You are on page 1of 85

.

I | , a -
' 1a
\ iC / ^ fI zLi nr LA! !h C , /y l'1 +
t I L
I

UNDERSTAI{DING and ENGAGING


LOCAL KNOWLEDGE and PRACTICE

Practical Approachesto Natural ResourcesResearchand Development

illustratedby projectexperiences
in Zanzibar

by

Martin T. WalshandSharonP. Harvey

1997

NaturalResources Institute
Universityof Greenwich
CONTENTS

Preface

Chapterl: INTRODUCTION x

Chapter2: REDEF'INING LOCAL KNOWLEDGE ANI)


PRACTICE

Chapter3: UNDERSTANDINGAND ENGAGING LOCAL


KNOWLEDGE AND PRACTICE

Chapter4: T]NDERSTANDING AND ENGAGING PROJECT


PRACTICE

Chapter5: CONCLUSION x

Bibliography
BOXES ACCOMPAI\TYINGTHE TEXT

Box l. I T,anzibr,r: historical background

Box 2.I The cuftigensand cultivarsof Zanzibar

Box2.2 Leopardsand witchcreft on Unguje

Box2.3 The declineofclove productionon Pemba

Box2.4 Agricultural devclopmentin casternPembr

Box 2.5 Agricultural innovationin northern Unguja

Box 3.1 The evolution of PRAs in ZCCFSP

Box 3.2 Ranking experiencein ZCCFSP

Box 3.3 On-farm trials in ZCCFSP

Box 3.4 Flrmer reselrch groups end networks in Zlnzibrl.

Box3.5 Understandingrnd engaginginnovationwith cese


studies

Box 3.6 Engaging traditional agroforestry practicc for


sust*inebleland use

Box 4.I ZCCFSPas a local institution

Box4.2 Disciplinarity,interdisciplinarityand participation


within ZCCFSP
PREFACE

This book, as its title suggests,is aboutunderstandngand engagSng local knowledge


and practicein the context of natural resourcesresearchand development. It has its
immediate origins in our recently-completedwork for the ODA-funded and
NRl-managedZanzibarCashCropsFarmingSystemsProject(ZCCFSP). In particular
it grew out of our joint preparationof a workshop on the subjectof 'Methodologies
for ParticipatoryResearchand Extension'for the staff of the Ministry of Agriculture,
Livestock andNatural Resources,our host institutionin Zanzibar. In writing the book
we have rangedmore widely than we did in our workshop presentations,examining
local knowledge and practice in their wider context rather than focusing upon
'participatorymethods'per se.

Our approachto local knowledgeand practicereflects our diferent and overlapping


backgrounds. One ofus (N[fW) is a social anthropologistwith an active interestin
ethnobiologyand communitywildlife management;while the other (SPII) has wide
experienceof agroforestryand farmerparticipatoryresearc[ with a specialinterestin
the socialaspectsof local ecologicalknowledgein community-based natural resource
management.We do not claim to haveanythingradicallynew to say,only perhapsa
different way of expressingit, As active 'developmentpractitioners' we have had
preciouslittle time in which to write this book, but havehad to work arounda variety
of other commitmentswhile basedoverseas.To makelife more difficult, neitherofus
had accessto ow own collectionsof the relevantliterature (MTW's library being in
storage,and SPH's having been conzumedby fire, along rJeithher house and other
worldly goods).

If we succeedin enrichinganyone'sknowledgeor enliveningtheir practice,then it is


duein no smallmeasureto the zupportandencouragement ofthe manyinstitutionsand
individualswho havehelpedus. Our primaryinstitutionaldebt is to NRI, in particular
to the Head and other staff of the Social SciencesDepartment,the staff of the
Publishing and Publicity Group, and the staff of the library. We also received
invaluableassistance and advicefrom researchers and other staff of the IIED Resource
Centre in London; the School of DevelopmantStudiesin the University of East
Anglia; and the Schoolof Agricultural and Forest Sciencesin the University of Wales
at Bangor. For their direct andindirectcontributionsto this book, andmuchmore,we
would also like to thank all of our past and presentcolleaguesin the Ministry of
Agriculture, Livestock andNatural Resources(MALNR) in Zanzibar;especiallythose
who worked for ZCCFSP,as well as other staff of the Commissionfor Researchand
Extension and the Commissionfor Natural Resources,including membersof the
Jozani-ChwakaBay ConservationProject (JCBCP). Last, but not least,specialthanks
are due to our familiesand friendsin MombasaandZanzibarfor toleratingour absence
from their lives while writing this book, and for performingmore than their ordinary
shareof domesticlabour,child-careincluded.
In so far aswe fail to enrichanyone'sknowledgeor enliventheir practice,then noneof
the aboveshouldbe blamed. The responsibilityis entirelyours.
CHAPTERONE

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)

The abovequotationis takenfrom the author'sown paraphraseofan earlier pap€ron


'The irrelevanceof
developmentstudies'(1989). We havequotedit herebecauseit
sumsup our own perspective, and toucheson someof the principalthemesof this
book. Like Edwards,we areboth 'developmentpractitioners',and duringour work
'in the field'
over a numberof yearswe have often wonderedjust how relevant
'developmentstudies'are to
our everydaypractice. Unlike manyofour colleagues,
however,we havefoundtime to readsomeof the recentdevelopment literature,and
in the chapterswhich follow havetried to combinesomeof its best argumentswith
our owrr insightsgainedfrom field experience. We hope that the result will be
'useful' in 'secondaxy'
the way thatEdwardssuggests researchcanbe, andthat it will
helpto changethe attitudesofour fellow practitioners
to the ultimatebenefitofthose
they practiseupon(but shouldpractisewith).

Our main concernis how to understand andengagepeople'sknowledgeandpractice


in a developmentcontext,and more specificallyin the contextof naturalresources
researchanddevelopment.Understanding andengagingarecriticalactivitiesin these
contexts;they specifuthe development practitioners'task much more preciselythan
the increasinglynebulousexhortationto 'participate' does. We have not used
'participation'
as the binding thread of this book, but have asked instead
'participationwith whom?',
and 'participationhow?'. Unless the participatory
imperativeis definedin this way, it eitherlosesits meaningor remainsa one-sided
recommendation for oneparticularsetof interactionsin the development arena.This
is not to saythat the emphasisuponparticipationhasitself becomeirrelevant,or is
without value for developmentpractice. It has undoubtedly served an important
purposein changingthe attitudesof at leastsomepractitionerstowardsthe people
who meantto be the primarybeneficiaries oftheir projects.It is now time, however,
to building on the (theoretical)gainsof the pastquartercenturyand recognizethat
significant(practical)deficitsstill remain.

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.

In chapterfour, the questionof engagingprojectpracticeis considered.We discuss


what we call the 'extemal interventiondebate',returningagain to some earlier
theoreticalthemesand arguingthat interventionhasto be constructivelyengagedand
not naively rejected. Different proposalsfor incorporating local knowledge into
project practice are then considered,focusing on local knowledge as it is
conventionallyunderstood.In the secondhalf of the chapter,projectsare examined
as local institutionsand the implicationsof this approachare exploredin terms of
differentinstitutionaloptionsandthe waysin whichthe skills of projectactorsmight
be improvedto enablethem to understandand engagethe practiceof other actors(as
well as their own) more effectively. Someof the wder implicationsfor policies
relatingto naturalresourcesresearchand developmentare alsooutlined. The final
chaptersummarizesour argument.
Illustrative material

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.

l.l Zanzibar: historicalbackground

Zanzibarcomprisestwo islands(anda numberof smallerislets)off the coastof East


Africa. The largestisland,Unguja,has a surfacearea of about 1600 km2: The
capital,Zanzibartown, is locatedon Unguja. The smallerisland,Pemba,hasan area
ofabout 1014kmr. It lies some50 km to the northof Ungujaandis separated
from it
by a deepseachannel.

Thetopographies ofUnguja andPembaaresuperhciallysimilar,thoughtherearealso


importantdifferences.Both islandscanbe roughlydividedalonga north-southa.xis;
the westemside of each island is more elevatedand has deepersoils, while the
easternlandsare flatterand litteredwith outcropsof limestone,generallyreferredto
as 'coral rag'. The coralragof Ungujais extensive,dominatingthe southernhalf, the
eastand the far north of the island. The west of Pembais hillier and more deeply
dissected, andthecoralragis largelyrestrictedto its eastemfringe.

Thetropicalclimatemeansthat it is hot andhumidfor mostof the year. The westem


areashavea high rainfall (over2000mm/yearin someinlandlocations),which falls
in two mainseasons:masika(abouMarch-May)andvali (aboutOctober-December).
The coral rag is somewhatdrier, and the vzrli rains in theseareasare notoriously
unreliable. The naturalvegetationof the islands(of which little survives)reflects
their topographyand micro-climate;moist forestonce dominatedthe westemhills
andvalleys,anddry forestdominatedthecoralrag.

The islandswere first settledby Swahili-speaking fishers,farmersand livestock-


keepersaroundthe middle of the first millenniumAD. Different Swahili groups
continuedto migate to Unguja and Pemba in the centurieswhich followed.
Meanwhile,the annualmonsoonwindsbroughttradersfrom acrossthe IndianOcean,
especiallyfrom the PersianGulf andthe southemArabianPeninsula.Someof these
tradersandtheir followerssettledpermanently,
inter-marryingwith the local Swahili
ion and adontinstheir The middleof the millenniumsaw
the beginningsofa protractedstrugglefor politicaldominationoverthe coastaltowns
betweenOmani Arabs and the newly arrived Portugese. The latter were finally
ousted at the end of the 17th century and henceforth Zarzibar was ruled by an
independentline of Omani Arab sultans(who had earlier broken away from their
cousinsin Muscat).

The economy of the sultanaterevolved around ffade in slaves,ivory, and natural


productsobtainedfrom the mainland. h Zavlbu itself (and the parts of the coastal
strip which were under Zara;ibari control), Omani Arab landownersdeveloped a
systemof plantationagriculturebasedon the labourof importedslaves. In the 19th
century,most of the forestsof westernUnguja and Pembawere clearedto make way
for theseplantations(theseare still referredto asthe 'plantation areas',in contrastto
the lessproductivelandsof the coral rag). A largenumberof exoticcultigenswere
introducedduringthis period,especiallyfruits andspices.The mostimportantof the
spiceswascloves,first introducedin the early 19thcentury.Realizingtheir potential,
in 1834SultanSeyyidSaid orderedhis fellow Arab landownersto plant cloves;in
doing this, he unwittingly laid the foundation for an era of agricultural prosperity
whichwasto lastfor the next 150years.

Increasing European involvement in the affairs of Zatvibar culminated in the


establishment of a British Protectoratein 1890. The British governedthe islands
throughsuccessive sultanswho therebylost much of their independence as well as
their mainlandpossessions.The new colonial authoritiesabolishedslaveryand
ensuredthat cloveproductionwasmaintainedby substitutingslaveswith paid labour.
In subsequentdecades,they intervenedon more than one occasionto counterthreats
to the clove economy,guaranteeing the laboursupplyand preventingthe transferof
plantationsto Indian moneylenders. They also made a number of (largely
unsuccessful)attempts to foster agricultural diversification. However, cloves
continued to reign supremethrough to, and beyond, the granting of Zanzlbar's
independence in 1963.

In January1964,the govemmentof the Sultanwas overthrownin a bloody coup,


known as the ZatuibarRevolution,organizedaroundoppositionto continuingArab
dominance. In April 1964, the leader of the new RevolutionaryGovemment,
PresidentKarume, agreedto the unification of Zanzibarwith mainland Tanganyika,
creatingthe United Republicof Tanzania. Karume,while remainingPresidentof
Zanzibar,alsobecameVice-Presidentof Tanzania,with Nyerereas its first President.
Zanzibu retained its own elected Council of Representativesand various
non-strategicministries, including those responsiblefor agriculture and the
environmentof the islandsin general.Karumeand his successors followedsocialist
policies for the next two decades,an era characterizedby excessivestateintervention
in the economyandmanyotherwalksof life.

The mid-1980susheredin a gradualshift towardseconomicliberalization. This


changein policy wasalsocarriedacrossto mainlandTanzaniawhereits impactwas
subsequentlyevenmore evidentimpact. The 1990shavebeencharacterized by a
combinationof both economicand political cri a drastic decline in
world clovepricesandthe introductionof multi-partypolitics. The negativeimpacts
of botl of thesedevelopments havebeenfelt mostseverelyon Pembawheremostof
the clovesare produced,and where the vast majority of the populationvoted for the
oppositionCUF (Civic United Front) party dwing the first national multi-party
electionsin 1995. Many observerswereunhappywith the way theseelectionswere
conducted,as well as with the ruling CCM (Chama cha Mapinduzi, Revolutionary
Party)govemment'ssubsequent teatment of Pembans.In early 1996,mostwestem
donorsfroze their aid to Zarulbar, and a numberof bilateral projectsendedabruptly
without any promise of renewed funding. So far, however, the Revolutionary
Govemmentof Zanzibarhas weatheredthis storm, while intemational trade through
the port, and the growing popularity of Zaraibar as a tourist destination, have
continuedto stimulateeconomicsrowthin Zanzibartown.
CHAPTERTWO

REDEFTNING
LOCAL KNOWLEDGEAND PRACTICE

Introduction

Whatarelocalknowledgeandpractice?More to thepoint,whatdo we meanby local


knowledgeand practice? The simple answeris 'what people say and do in a
particularcontext',whetherthis contextis specifiedlocationally,institutionally,or
otherwise. We do not necessarilyequate 'local' with 'rural', 'p€asant', or
'indigenous',
asmanywritersdo. In our usageit rnayreferto anygoup of actorsin a
specifieddevelopment arena,includingthe staffof projects,aid agencies,
andoutside
comm€ntators(such as ourselves). The phrase 'stakeholders'knowledge and
practice'is perhapstechnicallymore accurate.However,we havepreferred'local
knowledgeand practice', largely becauseit is less cumbersomeand reflectsour
in the 'indigenousknowledgedebale'.
starting-point

We have reformulated'knowledge'as 'what people say' for two main reasons-


Firstly, we are dissatisfiedwith the way in which the term (or rather construct)
'knowledge'has
beenusedin recentdevelopment discourse.In this context,the word
'knowledge'drawsattentionaway from
systematicconsideration of people'sideas
andopinionsby nanowlyfocusingon oneparticularaspectofthem. The complexity
of actors' mental and verbal actions is thereby reducedto a single construct
('knowledge'),packagedin a form whichis convenientlycompatiblewith the notions
andprejudicesof thepackagers themselves.

