference,Bangor,July 1991.
Kendon, G., Walker, D. H., Robertso4 D., Haegitb M., Sinclair, F. L. and
Muetzelfeldt,R. L (1995) 'Supporting CustomisedReasoningin the
AgroforestryDomain', TheNewReviewof ApphedExpen Systems,179-192.
Kiome, R. M. and Stocking,M (1995) 'Rationalityof FarmerPerceptionof Soil
Erosion', Global EnvironmentalChange,5 (4), 281-295
Mosse, D., with the KRIBP Project Team (1996) Local Institutions and Farming
SystemsDevelopment: T1roughts from a Project in Tribal WestemIndia, ODI
AgriculturalResearchandExtensionNetworlg PaperNo,64.
ODA (1992) The Process Approach to Projects, Technical Note No.4, Aid
Economicsand SocialDepartment,ODd London.
Popper, K. (1966) The Open Society and its Enemies (fifth edition, revised).
London: Routledge& KeganPaul.
Sinclair,F. L., Muazelfeldt, R., Robertsoq D., Haggitb M., Walker, D. H., Kendon,
G. and Randell, D. (1995) Formal Representdtionand Use of Indigenms
Ecologicnl Krumledge About Agroforestry, final report of ODA Forestry
ResearchProgrammeProjectR4731.
2. ZANZIBAR
FAO (1995) Formulation of a National Forest Policy for knzibar, report to the
Govemmentof the United Republicof Tanzania.Rome: FAO.
ll
About theauthors