Secondly,it is evidentthat our knowledgeof other people'sknowledgeand other


aspectsoftheir mentalworld is primarilybasedon interpretation ofwhat theysayand
do. 'Kaowledge'is not a physicalentitywhich canbe handledor observeddirectly,
althoughit maybe temptingto think of it this way. Eliciting indigenousor any other
kind of knowledgeis a complexenterprise,and a combinationof strategiesmay be
used to reconstructthe knowledgeof any given individual or group_ Direct
questioningis one strategyand observationof relevantpracticesis another. This
process is mediated by language,and is particularly evident in studies of
ethnotaxonomy(indigenousclassification)when researchersdistinguishbetween
explicit andimplicit categories,
signallingthe fact that the laftercan only be infened
from informants'statements andbehaviour.

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.

Starting with knowledge

T'heimportanceof indigenous
knowledge'

Over the pastdecadeor so, the conceptof indigenousknowledge'has becomean


integral part of developmentorthodoxy. In the introduction to a recent review
('Moving the IndigenousKnowledgeDebateForward?'),Thompsonprovidedthe
followingsuccinctaccountof its riseto prominence:
"D*ailed study
of indigenous knowledge(IK) date3backto the late 1970swhentwo seminalcollected
works drew togetherresearchthat examinedthe capacities,skills and rationaleof peasantfarmersand
pastoralists.
Thefirst,a specialissueofthe 1DS8ll//etn (HowesandChainbers, 1979),hadwidespread
influencedespitea limitedcirculation.The secondcollection@rokensha et al., 1980),published
a year
later,provedto be evenmoreofa landmarktext. Thereafter, a numberof otherinfluentialbooks(e.g.
Cemea,1986;Richards,1985;Chambers, l9E3) arguedforcefullyfor the involvementof local people
and the incorporation of their knowledge into processesof technologicaldevelopment. From the
mid-1980sresearchinto IK expandedrapidly. SeveralintemationalIK resourcecentresare currentlyin
operation,with yariousintemationallyco-ordinatedresearch
programmes, andfollowingAGENDA2l a
globalnetworkof indigenous people'sorganisationshasbeenestablished to promotepoliciesprotecting
indigenous property rights to genetic resourcesand supporting the conservation of indigenous
knowledgeofbiodiversitywithinthecontextin whichit hasdeveloped." (1996:105)

The need to record, understandand incorporate'indigenousknowledge' into


developmentpracticein someconstructiveway is well establishedin professional
circles. As the blurb accompanying on€ recentcollectionof essaysputs it: "The
mainconclusions from this impressiveanay of expertiseis that local peopledo know
a greatdealabouttheir environment, in which they haveoftenlived for generations;
andthis knowledgemustbe takeninto accountin the planningandimplementation of
development, if this is to be acceptableto the people,and effective"(Wanen et al.
1995:back cover). Accordingto the proponentsof indigenousknowledge',its
importancefor developmentis no longeran issue(note herethe assumptionthat it
once was). The challenge,rather,is to translatethe recognitionof this fact into
practice.
'Naive'snd 'sophisticated'
conceptiowof indigenous
krutwledge'

This is easiersaidthandone,not leastbecause'indigenousknowledge'hastumedout


to be a much more complexaffair than its originalproponentsthought. Reviewing
the (relativelyshort)historyof the notionof indigenousknowledge',it is possibleto
distinguishbetweentwo differentconceptions, one which might be characterisedas
'naive' and the other 'sophisticated'.
as This is no doubt an over-simplification;
differentcommentators draw the dividing line betweenthe naiveconception(s) they
criticise and the sophisticatedone(s)they advancein different ways, giving them
differentlabels(for example,compareScoones andThompson,1994,with Blaikie er
al., 1996). Despitetheir differences,however,the theoristsagreethat a paradig'rn
shift of somekind hasoccurred(or shouldoccurif their prescriptionsare followed).
We concurwith this view, and in the following sectionsprovideour own perspective
on the 'naive' and 'sophisticated'conceptions
of indigenousknowledge',indicating
wherewe think the debateis leadingto (or shouldlead to if orr prescriptionsour
followed).

Indigenousknowledgeas technicalkttowledge

The 'naive' conceptionof indigenousknowledge'(IK) stressesits technicaland


instrumentalaspects. This is capturedperfectly in the once favoured formulation
'indigenoustechnicalknowledge'(ITK),
which is still usedby manypractitionersin
the field. A similar orientationis implied in pluaseslike 'indigenousagricultural
knowledge'(IAK) and'indigenousecologicalknowledge'(IEK), which specig'the
particulartechnicalfield underinvestigation. Theseexpressionsreveal the basic
assumptionunderlyingthe naiveconceptionof IK, that it can,and shouldbe, treated
as the mirror image(or seriesof local images)of formal scientificknowledge,the
knowledgewhich researchers themselveshavegainedthroughtheir training in, and
applicationof, the universalprocedures
of scientificenquiry.

Thosepossessing IK areassumed to havearrivedat (at leastsome)valid conclusions


aboutthe environmentin whichtheylive, andhowto manageit, tkough a cumulative
processof trial anderror. This processis conceivedasbeingparallelin somewaysto
that ofscientific experiment, andthoughgenerallylesssystematic, is believedto have
producedresultswhich arenot only comparable with, but in manycasessuperiorto,
those reachedby scientists,especiallyin contextswhere the latter have limited
experience.With this scenario- or somemore cautiousversionof it - in mind, the
taskof development practitionersis "first to empowerlocal peoplevis-i-vis research
scientistsand developmentplannerswho, it is assumed,will be convincedof
indigenous'wisdom' only throughscience;and second,to 'blend' IK with formal
Westernsciencein theresearch anddevelopment process"(Thompson,I 996: 106).

This,the originalconceptionof IK, evolvedin the wakeof the increasingadvocation


of 'participatory'approaches to development.If sustainabledevelopmentwas to
dependon people'sparticipationin the development process,it madesenseto take a
'bottom-up' look at their own
ideas and practicesand act upon these. Some
commentators havethereforelabelledthis the 'populist'or 'neo-populist'approachto
IK (Blaikieet e ., 1996;Thompson,1996). It is the approachwhich dominatesmany
of the contributionsto Farmer Frrsr (Chamberset al., 1989),including the IDS
Workshoppaperon 'Farmer'sKnowledge,Innovations,and Relationto Science'.
Blaikie er. al. (1996)suggestthat the contributionsto BeyondFalmer Fir.st(Scoones
and Thompson,1994),the first pafi of which is devotedto 'TheoreticalReflections
on Knowledge,Power and Practice',belongto the same'neo-populist'paradigm.
According to our own characterization (caricature?)of naive and sophisticated
conceptionsof IK, they do not, although we would a$ee that the influence of the
naiveapproachcontinuesto loomlargein certainrespects.
It is no accidentthatthe naiveconceptionof IK evolved,andhashadmostinfluence,
in the contextof agriculturaldevelopment.In this field, the confiastbetweenformal
scientific researchand indigenouspractice has alwaysbeen sharperthan most. An
importantrole has long been assignedto the expertiseof agronomistsand other
specialists,since well before the Green Revolutionand beyond into the era of
FarmingSystemsResearch(FSR). Given their backgound and training it is not
surprising that enlightenedagricultural experts should have constructedIK in the
imageof their own profession,once it becameobviousthat they could no longer
ignoreit.

Ironically,the sameimpetuscan still be seenin the standardmethodologyof Farmer


ParticipatoryResearch(FPR),despitethe claim that this approachhas been freed
from the top-downorientationof its predecessors.Farmersare typically encouraged
to developtheir own on-farmexperiments,completewith control plots and evaluation
procedures, oftenwith the objectof testingintroducedgermplasm.To a largeextent
farmers are viewed and treated as proto-researchers,working in the image of their
professionalcollaborators. This is undoubtedlypreferableto ignoring them
completelyin the processof researchand development;but unfortunatelyit can
sometimesalso provide an excusefor ignoringtheir practicesoutside,and in the
absence of, projectinterventions.

In some fields, the technicalapproachto IK has been developedto extremesof


scientificprecision. Ethnobotanicalresearchprojectsoften tend in this direction,
especiallywhenthey havea universalscientificgoal (for examplethe discoveryof
globallymarketablemedicines,or the preservation of areaswith a high biodiversity
value)andonly a subsidiaryinterestin the concemsof local people.The work of the
EcologicalKnowledgeResearch Groupin the Universityof Walesat Bangor,andthe,
inputs of this group and othersto the ODA ForestryResearchProgrammeProject,
provide examplesof highly technical approachesin the field of agroforestry
(Southern,1994;Thap,, 1994;Walker, 1994;Kendonet al., 1995;Sinclairer a/.,
1995;Thapaet al.,1995: WalkerandSinclair,1995;Walkeret al., 1995). Studiesof
this kind have the virtue of indicatinghow complexIK can be, even when it is
definedin narrowtechnicaltermsandthe socialandeconomiccontextsin which it is
producedand reproducedare largelyexcludedfrom consideration.

Whenresearchon IK is undertaken by naturalscientists,it is perhapsinevitablethat


certain aspectsare emphasizedat the expenseof others. Eliciting IK, even in
specifiedtechnicalfields,is not the simpleactivitythatit is sometimes assumed to be,
but requiresa rangeof skills. Theseincludethe skills possessed (in theory)by social
scientists,as well as a degreeof linguisticcompetence (at leastsomeknowledgeof
the languagein which the IK is expressed).This last requirementis all too often
neglected,with unfornrnateresults. For example,botanists and others frequently
recordthe vemacularnamesof plants(and evenspeculateon their meanings)with no
more than a crude understandingof the language(s)concemed. Their orthographies
are often inadequate,especiallyin the caseof unwritten languages,and it may even
be unclearwhich languages or dialectsare being recorded.This is a problemwith
manyethnobiological databases collections(seeBox 2.1).
andnotjust ethnobotanical
The simplesolutionis to employand/orseekthe adviceof peoplewho possess the
relevantskills,includingnativespeakers
andcompetentprofessionals (ideallypeople
who areboth).

2.1 The cultigensand cultivars of Zanzibar

An incrediblevarietyof cropsis grownin Zanzibar,morethanin mostotherpartsof


Africa. The great diversityof cultigensreflectsthe geographicalposition of the
islandsand the many and varied historical influencesto which they have been
exposedover the past2000years. ZCCFSPresearchers begantheir examinationof
the viability andpotentialof differentincome-eaming
cropsin Zanzibarwith a list of
42 'candidatecashcrops',mostof which werefruits and spices.Thesecompriseda
merefractionof the known cultigenson the islands,which includea varietyof root
andgraincropstraditionallyclassifiedby theMinistryof Agricultureas 'food crops'.

A furtherlevel of complexityis addedby the fact that farmersrecognizeand namea


largenumberof differentvarietiesof sornecrops,especiallythosewhich havebeen
the subjectof multipleintroductionsand/orwhichhavebeenimportantin the islands'
economyfor manyyears(bananas andrice aregoodexamples).AlthoughZanzibaris
relativelysmalland mostfarmersare nativespeakers of a singlelanguage(Swahili),
thereis also considerable local variationin the namesof recognizedcrop varieties.
This reflectsthe islands'complexculturalandlinguistichistory,which hasfostereda
high degreeof terminologicalheterogeneity, even within the main dialects(more
precisely,dialectcontinua)which linguistsrecognise.As a result,the Swahilinames
of crop varietiesmay differ not only from one areato another,but in someinstances
from villageto village,andevenfrom onelocal speakerto another.

Although Zanzibar has hosted a number of donor-fundedagricultural projects in


recent yea$, relatively few attemptshave been made to record the local namesof
cropvarieties,let alonedescribeandidentifythem,assess their statusascultivars,and
examinetheir useby farmers.In trueGreenRevolutionstyle,researchers havetended
to focusonly on thecropswhichinterestthem,includingthe importedcultivarswhich
theybelieve(not alwayswith justification)to be superiorto local varieties.ZCCFSP
startedto recordinformationon farmers'knowledgeof differentcrop varieties,and
beganto investigatesomeof them (mostnotablymangocultivars)in greaterdetail.
However, this work was never completed,partly becausesome researcherswere
scepticalof its valueandthoughtit wouldconsumetoo muchtime.

A full inventoryof Zanzibar'scultigensandcultivarsandtheir Swahilinameshasyet


to be compiled. The best written sourcesremaina coionial handbook(Williams,
1949) and the informationscatteredin unpublishedreports,some of which was
compiled,albeit uncritically,by Koenders(1992a)in his suwey of agricultureon
Pemba. In manyrespects,Zarzibar'sfarmersare much better informedaboutthe
thanthe researchers andextensionists
who to advisethem.
The compilationof such a list (or lists) shouldnot be seenas an end in itself
("farmers'knowledgeof cropsandcrop varieties"),but as a meansof understanding
farmers'practiceandengagingwith it moreprofitably. The diversityof cultigensand
(presumed)cultivars on Zanzlbw sayssomethingimportant about farmers' past and
present strategies(including diversificationas a strategyto maximize limited
resourcesandminimizerisk).andtheseshouldnot be ienored.

Practitionersoperatingwithin the boundsof the naive conceptionof IK can be


justifiably accusedoffailing to carry their own programmethrough,and of havingtoo
narrowa view of their own practice,the scientificmethodologywhich they are using
to elicit and evaluateIK. This is reflectedin the use of the term 'knowledge'(as
enshrinedin the phrase'indigenousknowledge'and all of its derivatives),as well as
by the commoncall for the needto 'validate'this 'knowledge'. Anyoneschooledin
Popperianprescriptions for scientificmethodwill immediatelyrecogaisetheseusages
as being symptomaticof an outmoded'inductivist' or dogmatically'positivist'
epistemology.A follower of Popper'sopen-ended approachto scientific enquiry
might reasonablywonder why the object of our enterpriseis called 'indigenous
knowledge'.Would it not be moreaccurateto describeit as 'indigenoustheory',or
betterstill ' theeries'?

Sucha revisionofour conceptionof IK (nowIT or ITsl) wouldcarrywith it a number


of advantages.It would serveas a constantreminderthat neitherour theoriesnor
those espousedby others are necessarilyprivileged, and that even those which are
favouredmust alwaysbe treatedas provisional,and never accordedthe certainty of
'knowledge'. It would
encourageus to be more careful in assessing the relation
between,and relativevalue of diflerent theories. Over-enthusiasticproponentsof IK
sometimesfind it embarrassing to admit that IK may be wrong,an embarrassment
which stemsfrom the claim that recognitionof the validity of IK is what separates
it
from earlier approaches.However,if IK is recastas IT, then we shouldbe well
preparedto find that some ITs are less adequatethan others, including our own
theories. The challengeis to explainhow and why sometheoriesare superiorto
others,whatevertheir source.

It is widely believedin sub-SaharanAfrica that physicalcontactwith chameleonsand


their salivacausespoisoningin humansandlivestock. Zoologistshave(as far as we
are aware)found no evidenceto supportthis proposition,and haveno hesitationin
describingit as mistaken,consigningit to the categoryof 'belief. However,a good
IT researcher wouldwantto know how thetheoryof chameleon toxicity arose,how it
spread,andwhy it remainsso prevalent.Only thencouldthe practicalconsequences
of this IT (or setofITs) be addressed,
assumingthattherewasa perceivedneedto do
so (for example,if a particular group of camel herderswas avoiding good browsing
becauseof the presenceof chameleons, or killing a rare speciesin order to avert
sicknessin theirherds).
This semi-hypothetical exampleshowsthat it is not sufficientsimplyto considerone
IT as 'wrong' and anotheras 'right', but that it is importantto explorethe relation
betweenthem and the consequences of this for practice. When it matters,the
incommensurability of theorieshas to be translatedinto the commensurabilityof
practice(for a non-hypothetical exampleof this see Box 2.2). Sometimes,the
problemmay be lessacute,for examplewhen an IT can be readily incorporatedinto a
moregeneraltheorywhichexplainsthesameeventsandmorebesides.In eithercase,
however,the real work beginswhen the practical consequences of theory (whether
'ours' or 'theirs')are
addressed.

2.2 Leopardsand witchcraft on Unguja

The ZanzibarLeopardis unique. It lives solelyon the islandof Unguja,whereit is


the largestcamivore and only wild felid. It has been separatedfrom its mainland
relativesfor morethan 10000years,andsomeauthoritiesconsiderit to be a distinct
subspecies,Pantherapardus adersi. As settlementand agriculturehaveexpandedon
Unguja, the ZanzibarLeopardhas sufferedincreasinglyfrom habitat destructionand
predationby humans.lt is not knownhow manyleopardsremainon the island,but
recentresearchsuggeststhat the populationmay havereacheda critically low level.

Most rural inhabitants believethat althoughsomeleopardsarewild, othershavebeen


bred and fed by groups of witches (wachawi)who usethem to harassand intimidate
their fellow villagers. This belief is elaboratedin manywaysand includesdetailsof
the witches'practice(for example,their useof charmsto sendthe leopardsfrom one
joint-owner to anotherin a different village) which are recountedwith considerable
consistency from one end of the island to the other. These accounts of
leopard-keeping are so convincingthat most people who hear them, including
educated townspeople, acceptthemwithoutquestion-A numberof outsideobservers,
amongthem wildlife researchers, havelikewisebeenpersuaded that theremustbe a
core of truth in thesereports,and more than one has beentaken on a 'wild goose
chase'to seea keptleopard.

Thebelief in leopard-keeping andfearofthe witcheswho keepthemhasa very direct


impact upon people'sattitudesto leopardsand their conservation.Many villagers
would simply like to get rid of them, and throughoutrecordedhistory local hrmters
have trapped,spearedand shot leopards,with addedhelp from their own magical
charms,in order to reducethe threat. Shortly after the 1964ZarulbarRevolution this
culminatedin an island-widecampaign,encouragedby the govemment,to eradicate
leopardsand neutralizetheir allegedkeepersonce and for all- By the mid-1970s,
more than 100 leopardshad been killed in this campaign,which was led by a
witchfinder known as Mzee Kitanzi. The killing has continuedto the presentday,
with the now illegaltradein leopardskinsprovidingan additionalincentiveto local
hunters. Leopard numbers have declined to such an extent that some villagers,
particular the younger generation, are now prepared to consider some way of
ine them. The commonest is to keeo them in a zoo or a more
extensiveenclosureand chargetourists to see them. Many Forestry officials
(includingthoseresponsiblefor wildlife conservation)agreewith this approach,and
suggestthatthe simplestcoursewouldbe to persuade leopard-keepers to displaytheir
kept leopards.

At first sight,the widespreadtalesof leopard-keeping are completelyat odds with


scientific knowledge. However, closer examinationshows that this belief is
constructedaroundan attemptto explain the very real problem of conflict between
human and leopard populations. Villagers designateleopards as wild or kept
accordingto their behaviour. A leopardwhich is seendeepin the bushand flees from
the observeris generallyassumedto be wild, but a leopardwhich doesnot run away,
approachesfarmlandand humanhabitation,and/orwhich posesa threatto the lives of
peopleandtheir livestock(therearemanyrecordsofpredation,includingfatal attacks
on children),is assumedto be kept and acting on the ordersof its owne(s). The
belief in leopard-keeping alsodrawson commonideasaboutthe natue and role of
witches in local society,and functionsas a multi-purposetheory which, amongother
things,explainswhatmightotherwisebe thoughtofas normalbehaviourfor leopards
living in closeproximityto humans.

Equipped with this knowledge (a more general theory which encompassesand


explainsthe 'indigenous'theory),it is easierto approachthe problemof conserving
the ZanzibarLeopard. It is evidentthat local concernsaboutthe 'antisocial' activities
of leopardswill haveto be addressed if their long-termsurvivalis to be assured.The
Jozani-ChwakaBay ConservationProject(which is fundedby CARE Austria) and the
ForestrySectionof the Commissionfor NaturalResources arecurrentlyworkingon a
seriesofproposalsdesignedto balancethe interestsof differentstakeholders involved
in this issue,includingthoseofthe nationalandlocal hunterswho haveactuallybeen
doing the killing. Whetheror not the divergentviews of the different 'experts' can be
reconciled,remainsto be seen;it is more important,perhaps,that some form of
agreement is reachedoverthe coursesofaction whichcanandshouldbe taken.

Indigenousknowledgeas indigenouspractice

Sincethe beginningofthe decade,the naiveconceptionof IK hascomeunderattack


(Bebbington,1991;Fairhead,1991;Long and Long, 1992;Scoonesand Thompson,
1994;Thompsonand Scoones,1994;Thompson,1996). Thesecritics all makethe
point that 'knowledge', including IK, is always socially (culturally, politically,
economicallyetc.)grounded,andthat its articulationin developmentpracticecannot
be separatedfrom questionsof power and the relationsbetweenthe different actors
andagenciesinvolved.ThompsonandScoones state:
"The attempt
to "blend" or "incorporate" local knowledgeinto eisting Westem scientificprocedures
assumesthat rural people's knowledge(RPK) representsan easily definable"body'' or "stock" of
knowledgereadyfor extractionand incorporation. The critics point out, however,that rural people's
knowledge,like Westernscientificknowledge,is alwaysfragmentary,partial, and provisionalin nature.
It is neverfully unified or integratedin termsof an underlyingcultural logic or systemof classification.
Moreover, knowledgeis embeddedin and emergesout of a multidimensionaluniversein which diverse
cultural, economic,environmental,aad sociopoliticalfactors intersectand influenceone another. The
proc€sstskes place on the basisof existingconceptualframeworksand processesand is atrectedby
various social contingencies,such as the capacities,experiences,interests,resources,and pettems of
social interaction characteristicof the particular social group or groups of individuals. Finally,
knowledge,whether"indigenous"or "scientific", is inclusivein the sensethat it is the result of a great
manydecisionsandselectiveassimilationsofprevious beliefs,values,ideas,andimages,but at the same
time exclusiveof other possibleframesof conceptualiz:tionand understanding. Hence, it is not an
accumulationof "facts" but involyesways of comprehendingthe world: knowledgeis always in the
making."(1994:59)

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)

The conceptionof IK espousedin BeyondFarmer L'irst and other recent writings


does provide a more sophisticatedperspectiveon the same subject, (indigenous)
knowledge. Although it promotesa view of knowledgegroundedin practice,it
preservesthe naive conception's prioritization of knowledge over practice, and
thereforecontinuesto pay little attentionto those aspectsof practice cited by
Fanington(and others). A more recentreview of different approachesto IK therefore
combinesthe naive and sophisticated conceptionsunder the label 'neo-populist',
describingthe latter as merely a more radical versionof the former and equally
deficientin its proposalsfor practice(Blail<teet a1.,1996:8-9).

Recallingour earlierdiscussionof the disciplinaxyoriginsof the naiveconception,it


is evidentthat the sameinfluencesexist in the sophisticated conception. A very
different perspectivemight have emergedif the principal exponentsof IK were
writing aboutnatural resourcemanagementratherthan agricultural development: at
the very leastthey would havehadto addressthe resourceconflict issuesmentioned
v
by Fanington.Instead,sociologicalconcemsappearto havebeensimplytackedon to
the originaltechnicalapproach.Althoughthe resulthassomevalue,it falls shortof
the obviousconclusionthatindigenousknowledgeis an aspectof indigenotspractice,
andthat indigenous practiceis muchmorethanthat. On this vien the theoristsof IK
havetravelled an extremelyroundaboutroute to get halfway to a goal which should
havebeentheir startingpoint.

Theoristsof the sophisticatedconceptionof IK claim an impressiveintellectual


pedigree.The list of authoritiescitedby Scoones and Thompson(1994)readslike a
Llho's Who of social theoristsand philosophersof sciencespanningthe past few
decades.The commonthemewhich connectsthe work of thesedifferentauthorities,
including Kuhn, Feyerabend, Habermas,Bourdieu,Foucaultand Denida, is their
rejection (explicit or otherwise)of 'positivism', and in particular of scientific
epistemologyas an adequateaccountof how knowledgeis constructedand scienceis
really carriedout. As Blaikie er al. (1996)suggest,the altemativeswhich they and
the sophisticatedtheoristsof IK sketch out lead inexorablyin the direction of
epistemological andculturalrelativism(this is mostexplicit in Feyerabend's
lgairsl
Method, and should be apparentto anyonervho has followed the developmentof
post-structuralisttheory). This is somewhatunsatisfactorywhen taken to its
inevitableconclusionand translatedinto proposalsfor practice. Some of these
proposals(Blaikie et al. refer to those of the 'extreme' FPR lobby) are clearly
impractical,and are in dangerof leadingto an attitude of 'anl.thinggoes', and
ultimatelyto theabandonment ofpractice.

We all recognizethat knowledgeis socially constructedin the sensethat it is


producedandreproduced in particularsocialcontextswhichmay shapeit in different
ways. However, not all of us are preparedto accept the relativists' implicit
conclusionthat everyone'sknowledgeis equalin the sensethat no one person'sor
group'sknowledgeis moreextensive,accurateor usefulthananother's(we avoid use
of the term'valid' herebecauseit canhavedifferentmeaningsin this context). This
doesnot meanthatwe candecidein advance whoseknowledgeis 'better',or discount
anyone'sknowledgeasbeinginelevant. In a development context(anddevelopment
parlance)the knowledgeof all the stakeholders is relevant,and the challengeis to
searchsharedunderstandings which arenot ownedby any singleparty.

While examiningthe naive conceptionof IK, we intimatedthat a more productive


approachto the whole questionof IK might be to adopt a Popperianperspective,by
treatingindigenousknowledgeas indigenoustheoryor theories(ITs). This approach
providesa readyset of procedures for comparingand evaluatingtheories,regardless
of who holds them, and encorragesus to theorize the theories, in other words to
attemptto explainwhy differenttheoriesare held. This includestheorizationof the
socialdimensionsof theoryand all thoseaspectsof ITs to which the sophisticated
conceptionof IK draws attention. Epistemologicalrelativism can be jettisoned
without losingthe particularinsightsgenerated by its adherents.Popper'sscientific
epistemology is essentiallyaprcscriptionfor practiceratherthana descriptionof that
practice,a point which seemsto havebeenmissedby the majorityof theoristswho
sided.withKuhn in the wakeof their famousdebate.Readerswho wish to pursuethis

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.

The primacy of practice

An anthropologicalperspective

A number of contributorsto the IK debatehave acknowledgedthat before it began


researchon IK was carried out primarily by social (cultural) antkopologists
(Fairhead,1991;Thompson,1996). Most issuesraisedin the debatecan be tracedin
the anthropologicalliterature,where many of them are examinedin considerably
more detail and from a much wider varietyof angles. Anthropologistshave long
grappledwith countlessfacetsof the sociologyof knowledgeamongthe peoplethey
havestudied.However,muchoftheir work remainsunreadby contemporary students
oflK, especiallythosetrainedin otherdisciplines.It is arguablethat ifthey hadtaken
accountofthe existingliterature,thenthe IK debatewouldnot havedevelopedin the
way that it has.

It is alsounlikelythatIK wouldhaveremainedthe privilegedconceptthat it has. Not


only would the expression'indigenousknowledge'havebeenseverelycriticized(it
seemsto have been introducedas a 'soft' translationof what some American
anthropologists were alreadycalling 'ethnoscience'),but also the notion that it
represents.One of the anthropologist'sprimary interestsis, and always has been,to
explainthe relationbetweenwhat peoplesay and what they do, regardlessof how
thesestatements might be categorized('knowledge','belief, 'myth', or just plain
'exegesis').As might
be expected,socialrelationsfigureprominentlyin accountsof
the relationbetweeninformants'statements (presumed'thought')and their actions,
although different schoolsof anthropologyinterpret their roles differently. Many
anthropologists would agreethat what peoplesay(think, know, believeetc.) cannot
be explainedwithout referenceto what they and othersaboul them do. Knowledge
consistsof more thanjust statements or theoriesaboutthe world, with or without
people. The productionandreproductionof knowledgeis somethingthat peopledo,
andin this senseis an aspectoftheir practice.

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

What do we meanby local practice? The answerto this questionhas traditionally


fallenwithin the domainof anthropologists,for whomlocal practiceis everythingthat
peopledo and say. Understandinglocal practice meansunderstandingwhy they do
what they do and why they saywhat they say. This is not how anthropologistswould
normallydescribetheirjob, but this is basicallywhat it boils downto. In the process
of performing this task, anthropologistshave frequently limited their frames of
reference(for example,to a particular ethnic group, or a particular type of practice)
and focusedon tle minutiaeof local practiceto the exclusionof its wider context.
Many anthropologistsstill operatein this way, especiallythose who are more
interestedin what p€oplesaythan what they do. A significantnumber,however,have
enlarged and enriched their approachto local practice by borrowing from other
disciplinesandby addressing the concernsof socialdevelopment researchin general.
This is the approachwhich, we suggest,can and shouldenrich developmentpractice.

At 'community' level (whetherthis refersto a particularlocation or a particular


population,howevernarrowly or broadlydefined)this entailsdevelopingan overview
of the politicaleconomyof the community,of the principalrelationswithin it andthe
principalrelationsbetweenit andothercommunities(includingthe wider community,
suchas the state,of which it is a part). In this context,'relations'includethoseof
productionand exchange,power, gender,social organization,land tenure and access
to resources (this is merelyan indicativelist). At individualor householdlevel the
task is much the same,though it shouldbe pointedout that a lot of the researcher's
time andresources canbe wastedby focusingon this level- It is muchmoreeffrcient
to begin with the generaland work down to the specific, given that the former often
explainsthe latter. In FarmingSystems Research (FSR),the mistakeis oftenmadeof
extrapolatingfrom the specific to the general(the 'farming syst€m'conceptis in any
casequestionable asit is limited in bothdescriptiveandanalyticalscope).

2.3 The declineof cloveproductionon Pemba

Until recently,Zanzibarwasfamousfor the productionofcloves. For morethan 100


years,its economywas heavily dependenton clove monocultureand the incomes
derived by the state,traders,landownersand agricultural labourersl?om the clove
The raoi ion of clove ion bv the world's main consumer

t2
Indonesia,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.

The vastmajorityof Zanzibar'sclovesare grown on Pemba. Clove farms,many of


which were originally establishedas plantationsand share-plantations in the 19th
century,dominatethe hilly landscapeof the westemside of the island, covering
approximately two+hirdsof the land. Farmersin this areahavebeenmosthardhit by
the fall in prices. Althoughfarmerselsewhereon the islandhavealso suffered,in
generalit has been easierfor them to adjust to the change. There are a variety of
reasonsfor this,themostobviousbeingthatclovesneverplayedsucha dominantrole
in their livelihoods;relativelyfew own clove farms,and seasonalclove-pickingwas
only one of a rangeof incomesourceswhich householdsexploitedto supplement
their subsistence-oriented agriculture. In the west, however,the vast majority of
farmersown clove treesand until recentlyrelied heavilyon their incomesfrom the
cloveharvestto buy foodandmeetotherdomesticneeds.

As cloveshavebeenso dominantin the local economy,farmershavefound it very


difficult to adjustto the recentdemise. Most clovetreesremainon the farms. It is
illegalto fell productivetreeswithoutofficial sanction,andthe formal procedures
for
this areslow andcumbersome. However,manyfarmersblamethe government, rather
than the world market,for the low price of harvestedclovesand believethat prices
will recoverif the governmentor its policieschange.As a result,thereis cunently
little inclinationamongfarmersto engagein wholesalefelling and replacementof
clovetrees. Instead,manyclove farmsareneglected, andthe landbetweenthe trees
is revertingto secondaryforest. This providesan ideal habitatfor vervetmonkeys,
whosedepredations on other food and cash crops provide further disincentiveto
expandcultivation.

The inherited patternsof land-holdingand labour use are further obstaclesto


agriculturaldevelopment.Largeacreages of clovesare ownedby peoplewho live
outsidethe localcommunity(someof themoutsidePemba),andthis limits the useof
the land for other crops, especially'permanent'tree crops. Labour inputs to
agricultureremaingearedto the economicsystemunderwhich they evolved. The
role ofwomen is mainlyconfinedto subsistence rice cultivationandthe processing
of
rice and otherfood crops. Althoughmen'sinputsaremore extensive,in mostcases
they could not be describedas intensive,especiallywhen comparedwith farmers
elsewhere(includingwomenoutsideof the cloveplantationarea). This reflectstheir
historicalrelianceon a treecrop requiringminimalmaintenance, muchof which was
undertakenby labourersfrom outsidethe clove-growingareawho were paid from the
proceedsof the harvest. The transitionfrom a low-inputto a higher-inputsystemis
not easy,particularlyasthe financialresources
to employoutsidelabourareno longer
so readilvavailable.

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.

The cloveareasof Pembaareprobablythe mostpressingproblemin the agriculrural


economy of Zartzibar. This problem is compoundedby the environmental risks
inherentin the developmentof alternativesto cloveswithout carefulplanningand
appropriateadvice from policy-makers. Throughouthistory, the westernside of the
islandhasbeenperceivedas Zaruibar'slargestareaof naturallyfertile land, full of
potential for agricultural development. Howeveq althoughthe potential is there (as
demonstrated by morethan 100yearsof successful cloveproduction),the soilsin this
areaare no more fertile thanelsewhere.In fact,the subsoilon the hills of Pembais
pooranddeficientin minerals;the deepsoil pocketsin somepartsofthe coralragare
muchmorefertile. The apparentfertility of thecloveplantationsis dueto a thin layer
of organic mafter depositedand maintainedover thousandsof years by the forest
vegetationwhich grew on it. The natual balancewas fragile, and becomeevenmore
precariouswhenmostof Pemba'sindigenousforestswerefelled in the l9th andearly
20th centuries.By happyaccident,theywerereplacedby a treecrop which playeda
similar, if lesseffective,biologicalrole in maintainingsoil fertility. Ironically,the
periodic and cunent neglect of the clove plantationshas further helpedto maintain
the balance.

Withoutsomekind of treecoveror othermeasures to maintainsoil fertility, the green


hills of Pembawill give way to a banen and relatively unproductivelandscape,
similar to that which hasalreadydevelopedin otherdeforestedpartsof the tropics.
Short-termeconomicgainshaveto be measured againstsuchmedium-and long-term
consequences.There is a dangerthat theseconsequences will be ignoredor not
recognizeduntil it is too late. This hasalreadyhappenedin other areasof Pemba;
whereroot cropshavebeencontinuouslycultivatedfor morethan two decades,soil
fertility and productivityhavedeclinedmarkedly. Given the recentchangesin the
economicfortunesof the cloveplantations, this issueneedsto be tackledurgentlyto
avertthe risks of unplanneddevelopmentand work towardsa sustainableagriculture.

justificationfor this approachis sketchedout in Booth'soverviewand


The theoretical
summing-upof RethinkingSocial Development(1994), He arguesthat social

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.

2.4 Agricultural developmentin easternPembr

For more than a centurythe agricultureof Pembahas been dominatedby clove


production(seeBox 2.3). The lowlandsandcoralrag beyondthe westemplantation
zone have frequently been characterized as marginal in terms of both their
contribution to the clove economy and their presumedcomparativelack of
agriculturalpotential. However,recenthistorysuggests that this characterization
is
misleading.Most of the significantagriculturaldevelopments in Pembaoverthe last
25 yearshavetakenplacein the lowlandsandthis trend continuesto the presentday.

Subsistenceproductionexpandedin responseto period shortagesof basic foodstuffs,


particularlyduring the 19'10-72famine,causedmainly by the government'sabrupt
cessationof food imports. At the sametime, and in particularareas,specificcrops
were developedas cash crops, and marketedboth within and outside Pemba. The
best exampleswere sweetpotato in Makangalein the far north-west,and turmeric in
Mwambe in the south-eastof the island. The recent sharpdecline in the clove
economy has had a further, and undoubtedly more widespread, impact upon
production for the market. Many farm householdsin the lowlands used to derive
additionalincomefrom clove-picking,but the fall in clove prices,and thereforeof
labourrates,hasreducedthe seasonalmigrationof labourersto a trickle. Instead,
many farmerson the eastof the islandhavebegunto supplementtheir incomesby
growingvegetables and other short-termcropson the coral rag. The only villages
largely unaffectedby this trend are thosein the Micheweni peninsulaand on someof
the smallerislandsaroundPemba,wherefishingandlong-distance tradeoffer a more
securelivelihood.

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.

The history of economicand agricultwaldiversificationin thesecommunitieshas


madeit easierfor them to weatherrecenteconomicchangesand to adaptto new
circumstancesand opportunities. However,thesechangeshavenot affectedthem all
equally. Populationpressureand land availabilityhaveprobablyhad mosteffect on
their differentialresponses,as shownby the historiesof cashcrop developmentin
Makangale and Muwambe. These factors also help to explain why agricultural
development in the centralpart ofthe eastcoasthaslaggedbehindand only recently
begunto show signsof rapid change,propelledby the declinein clove incomes.
Much of this development is focusedon Vitongoji and Ole, wherecomparativeease
of accessto Pemba's urban markets has provided an additional stimulus for
increasingcashcropproduction,especiallyofvegetables(includinggroundnuts).The
impactof this development now app€arsto be spreadingnorth,following the line of
the new tarmacroad.

Althoughthe paceof changeis slowerin Kangaganiandothervillagesoffthis road,it


is already beginning to be felt, particularly on the coral rag, where vegetable
production (tomatoes in Kangagani) is developing, and efforts by the Forestry
Departmentto introducetree planting aretaking off The tree planting is particularly
encouragingbecauseuncontrolledexploitationof the coral rag and the fringing
mangroveforestsposesa threat to the resourcebase;in someareaslarge standsof
mangrovehave alreadybeen clearedto make way for the manufactureof salt. At
present, coral rag land is comparatively abundant and fallows are generally
maintained,thoughnot for long enoughfor naturalforestto regenerate.The coral rag
is generallyperceivedto be commonland, opento exploitationby anyonefrom either
within or outsidethe local community. In this respect,there are fewer controls than
there were in the past, when village elders and the party branchesexercizedsome
authorityoverits use. As populationpressureincreases, Pemba'scoralrag is likely to
be subjectedto the kindsof intensiveexploitationwhich are alreadytaking placeon
Unguja,wherelandownershipis becomingan issueandresearchindicatesthat mixed
farming with livestock and tree crops provides the best prospectsfor a sustainable
agriculture.

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

An essentialcomponentof any analysisof this kind shouldbe an understanding of


how practice has changedover time, how it is changingat present,and in which
direction it seemsto be heading. This might seem to be an obvious point -
developmentis, after all, about managingchange- but it is one which is frequently
neglected. One reasonfor this neglect,perhaps,is that developmentpractitioners
tend to be more concemedwith the changesthat they and other stakeholderswould
like to seetake placethan thosewhich are alreadytaking placeor havetaken place in
the past.

The participatorymethodsand tools recommendedto practitionersdo little to


overcome this inherent bias. Consider, for example, the standard practice for
conductingParticipatoryRural Appraisal(PRA). The overallemphasisof the PRA
processis placed on the identificationof existingproblemsand possible/zlzre
solutions. One of the many problemswith this approachis the generallack of
att€ntion paid Io existing solutiors to past problems. The 'landscape' of problems
and solutionsin any one communityor region is usuallyuneven,what remainsa
problem to one group of actorsmay alreadyhavebeensolved,or is in the processof
beingsolved,by anothergroupin the sameor anotherlocation. Thesesolutionsor
sofutions-in-the-making may constituteopportunitiesfor those ll,ho have not yet
arrivedat them, including thosewho havenot yet recognisedthe problemswhich they
engage. Such opportunitiesare often missedin the processof conductingPRAs,
especiallywhenthey are undertakenin a singlecommunitywithout referenceto what
is happeningin others.

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.

The operationof factorssuchas thesecan createhavocwith unsophisticated wealth


rankingsandbringinto questionany furtheranalysisandactionsbaseduponthem. In
communitieswherepermanent pattemsof socialandeconomicdifferentiationarenot
immediatelyapparent,oneofthe first questionsany researcher shouldask is whether
they haveemerged,or to what extentthey are in the processof emerging. This is not
a purely academicquestion;it is of critical importancefor developmentpractice,
especiallywhen distributionaland equitability issuesare being considered. An
understanding of patterns of differentiation at different levels (inter- and
intra-household,-group, -communityetc.) is crucial for making decisionsabout
targetinginterventions(or perhaps,'interactions')and monitoringand evaluating
lmpacts.

Whenexaminingchange,it is perhapshelpful to distinguishbetweenchangeat the


macro-andmicrolevels. This is anotherareawhereboththe 'structure'and 'agency'
approaches can be usedin a complementary way Changeat the macroJevelcan
perhapsbe best understoodin terms of the 'neo-structualistpolitical-economic'
approach(Booth, 1994),whereaschangeat the microJevel falls more obviously
within the domainof the 'actor-oriented'approach(Long and van der Ploeg 1994).
Whereasa structwal approachis the simplestroute to understandinggeneralpatterns
of change,a focusuponagencycan help to elucidatethe diversityof individualand
institutionalactionswhich make,and aremadeby, thesewider pattems. Innovation
is one such aspectof changeat the micro-levelwhich is of particularinterestto
developmentpractitioners. Innovatorscan be viewed as individual agentswho
pioneerchanges in structure- structures
whicharenot,however,oftheir own making,
but of otheragentswhoseearlieractionshavedefinedthe pattemsof constraintand
opportunityon which they act.

2.5 Agricultural innovationin northern Unguja

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).

Gambalies at the northeastemfringe ofUnguja's plantationzone,borderingthe coral


rag which stretchesawayfrom the villageto the eastcoast. Beforethe 1980s,it was
more or less marginalto the economyof the island; as in many other villages,
subsistence productionof bananas,cassava,rice and other grain crops was much
more importantthan the oppornrnisticsaleof theseand varioustree crops in the local
markets. Somecashcrop developmenthad takenplace,focusingon turmeric and
gingergrownin homegardens, but by the 1990sthe marketfor theseproductswasnot
very good. Until recently, the clove economyprovided many inhabitantsof Gamba
with their most reliable sourceof income. As a result of historical pattemsof
migration and intermarriagebetweenthe people of northem Unguja and southem
Pemba,someof the inhabitants of Gambaheldrightsin cloveplantationson the latter
island, and many more sailed over to Pembaevery year to pick cloves or take
advantageof other economic opportunitieswhich the clove harvest offered. The
declineof the cloveeconomyfrom the mid-1980sonwardsplacedadditionalpressure
on the inhabitants
of Gambato developaltemativesourcesof income-

Gamba'stimely responsew:rslinked to the growth of the Zanzibarurbanmarket;this,


in tun! wasa functionofthe increasedtrade(andto a lesserextent,tourism)which
followedeconomicliberalizationin the mid-1980s.In lessthan a decade,many of
Gamba'sfarmershadreorientatedtowardsthe growing urbanmarketand transformed
a significantsub-setof their local farmingsystemsby movingawayfrom subsistence
productionand into vegetableproduction. The most spectacularaspectof this
transformation wasthe conversionofthe fertile valleyto the eastof the village from
cassavacultivation to eggplant(aubergine)production. Developmentof this kind
may havebeeninevitableoncetransportlinks with Zalibar town hadimproved,but
the precise form of the developmentowed much to the foresight of a single
innovative farmer. He had previously worked in the town market and seen an
opportunity for supplyingit with eggplantswhen they were out of seasonin Umbuji,
the villagewhich hadpreviouslysourcedZanzibar'sresidents.For severalse.rsons he
labouredalone,but when neighbouringfarmerssaw the good profits he was mafting,
theyswitcheden zzrsseto eggplantproductionin 1993.

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.

Gambais now Unguja's secondmost importanteggplantproducerafter Umbuji.


Profits are not as high as they were for the village's first eggplantfaxmer,but good
enoughto encouragecontinuingexpansion. Meanwhile,some farmershave also
begun to experimentwith other vegetablecrops, such as spinach(Amaranthussp.)
intercroppedwith the eggplants,and tomatoproductionhasbecomean increasingly
importantfeatureofcultivation on the coral rag to the eastof the village and its fertile
valley. The introduction of improved tomato cultivars for the urban market has
playeda significantrole in this development.Many farmersnow combineeggplant
cultivation, begunbeforethe long masikarains,with tomato cultivation, begunin the
shortvrli rains,in an annualcycleof vegetableproduction.Althoughsomefarmers,
mostlyof the older generation, haveresistedthis development and continueto glow
cassavaand other 'traditional' crops(in somecasesderivingmost of their income
from off-farm activities),the trend seemsto be set. Gambaprovidesan excellent
exampleof the kind of diversificationtaking place in manydifferent partsof Unguja,
especiallyin areaswherethere is land on which to expand(the coral rag uwanda and
maweni)and/orno or few permanenttree cropsto preventthe conversionof the land
to more productiveuse (especiallyin the rice and other valleys). The naturalend
result of this diversificationwould appearto be a patchworkof complementarylocal
cashcrop specializations; a patternof this kind is alreadyemerging(eggplantsin
GambaandUmbuji,orangesin Ndijaniandmangoes in Muyuni).

This patchworkof localized cashcrop production,much of it for the Zanzibar town


market, is a far cry from tfte picture of future developmentoriginally envisagedby
ZCCFSP,which beganby searchingfor cropsto substitutecloves. ln manyrespects,
the farmersand tradersof Unguja have shownthemselvesto be a step aheadof the
agriculturalexpertsby devisingtheir own solutionsto the declineof the plantation
economyand exploringopportunitieswhich are more immediatelyrealizable. In
retrospect,it makessenseto developthe local marketbeforeaiming for export, and in
the caseof 'Boribo Muyuni' mangoesthis hasprovideda good springboardfor more
ambitiousdevelopment.Outsideinterventions sometimes fall very wide of the mark.
For example,govemmentsponsorship of rice productionhas persistentlyfailed to
produceresultsover the past30 years,and farmershaveoften found more productive
usesfor the valleysin which rice was oncegrown. On a muchsmallerscale,it can
now be seenthat ZCCFSPwas wrong in promotingginger productionin Gambaat a
time when the local markethad declinedand in a way which led somefarmersto
believethat it hadnot. Until intensiveres€archwasundertaken in Gamba,ZCCFSP
only had a vague idea of the scale of eggplantproduction and marketing and the
overalltrendtowardsvegetablecultivation.This underlinesthe importanceof finding
out what farmers have actually done, and are doing, before suggestingwhat they
isht do in future.

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.

The Gambacasealso highlightsthe needfor a more carefulassessment of gender


issuesin cash crop development. Although turmeric and ginger productionhas
providedwomenwith an additionalsourceof income,this hassometimes beenrather
less than anticipated (where husbands have taken advantage of their
culturally-specified
monopolyon long-distance marketing).Male dominancein coral
rag agriculturealsomeansthat cashcropproductionin this areais moreimmediately
to their advantage.On the other hand,somewomenhave clearly benefitedfrom the
developmentof eggplantproductionby securingtheir own plots in the valley near
their homes. In somerespects, the expansionof cashcrop productionwould appear
to increasewomen'sbargainingpowerbecause moreincomeis availablefor themto
bargainover. Cashcropdiversificationat the local levelmightmakeit moredifficult
for men to monopolizethe incomefrom thesecrops,especiallyif womenown the
land on which they are grown and./orprovidemost of the labour. However,this is no
more than conjecture and again underlines the need for further researchbefore
interventionsdesignedto enhancewomen's accessto, and control of, resourcesare
proposed.

Expandingthe defnition of local

Sinceconcludingour discussionof the IK debatewe haveabandoned the qualifier


'indigenous'and substitutedit
with 'local'. 'Indigenous'(and its derivatives)can
havepatronizingconnotationsand evokeethnic particularism. 'Local' is rathermore
generalandopen-ended than,for example,'rural', andis definitelylesspatronizing.

So far, we havediscussedlocal practicein the conventionalsensein which'local'


refersprincipallyto the inhabitantsof a particularlocale (a village, a region or a
wider politico-geographicalarea). These'local people' are very often the primary
targetsfor developmentpractice,thepresumed'beneficiaries'of intervention,andthe
possessorsof IK and all its (near-)synonyms ('ethnoscience','rural people's

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.

Understandingand engaginglocal practice meansunderstandingand engagingthe


practiceofall the actorsandagents('stakeholders') activein the development arena,
whethertheyare 'locally'basedor not. This includesthe knowledgeand practiceof
all the relevantgovemmentinstitutions,NGOsand aid agenciesinvolved in a project.
It also includes the knowledge and practice of project sta{I, treating projects
themselves aslocal institutions.Thepracticeofthesedifferentinstitutionsandagents
is all too frequentlyoverlooked,under-emphasized, placedin a different category,or
only consideredseriouslyat certainstagesof the project cycle (most often at the
beginning,whenformulatingprojectproposals).

Thereare different reasonsfor this neglect. Onehasbeena generallack of analytical


(and practical)tools for examininginstitutionalpracticeat the wider level. When
researchers haveexaminedsuchinstitutionsin greaterdetail they havetendedto do so
from a critical rather than a constructiveperspective(asking, for example, why a
particular project has failed, or analysingthe failure of governmentto addressthe
needs of 'local' people). Developmentpractitionersare given few practical
guidelineson how to understand local institutionalpractice,includingtheir own, or
how to tacklethe issueswhich suchan understanding might raise. It is perhapsnot
surprisingthat so many projectsare riven with intemal conJlict and working at odds
with the institutionswith which their logical frameworksassumethem to be in
harmony. The successand smoothrunningon a projectfrequentlydependson the
'experience'and 'commonsense'of
the projectteam,and this is no substitutefor
propertraining and guidancein undentandingand engaginglocal practicein all of its
differentaspects.

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

We are not suggestingthat every developmentpractitioner should be an


anthropologist or socialdevelopmentspecialist,or that everyprojectshoulddevote
itself to academic-styleresearch.However,thereis a clearneedto developboth the
methodsand skills which would enabledevelopment practitionersto understand
and
engage local knowledge and practice,
in our expandeddefinition,more effectively
than at present. Somepracticalapproaches to theseproblemswill be exploredin
moredetailin the followingtwo chapters.

23
CHAPTERTHREE

UNDERSTANDING
AND ENGAGINGLOCAL KNOWLEDGE
AND PRACTICE

Introduction

Over the pasttwo decadesdevelopmentplannersand practitionershavebegunto pay


increasingattentionto what rural peoplesayand do, and in particularto what they say
they want to do. Although developmentonce meant trying to 'modemize' such
people,to someit now meansactingin partnership with themto solvetheir problems
and fulfil their wishes. 'Participation'
has becomethe key word of development
rhetoricand,at leastin theory,of development practice.Devising(andin somecases,
reviving) 'participatory' methodshasbecomea minor industrywith the elicitation of
'indigenousknowledge'(and the elaboration means
of to mobiliseit) as one of its
majorbranches.

In this chapter,we will focuson some(but by no meansall) of the methodscurrently


usedto understandand engagelocal lcrowledgeand practicein the context of natural
resourcesresearchand development.Here, we will focus upon the conventional,
narrowdefinitionof 'local', referringprimarilyto the knowledgeand practiceof the
'ordinary' people usually identified
as the primary target goup or intended
'beneficiaries'of development intervention.The mostseriousweakness of the tools
and methods available lies in the way that they are used, and the general
'participatory' approach(es)under
which they are subsumed. In many ways
'participation'and 'participatory'have
becomeempty slogans,and their repeated
deploymenthasbecomea way ofavoidingthe firll complexitiesof understanding and
engaginglocal knowledgeandpractice.

The Limitations of Participaiion

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.

If we ask 'How shouldparticipationbe put into practice?',then we find an equally


unsatisfactoryresponse. Natural resourcesprojectsusually fail to specify which
'mode' of participationtheyareto work in; the defaultis
usuallythe mode(s)fostered
by the particularmethods,participatoryor otherwise,which a projectemploys. The
useof the term 'modes' in this contextderivesfrom Biggs' (1989)identificationof
the following four modes of participation in agricultural research: contactual
(researcherscontract with farmers to provide land or services),consultative
(researchersconsult farmers about their problemsand then develop solutions),
collaborative(tesearchersandfarmerscollaborateaspartnersin the researchprocess)
and collegiate (researcherswork to strengthen farmers' informal research and
developmentsystemsin rural areas). Thesefour modesare progressivelymore
participatory,from contractualto collegiate. Blaikie et al (1996) argue that
negotiationof knowledgebetweenlocal and extemalactorscan only really occur if
local peopleare ableto participatein the processof researchand developmentin a
collegial (collegiate)mode. In practice,Biggs' modesare usually muddled,and
participatorymethodsdo little to sortthemout.

The fact that Biggs' modesrefer primarily to agriculturalresearchrestrictsthe scope


ofthe modelandreflectsthetechnicalorientationfrom which agriculturalresearchers
are still strugglingto free themselves.This is the principalcontextin which the IK
debateand participatorymethodshaveevolved,and it is possiblethat if the debate
had focusedon altemativestrategiesof natural resource(for example,wildlife)
management, a very differentemphasismight haveemerged.Managementusually
involvespayinggreaterattentionto the interestsofall the stakeholders,notjust to one
set of them; it also fostersa greaterconcemwith local institutionsand institutional
arrangements. One of the difficulties of conducting participatory agricultural
researchat communitylevel is that as there are often no (or very few) institutions
involved over and above individual farmine households.researchersare often
temptedto createthem.

Natural resourcemanagement also remindsus that we neednot think of modesof


participationin termsof a scalewhich slidesfrom goodto bador vice verso; instead
we shouldperhapsthink of differentmodesasbeingappropriate in differentcontexts.
Thereare somecontextsin which more formal t1,pesof researchare appropriate(and
may even be requestedby farmers). Similarly, situationsfrequently arise in
community-basedresourcemanagementfor which the interventionand/or arbitration
of a higherauthorityis required(for example,inter-villagedisputesover resources
can rarely be resolved at the village level). The challengefor development
practitionersis to know how differentmodesof participationcanbe deployedto the
greatesteffect. In this respect,participationis merelyan unsatisfactorycoverterm for
a complex sequenceof engagements,some running concurrently,others in
succession, andall of them intendedto complementoneanotherin pursuitof project
objectives.

PMs : participation packaged

For many practitioners, participatory research (and development) has become


synonymouswith PRA. PRA is a family of approachesand methods with
acknowledgedsourcesin activist participatoryresearch,agroecosystems research,
applied anthropology,field researchon farming systems,and its immediate
predecessor,Rapid Rural Appraisal(RRA). The focus has shiftedfrom extractive
data collection to facilitating local people to produce and analysetheir own
information(Chamben,1994a,1994b;ComwallandJewkes,1995). However,there
hasbeenan increasingtendencyto standardizePRA methodsand packagethem into a
singleframework.

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 'quick andeasy'natweof PRA,with its heavyrelianceon a'toolkit' of different


methods,is at the root of many of its problems. The toolkit comprisesa random
assortment(and in somerespects,a confusingassenblage)of techniques,eachof
themdesignedto givea 'quick fix' on particularissues.It is assumedthattheir usein
combinationwill somehowachievethe ambitiousgoals which PRA sets itself,
providing information for practitionersandassistingcommuniqrparticipantsto define
andsolvetheir problems.To someextentit does,but not in a very satisfactoryway.

3.1 The evolutionof PRAsin ZCCFSP

The main line of methodological


development
in ZCCFSPtook the followins couse:
(a) a seriesof PRRAswas conducted;(b) farmingsystemszoneswere classifiedon
the basisof the information deriving from the PRRAs;and (c) farmer researchgroups
(FRGs)werecreatedwithin zonesof particularinterest. At a later stage,a seriesof
more focused'mini-PRAs'was carriedout with the FRGs. Other approaches were
followed in parallel, including work with farmer networks,cashcrop and marketing
casestudies,andthedevelopment ofstrategiesrelatingto these.

Overthe courseof oneyear,a seriesof Participatory


RapidRwal Appraisals(PRRAs)
was carried out with support from all sections of the Ministry for Agriculture,
Livestockand NaturalResources (MALNR). The programmeincludedtraining, 10
village PRRAs,and a one-weekworkshop. A multidisciplinaryteam (of varying
composition)spentoneweekliving in eachof the l0 villages. The objectivesofthe
programmewere multiple and involved the developmentof a farming systems
approachwithin MALNR, analysisof researchand programmepriorities, and more
specific objectivesrelated to ZCCFSP'sexport crop diversificationprogramme.
Twenty-eighthouseholdfarmingsystemsrn Zuzibar were identifiedand described.
This madea significantcontributionto the delineationof farmingsystemszoneson
the two islands. However,the descriptionand the classificationof farmingsystems
zonesdid not generatean adequateunderstandingof the complexity and diversity of
livelihood strategies,nor was the classificationperceivedas relevant by many
deparfrnentsin MALNR (which continued to organise its activities according to
existingadministrativedivisions).

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).

A significantamountof informationcan be collectedduring a PRA, althoughit


generallytakes the form of series of superficial snapshotsof particular aspectsof
community life rather than a comprehensiveunderstandingof structureand agency
and how these have changedover time. PRAs are undoubtedlymost effective for
eliciting strictly synchronictechnicaldata (for example,which crops are grown
where,andwhy). Theyareleasteffectivefor answeringpolitical-economic questions
and for dealing with social and institutional complexity, including issues of
distribution and equitability. When such matters are addressedeffectively, it is
usuallybecausepractitionerswith the relevantskills and experiencehavetaken part,
andnot a resultof the applicationof the PRA toolsper se. Althoughsomeof these
tools build on the experienceof anthropologistsand other social development
researchers, they do not equip others(natural scientistsincluded)with the skilts
necessary to carryout suchresearchthemselves.Theymerelycreatean impressionof
understandingandprovidepractitionerswith an excusefor not delving deeper.

The ranking exercisesrecommendedin the standardPRA packageare particularly at


fault in this respect.The weaknesses
of wealthrankinghavealreadybeenmentioned.
Other,and in somewayssimpler,methodshavebeendevisedfor rankingproblems
and preferences.Although thesecan be revealing,the conversationswhich take place
while the exercisesare in progressoften yield more informationthan the rankings
themselves.The resultsof suchexercisesshouldneverbe takenat facevalue. As
Nabasae/ al. (1995)makeclear,rankingcan be influencedby a variety of factors,
including the socio-economicstatusof individual respondents.Without probing
further, practitioners may fail to recognize the influence of these factors on
participants'choices,or conflatewhat peoplesay theydo with what theyaetually do.
Although ranking may provide a window on people'sknowtedgeand practice, other
methodshaveto be employedto completethe picture.

3.2 Rankingexperiencein ZCCFSP

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.

The candidatecashcropsmatrix usedinformationfrom PRAsand other sources(such


as informationconcerningproposedclient groupsand potentialmarkets)to select
crops for further researchand development. Criteria were listed down the side and
potential crops were entered as columns to form the matrix. The criteria were
selectedby the projectteam and consistedof projectobjectives,agronomic,socio-
economic,marketandpost-harvest indicators.The scoresin the cells of the matrix
werealso allocatedby the projectteam. Cropswere groupedinto first, secondand
third ranks,andtie outcomewas usedto prioritize cropsfor research.Apart from the
issueof whosecriteriaandchoicesformedthe basisofthe scores(obviouslyfarmers
were not involved),a major problemwith this methodwas that it simplified and
nanowed down the selectionof crops for research,rather than building on the
diversityofcrops andfarmercroppingstrategies.It alsofailedto put the choicesinto
contextanddid not reflecttheir changingnaturein a historicalsense.

The QuIK ('QuantifuingIndigenousKnowledge')ranking method was orientated


towardsincorporatinglocal knowledgeinto the researchprogmmme. QuIK is a rapid
methodof assessing crop performancewithout field trials and wasapplied in research
on ginger, mango, and cinnamon. Matrix ranking involved the systematic
interviewingof experiencedfarmersand the generationof numericaldata on crop
performance. Data setswere compiled using severalfarmersas replicatesand were
then subjectedto statisticalanalysisusingan analysisof variance(ANOVA). The
advantageof QuIK is that it canprovideinformationrelevantto the farm situationat a
muchlower costthan field trials. This is particularlyusefulin tree crop researchas
conventionaltrials can take manyyearsto yield data. Although the data may reflect
morethan a singleseason'sresults(basedon farmers'accumulated experiencewith
the crop in question),the methodis strictly limited to agronomicparametersand
resultsshouldthereforebe treatedcarefully. QuIK analyseslocal knowledgeusinga
formal scientific procedure which cannot possibly reflect the differentiation of
knowledgeof cropperformance otherthanthat betweenthe informants.The problem
of 'representativeness'
whichplaguesconventional trials alsoprevailshere. Also, the
'replicates'
treatmentof farmersas and groupsof farmersas a 'populationof key
informants'is redolentof the scientificmethodfrom which manypractitionershave
soughtto distancethemselvesby adoptingmore participatorymodesof inquiry.

Even whenconductedin the contextof FarmingSystemsResearch(FSR)or Farmer


ParticipatoryResearch(FPR),PRAs may still fail to providea deeperperspective.
FSRhasbeencriticisedfor not payingsufficientattentionto the historical,political,
economic,and institutionaldimensionsof farmers'practice(Biggs and Farrington,
1991),andthereis little evidenceto suggestthat FPRis any better. FPR hasstrong
technologydevelopment, testingand informationdissemination objectives.lt departs
from FSRby focusingon thedevelopment potentialof farmers'own researchprocess,
and having a strongergroup or communityorientation. FPR would thereforeappear
to be more suitedto a PRA approach,and a numberof commentatorshavetaken this
view. However,as Okali et al. (1994)observe,PRA tools and techniques,and the
increasingly standardizedframework in which they are applied, have not made a
significant contributionto the understandingof group dynamicsand the processesof
informallocal experimentation and informationdisseminationin which FPR is most
interested.

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.

To exacerbatematters,PRAsprovide few guidelinesfor further engagement,which is


one reasonwhy they are usually undertakenat the start of the project processand
rarely later. Also, and despitethe rhetoric of participation,PRA tools are obviously
'owned' by
the outsiderswho introduce them and are widely perceived as such-
PRAs are still essentiallypackagesfor the extraction of information and a tool for
helpingoutsidersmakedecisionsabouttfteir intewentions.As PRAsarepresented as
packages,practitionerstend to use them without further tliought, either becausethey
lack the skills and/or confidenceto adapt and experimentwith methods,or because
they are constrainedby time (field practitionersare often askedto conduct PRAs at
relativelyshortnotice).

Thereare good reasonsfor abandoningthe PRA packagewhile retaining someof its


methods.Individualtools canbe usedseparately andfor specificpurposes,
provided
that their limitations are recognizedand/or they are combinedwith other methods.
The tendencyamong practitionersto conductcomprehensive PRAs using all the
recommended methodsshouldbe discouraged; topicalPRAsusingfewertechniques
but targetingparticularissuesareoftenpreferable.Similarly,it may be more useful
to undertaketopical investigationsin a larger sampleof communities,enablinga
comparisonof results,than to conducta full PRA in a singlevillage;this would be
intrinsicallymore sensitiveto inter-villageheterogeneity in whateverform (social,
economic,institutionaletc.). Ii for example,oneofthe objectsofan actionresearch
exerciseis to identify institutional opportunitiesfor natural resourcemanagement,
suchopportunitiesaremuchmore likely to appearin a wide sampleof villagesthan
in a single village study. It may also only be possibleto uncoveragricultural
innovationsby examiningfarming practicesin severallocations.

Homogeneityshould never be assumedin advance;it can be demonstratedonly by


wideningthe n€t of investigation. The standardPRA packagedoeslittle to encourage
this, especiallyif it is linkedto othergeneralizing
strategies (suchas thosepromoted
by FSR). In spite of claims to the contrary,full PRAs can be both costly and
time-consuming,and projectscan rarely afford to conductmore than a few. Unless
they arecombinedwith otherkindsof investigation, a project'sunderstandingof the
communitiesin its targetareamaybe correspondingly restricted.

PRAsoften compareunfavourablywith what can be achievedby a singleexperienced


fieldworkerin a fractionof the time andat a fractionofthe cost(a goodvillage study
can be producedin a month,with additionaltime for writing-up). The full costsof
PRAs are usually buried deepin prqject accounts,and it can be arguedthat thorough
cost-benefitanalyseswouldshowthat the more 'traditional'methodsof investigation
and interactionare consistentlymore useful and cost effective than PRAs. However,
'traditional'methodshave
rarelybeendeployedin this context;the increasinguseof
anthropologistsand other trained field workers as development consultants and
projectstaff has largelycoincidedwith the growingemphasison the PRA package,
and it is extremelyunusualfor theseworkersto be sentinto the field for more than
shortperiods(or on grandtours). At the sametime, the apparent'success'of many
PRAs can probablybe attributedto the presenceof such experiencedfield workers,
ratherthan to the PRA processper se.

PRAsare rarelysubjectedto critical evaluation.It is not in the interestsof project


organizers to declaretheir shortcomings,
andexternalprojectevaluatorsmay not wish
to cast aspersionson the current fad (which is what PRA has become). On the
positive side, the emphasisPRA placeson understanding (and to a lesserextent,
engaging)local knowledgeand practiceis a distinct advanceon the more formal and
technicaltypesof investigation. The activeparticipationof the targetpopulation,and
govemment and NGO personnel, in the PRA process is also laudable. It is
particularly important for providing training and experienceto members of the
researchteam itself, especiallyif they are working largely as technicalextension
agentsand/or have insufficient resourcesto undertakeintensiveinvestigationsin the
field (asis thecasein manygovemmentdepartments).

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.

Undertakingparticipatory researchwith farmers

The emphasison participatorymethodshasdevelopedits own specialmomentumin


agriculturalresearchand developmentand relatedfields (including agroforestry).
The PRA processis usuallytreatedas being most appropriatelyemployedin the
initial stagesof problemidentification(diagnosis)and the provisionalproposalof
solutions. Thereafter,different waysofworking with farmersare recommended,such
as the formation (or transformation)of farmer researchgroups(FRGs). This kind of
institutionalinterventionis partly necessitatedby the fact that householdsor other
domesticgroupsarethe primary,and often only, unitsof farm organization, and the
sheernumbersof thesein any singleproject area precludesintensiveinteractions
without some form of selection. The formationof farmer networksrepresentsa
different,and sometimesmore effective,solutionto the sameproblem. Relatively
little attention has been paid to the implicationsof creating such institutions;
researchers havetreatedthem largelyas researchtools (without describingthem as
such). In this section,we will examinesomeof the prosandconsof doingthis. We
will begin,however,by examiningthe practiceof conductingparticipatoryon-farm
trials, which exposesmost clearlythe continuingprevalenceof traditionalresearch
agendas, albeitmodified$eaterfarmerparticipationin the researchprocess.

On-farmtrials: ure they alwaysnecessary?

Much effort hasbeenexpendedon the developmentof participatoryon-farm research


methodologies,including powerful and sophisticatedmeans for analysing the
complexanddisorderlydatawhichoftenemergefrom trials. It is clearlybetterto test
cropsandtreatmentsin a field thanin a greenhouse,
and it is betterstill to test them
in the intendedbeneficiaries'own fields.

Despitethe emphasison farmers'participation,however,the underlyingagendafor


this type of researchis still generallyresearcher-driven. Researchers often set the
objectives,designthe trials,choosethe treatments, analysethe results,andwrite them
up and disseminate them. Even when farmersare given a more active role, it is
difficult to escapethe conclusionthat they are essentiallybeing treated as
'proto-researchers', that
and their practiceis beinggentlymanipulatedinto the mould
of formal research.Somefarmersmay be happyto be treatedthis way, and accorded
sucha novel degreeof respect,but it is hardto acceptthat the conditionsof on-farm
trials,evenwith the bestandmostparticipatoryof designs,replicatethoseofthe 'real
world' withoutresearchersandthe expectationswhichtheir presence generates.

Participatoryagricultural researchdemandsthat agronomistsconduct on-farm trials,


but in certain contextsthere may be no needfor them to do so. By striving to solve
agricultural problems in order to meet the requirementsof domestic survival and
subsistence, all farmersare conductingagriculturalresearch,year in and year out,
althoughthey might not call it 'research'and formal researchersmight not recognize
it as such. The number of experimentswhich agronomistscan undertake,with or
without farmers' participation,palesinto insignificancebesidesthis, especiallyin
situationswhere agriculturaldiversificationis alreadytaking place. Under these
circumstances,it might be more useful for researchersto examinefarmers' practice
as it is, determinewhat 'experiments'they havealreadycarried ouVarecarrying out,
and note what the outcomeshave beer/arelikely to be. Furthermore,on-farm tnals
may well divertresources awayfrom morerelevantinvestigations, andthesemay,for
example,revealthat interventionis mostappropriateat a non-agronomic levels,such
as in the marketingchain,ratherthan in farmers' fields.

3.3 On-farm trials in ZCCFSP

The on-farmtrials in ZCCFSP'sprogrammewereoriginallyconceivedwith a view to


converting farmers into researchers,modelling farmer practice on formal research.
All the trials in the researchframework,from exploratorytkough to stationand then
to pilot trials, were either designedby the project or largely researcherJed.
Participationwasthereforecontrolledunderthe researchers' terms.

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.

However,the trials carriedout by the ZCCFSPagroforestry networkhad the explicit


objectiveof buildingon farmers'existingsystems,usingfarmer-designed trials, from
the outset of the programme. The mandatewas simply to observehow network
farmers experimentedwith and manageddifferent tree and crop combinations
(indigenousand introducedspecies),and assess their preferences
for plantingniches
and arrangementsand the ways in which theserelated to their householdand farm
characteristics.Localknowledgeof indigenousspecies,andlocal practicein termsof
tree/crop combinations, and planting sequencesand anangements in both the
traditional bush fallow system(in sparselypopulatedareas)and permanentsystems
in more settledareas).were evaluated.This enabled and analvsisof

l0
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 first approach(researcher led) focusedmoreon adoptionand the second(farmer


designed)on adaptation. It is doubtful, however,if any approachcould match the
unaided work of the farmers themselves. Rural Zanzibar comprisesmore than
100000farm households,most with two or more membersinvolved (to varying
degrees)in farming and (to a lesserextent)the saleof farm produce. Every year,they
makeinnumerable decisionsaboutthe cultivationandharvestingofa wide varietyof
farm plots,includingmajorchoicesaboutwhatto plant,whatto sell, andhow to sell
it. This hasresulted,especiallyon Unguja,in an impressivedegreeof home-grown
agriculturaldiversification(seeBox 2.5). In this context,on-farmtrials, whether
farmer designedor not, are unlikely to have a wide impact. Although formal
researchersmay feel that an inordinateproportionofthe farmers' 'experiments'have
uninterestingdesignsor results,the cumulativeeffect can be very impressiveand
have far reachingconsequences.In short,a lot can be leamedfrom looking at what
farmers(and traders)are alreadvdoine.

Groupsand networks: institutionol intenentions

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.

Therearealsomanydisadvantages of workingwith FRGs,especiallygroupscreated


by researchers.Theformationof a groupis an institutionalintervention,andthis may
havea numberof consequences. It is extremelydifficult to ensurethat FRGsare
representative
eitherof the local farmingcommunity,or of the wider areaor zonein
which they are located. It is difficult to avoid treatingthem as research'tools', and
easyto rely too heavily on interactionswith 'progressive'group memberswhile
neglectingthe knowledgeand practiceof resource-poor farmers. It may also be
difiicult to show farmershow they might benefit from group membership,especially
when their expectationsdiffer from those held by the researchersand project stafl
Most of all, it is difficult to enswethe sustainabilityof FRGsafter projectshave
withdrawntheir support. In orderto makeFRGs'work', significantinputsof time,
expertise,materialsandotherresources aretypicallyrequired. Meanwhile,tiere are
as many problems associated with the dissemination of researchresultsand group
experiencesastherearefor on-farmtrials conductedoutsidea groupcontext.

The formationof farmernetworkscanovercomesomeof theseproblems.Networks


may comprisea mixture of individuals(and their households) and existinggroups
(FRGscanalsobe formedon the basisof existingcommunitygroups).Theymay be
geogaphicallydispersedand/orclusteredin particularcommunities;this helps to
enswe a greaterdegreeof representativeness.In many respects,networksare more
flexible than FRGsand allow a wide rangeof working methods,often at much less
cost. However,the formation of a network is also an institutional intervention,and as
such may be just as difficult to sustainbeyondthe lifetime of a project or other
externalfunding(sustaininga local groupmaybe slightlyeasier"thoughonly if it has
developedits own rationalefor existing). In view of their inherent 'ftagility',
considerablethought should be given as to whether researcher-created groups and
networksneedto be setup in the first place.

3.4 Farmer researchgroupsand networksin Zanzibar

The developmentof farmer researchgroups(FRGs)and networks in Zanzibar took


placegradually.Towardsthe end ofthe project,the tkee FRGson eachislandwere
seen as key for enhancingfarmer participatory research. A network of farmers
involvedin agroforestryresearchdevelopedin parallelwith the FRGs. The initial
work with FRGs was candidatecrop-orientated,with researchfocusing on simple
trials for measuringthe efilectsof different treatmentswith relatively few variables.
However,the crops/varietiesintroducedoften proved unsuitableand failed to match
farmers' expectations.A new sfiategywas thereforeevolved wherebyfarmerswere
providedwith subsidizedseedlingswhich they could selectthemselvesand plant
where and how they wished. However, this strategy was clearly inadequatefor
dealingwith complexissuessuchas soil fertility or marketingproblems,although
farmerswerehappywith the improvedsupplyof plantingmaterial.

Otheractivitieswith FRGsincludedtrainingcoursesand workshops,and helpingto


organizeor raisewider issueswith the relevantauthoritiesby lobbying. The main
focus of the FRG approachwas on technology development. Problems with the
approachcentred on the dependencyit generated. Groups were essentially
researcher-created and farmers had high expectations. Other questionscould be
raisedabout their cost effectiveness,the time taken by staff with individual groups,
FRG's representativeness in termsof the wider targetgroup,andtheir effectivenessin
disseminatingthe resultsofresearchandtraining.
The agroforestry farmers' research network provided an altemative focus for
interaction between farmers and researchers(as well as between farmers and
farmers). It comprised70 farmers,including women'sgroups,individual womenand
individualmen, from 10 differentlocationson the coral rag of Unguja. Its main
objectiveswere: (a) to assessthe importanceof different agroforestry(AI) species
and systemsfor different locationsand socio-economicgroups;and (b) to expandand
strenglhenthe network in eachvillage, building on farmer-to-farmerextension(using
farmen as a sourceof ideas/plantingmaterial). The following activities were carried
out: farmerdesignedon-farm fials linking researchand extension; study tours to
exchange knowledge and experience about different A-F species and systems
(farmer-to-farmer extension);and farmers'workshopsto €valuateresearch,identif
the strengthsand weaknessesin the designof different systems,set priorities (using
farmers' criteria), andplan future research.

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.

The focus of agriculturalresearchand developmentshould be farmers' existing


practice and efforts to build upon that. The imposition of new 'methods' and
'institutions'(temporary
or otherwise)shouldtake secondplace to this pragmatic
emphasis. We agreewith Okali and Sumberg's(1988) view that a potentially
powerful altemativeto the more classicmodesof on-farm researchis to begin with
the 'farming system'itself; rather than developingnew systemsor identifuing
'technologicalbreaklhroughs',
the approachshouldbe to 'work from and build upon
the existingproductionsystem'. The objectof researchanddevetopment shouldnot
be to introducepermanentinnovations,but to involve peoplein a processof'self-
generatedinnovation' with the smallestnumber of technologiesnecessaryfor
achievingsignificantsuccess(BunchandLopez,1995). In somecases,farmersare
capableof achievingmuch the same,and more, without no extemal intervention at
all.

Understendinglocal knowledgeand practice

In the following sections,we discussaltemativeapproachesto natural resources


researchand development. Methods should be shapedless by their participatory
packaging and more by coherent approacheswhich focus on understandingand
engaging both social and agroecologicaldiversity. This requires a deeper
understandingof the theoretical underpinningsof different approachesin social
developmenttheory, researchand practice,on the part of all practitionersin natural
resourcesdevelopment.A well-informedapproach,which acknowledges the theory
that underliesit, will of coursebe subjectto changein the projectprocessand in the
context of theoreticaldevelopments.However,the continualdevelopmentof an
approachshould be seenas an important part of project practice and an essential
'tool' for understanding andengaginglocal knowledgeand practicein termsof both
the nanowerandbroaderdefinitionswe haveprovided.

Understandingagencyo.ndstructure: knowledgeandprcctice in context

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.

The actor-orientedapproachis useful for understandingsocial processesat the


microJevel (including the knowledge processesembeddedin them) and the
emergenceof different patterns of social organization, which "result from the
interactions,negotiations,and social strugglesthat take place betweenthe several
kinds of actor" (Long, 1992:21). By adoptinga broaderperspective, Booth draws
attentionto socialprocessesin their wider contextandto reconciling"insightsabout
indigenousalternatives"(whichcanbe interpretedasour own understanding of local
knowledge and practice) "with the kinds of urderstandingsof larger structwes
without which they will lack realism"(1994a:17). This bringsthe two approaches
togetherand stressesthe different 'kinds of understanding'requiredin our own
pfactice.

Understandinglocal knowledgeand practicein contextrequiresa historical approach


which emphasizes the importanceof changein socialand ecologicalprocesses.By
conffast,an actor-orientatedapproachstresses"the importantextentto which changes
in the well-beingof rural peopleare the result of complex interactionsbetween
individualsand groupsendowedwith differentmd changingamountsof knowledge
and power" (Booth 1994a:11, emphasisadded). A broader,structuralapproach
which viewsthe changingnatureof local knowledgein the contextof wider change,
is equallyimportanthere. As Thruppsuggests, "the knowledgeof local groupsis not
a static body of wisdom, but instead,usually consistsof dynamic insights and
techniqueswhich arechangedover time throughexperimentation and adaptations to
environmentaland socioeconomic changes"(1989: 15,author'semphasis).On this
we can agree;it shouldbe noted,however,that adaptations of techniquesmay also
refer to innovationsin institutionalpractice, which we addressbelow, and not j ust the
adaptationin farming practicesto which Thrupp refers.

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.

The political dimensionsof local knowledgeand practiceform an importantbut


neglectedarea in nafural resourcesresearch. While practitioners have begun to
recognizethe importanceof the social differentiation of knowledgethis is rarely
extendedto includethe political differencesthat shapepeople'spractice. Political
relationsshouldbe the subjectof moredetailedinquirythanthe useofrapid methods
allows. For practical purposes,political di{ferentiationcan be viewed at the
micro-levelin muchthe sameway asgender,classandethnicdifferences,especially
when it is concernedwith access to resources(including lnowledge) and
decision-making. These differencesmay have indirect consequences, if certain
groupsareexcludedfrom the membership of local committeesfor example,or direct
and negativeimpactsif the managementof naturalresourcesbreaksdown completely
dueto partypoliticalconflict.

The forcesof politicalchangearefelt on di{ferentlevels(local,regionalor national),


and the relationshipbetweenthesedifferent levels needsto be understoodin its
historical perspectiveand in the context of the broaderstructuralapproachwe have
outlined.It is importantto recognize, however,the impactthattheseforcesmay have
at the micro level,especiallyon local organizations,
which,asBebbington(1994)has
shown,are as much vehiclesfor political expressionas for the administrationof
agriculturalprojects. This has implicationsfor our own practiceand the role that
projectsmayplay in eitherfurtheringor hinderingthe claimsof particulargroups.Of
key importance, therefore, is an understandingof the various forms of political
expressionand the ways in which different positionsare negotiated. Peoples'
manoeuvringsin this respect are an important part of local practice with which
practitioners shouldbe mostconcemed.

Understandinginnovation: the casestudyapproach

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).

Richards further advocatesthat successfulparticipatory researchin its wider sense


will dependon regular and continuouscontactbetweenresearchersand user groups
and a "willingress of researchersto live and work for considerableperiodsunder
village conditions"(1985: 154). It would seem,however,that the participatory
researchhe originally envisagedwas a little different from what PRA has now
become,with its emphasison speed.

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.

Although distinct from the PRA approach,casestudiesneedbe no less participatory,


especiallyif they involve 'participantobservation'in the active sensedescribed
above. Although the type of ethnographicinquiry with which the casestudy is most
often associateddoes not necessarilyentail direct action in the short term, the
understandingit can generatecanl leadto more effective interventions,strategiesand
actionsin the mediumterm. A detailedethnography of the kind describedby Long
(1992), in which he focuseson a single good (beer) to explorethe relationship
IO
betweenknowledge,practiceandsocialdifferenliation,is likely to revealmoreabout
socialgroupingsand conflicts,'participants',and the scopefor action,than a PRA
evercould. The casestudyalsohasa potentiallyusefulrole in assessing the impact
of interventions
and the innovationswhich may resultfrom them. Casestudiescan
thereforeprovidea detailedunderstanding of the processand impactof innovation,
andan approachfor more effectiveengagementof local practice.

3.5 Understandingand engaginginnovationwith casestudies

ZCCFSPundertooka numberof casestudiesaimed at understandingand building on


farmers' and traders' existing knowledgeand practice,designingmore eflective
padicipatory researchand extensionstrategies,and targeting resourceswhere they
were most needed. They were also used to help the government formulate
appropriatepolicies and to inform the wider developmentcommunity in Zanzibar.
The hrst studieswere carriedout with the six FRGswhich ZCCFSPhad begunto
work with. What werethen termed'mini-PRAs' (with a casestudyorientation)led to
the formulation of detailed plans for further participatory researchand extension
activities with the groups. They also provided a key input to policy and planning
initiatives,includingcollaborationwith otherdepartments in the Ministry to develop
a zonalapproachto Zaruibar's farming systems.

A furtherset of casestudieswas carriedout on cashcrop historiesin order to gain


insightsinto the factorswhich stimulatecashcrop development.Studieson five
relatively 'successful'crops looked at how their productionand marketinghad
evolved over time, often without any direct input from governmentresearchersand
exlensionists,andin somecases,in spiteof it. The cashcropschosenincludedsome
which until then had been widely perceivedby the Ministry, and the project, to be
eitherfood cropsor'local' cashcropsunworthyof researchers' attention. The cash
crophistorieswerenot ony usedto identif,rexistingopportunities,
but alsoto helpthe
projectdeterminewhat kindsof researchandextensionstrategies wererequired(and
which oneswereto be avoided)to promotesimilar developmentsin the future.

The casestudieswere particularly useful for revealingimportant links betweencash


crop developmentand patternsof social and economic differentiation in different
areasof the islands. The studyon the developmentof orangesas a cashcrop in
Ndijani revealedthe importanceof groupswhich had generallybeen excludedfrom
previousanalyses; it highlightedthecentralrole in the local economyof squatters
and
agricultural labourersof mainland origin, and provided an understandingof social
stratificationandthe differential accessto resourcesin the community. The emphasis
on the historical developmentof agriculture in different areas,and the comparative
natureof t}restudies,providedusefullessonsfor identifuingcashcrop potential,and
possible impacts, in areaswhere permanentpattems of differentiation had not yet
emersed.

The case was also usedto i

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.

Engaginglocal krowledgeand practice

The following discussionis basedon the premisethat a comprehensive and coherent


understanding is essentialif the processof engaginglocal knowledgeand practiceis
to be effective. An importantelementof this approachlies in understanding and
engagingthe diversityof local knowledgeand practicewithin agriculturalsystems
and ecosystems.Existingpractice(whether'traditional'or'new') needsto be built
on, as well as existinginstitutionsand local networksresponsiblefor the spreadof
innovation. The importanceof engagingsuccessin order to generatesuccessis
highlighted,althoughit is notedthat this shouldnot be at the expenseof practices
oflenperceived to be of minorimportance.

Building on local pructice and repertoire

Effective engagement of local knowledgeand practicemeansbuilding on existing


practicein orderto identify sustainable land useand resourcemanagement options.
This approachis not new. Richards(1985) saw the traditionalsystemof shifting
cultivationasa'compendiumof skills', andstressed that the mosteffectiveapproach
to agriculturalchangemight be to recombinethe skills and methodswhich already
exist within the shiftingcultivator'srepertoire,ratherthan designnew systemsfrom
scratch.

As an exampleof understanding and engagingdiversitywe can take the caseof


ethnobiologicalresearch.The casestudyapproachis aimedlargelyat providingan
ethnographicunderstandingof local knowledgeand practice in terms of social
diversityand the pattemsof socialdifferentiationemergingand changingover time.
The approachwe describehere has a slightly different focus and is aimed at
generatingan ethnobiological understanding of local knowledgeand practicein the
contextof agroecological diversity,as well as of the socialdiversityfrom which it
emergesandto which it givesrise. The ethnobiological approachhasits entrypoint
at the level of local practice,linking local plant and animalresources with the users
andmanagers ofthoseresources.Theexamplediscussed belowrelatesspecificallyto
ethnobotanical studies(people/plant interactions).

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.

3,6 Engagingtraditional agroforestrypracticefor sustainableland use

The agroforestryon-farm researchprogrammein the coral rag areasof Unguja was a


collaborativeeffort, linking the Sub-commissions for Forestryand Research,and
ZCCFSPand the FINNIDA-fundedZanzibarForestryDevelopmentProject(ZFDP).
The traditional bush-fallowor agroforestrysystem,which is the main farming system
on the coral rag, is becomingincreasinglyunsustainable as demandsintensi$ for
forestproductsand cultivableland. Collaborativeefforts to solve the problemsof
decreasingfallow periods,decliningsoil fertility, and wood and fodder shortages,
focusedinitially on participatoryresearchinto agroforestry
systemswhich incorporate
trees,food and cashcrops. This researchwas intendedto supportboth the Village
Forestry extensionprogramme,which had already started to promote agroforestry
with exoticmulti-purpose trees,andthe objectivesof ZCCFSPwhich wereto testthe
candidatecashcropsidentifiedfor the coralrag(seeBox 3.2).

However,the emphasisof the researchchangedover time as it becameobviousthat


elementsof the traditionalsystem,and the role of indigenoustree speciesin the
fallow andin farmers'fields,werecriticalboth in termsof sustaininglivelihoodsand
maintaininglocal biodiversity. Many of the indigenoustreesand shrubsprovide
fruits, fodder, fuelwood,building materials,and medicines. Thesewere far more
'multi-purpose' and better adaptedto
the harshconditions of the coral rag than the
exotic specieswhich had been screenedand testedin on-stationtrials, and which
were susceptible to the widespreadproblemsof drought,livestockdamageand fire
damageassociated with coral rag agriculture.The role of indigenoustrees,and the
ways in which they were managedin the bush fallow system over time, became
importantfeaturesof the research.

Oneof the most research ities.aimedat usefuli

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.

Further information on indigenousspeciesand their managementwas derived from


farmer-designed trials, workshopsheld with membersof farmernetworks,and field
daysduring which farmerssharedtheir knowledgeof indigenoustreesand related
practiceswith other farmers. One important output of this work was the preparation
of a guideto indigenoustreesby a memberof the researchteam(Kombo, 1996),and
a Swahilitranslationof a paperon agroforestry systemson the coral rag (Kitwanaet
al., 1996). Thesepaperswerewidelydistributedandhelpeddisseminate the research
findingsto farmersandotherinterestedpractitioners.Meanwhile,the discoverythat
the agroforestryoptionsexercisedby farmers,and planting choicesin particular,were
influencedby differencesin livelihoodstrategies (degreeof dependence on off-farm
income),accessto labour(for land clearingand groupwork), and genderand land
tenurerelationships,formedan importantinput to ZCCFSP'sown approachto the
development of sustainable farmingsystems on the coralrag.

This is one exampleof the potentialfor building on local knowledgeand practice


onceit hasbeenthoroughlyunderstood.Thereare no shortcutsto success.Prance
arguesthat those ethnobotanicalstudies which have yielded useful ecological
informationhavebeenlong-termand multidisciplinary:"Such work is successfully
canied out only when somedeeperunderstanding of culture,not just tlat of plants,
hasbeenachieved;oftenlong-termand,at times,tediousresearchis involved"(1995:
64). This point can be generalisedto the whole processof understandingand
engaginglocal knowledgeandpractice,andit castsa shadowoverour own cultureof
rapidappraisalandthe 'quick fix' whichthis so oftenpromisesbut frequentlyfails to
deliver.

Changingpattemsof differentiationat the level of local agencyboth influenceand


are shapedby wider structuralchange. This is also true of human influenceon
natural systemsand the way in which the changingnatureof the environmentshapes
the livelihoodsof thosewho interactwith it. An agroecosystem is, after all, the
interfacebetweensocial systemsand nafural ecosystems.The study of what goeson
at the interface,and the natureof the interactionswhich form the basisof social and
ecologicalrelationships, shouldbe of mostinterestto thoseworkingtowardssocially
andecologicallyacceptable change.

20
Engagingsuccess

Engagingsuccessinvolvessupportingthe processof local innovationand seeking


opportunitiesfor empoweringknowledgeand practice. Empowermenthereis viewed
as helpingpeopleto developconfidencein their own knowledge,ideas,insightsand
capabilities,thusbuildingup their self esteemandsenseof power;this canhelp them
to "selectivelyincorporate,adaptand take advantageof extemaltechnologiesand
ideas,ifthey want them" (Thrupp"1989:20). Thruppnotesthat peoplecan become
empoweredin this rvay if they are enabledto demonstratethe validity of their
knowledgeto other farmerstkough farmer-to-farmereKensionand groupworkshops.
This approachis echoedby BunchandLopez(1995)who recogaizethat an important
goal in supportinginnovationis for farmersto be confident,leam, and become
motivated to continue developingtheir own agriculture. Farmerswill incorprate
traditionalcomponents into extemaltechnologyandthey shouldnot be madeto feel
that theyhavefailedifthey do.

In community-based conservationin particular,successfulexamplesof participatory


projectsarehardto find, andthe participatorymelhodsseenas 'recipes'for success
havehada disappointing impact(Wells,1995).However,success is a mostimportant
recipe for just that - success- and can help establishthe legitimacy('effective
engagement'or practice)of local knowledgeand justi! calls for more funds and
resourcesto expandactivitieswhich seekto build on local knowledgeand practice
(Thrupp, 1989). Also, 'sustaininginnovation'after interventionmeansachieving
recognizable success (BunchandLopez,1995). However,it is importantto evaluate
successaccordingto local people'sneedsand aspirations. Local knowledgeand
practice, and tle successesto which their understandingand engagementmay give
rise,shouldbe perceivedin localpeople'sterms.

All too often, developmentpractitionersfocus on the problems identified by


themselvesand their clients,and the PRA processoften encourages this, with its
emphasisuponproblem-ranking and relatedmethods- They usuallypay ratherless
attentionto the identificationof opportunitiesand examplesof success. Listing
problemsis relatively easy,althoughit may require more thought to provide a
structuralanalysisof them. Proposingsolutionsis a little more difficult, especially
solutionswhich areappropriate to the wider contextof the problemsin questionand
which can be realisticallyachieved.Identiffing opportunitiesis harderstill, and the
methodsat our disposalfor doing this are generallyinadequate.Only by paying
closerattentionto farmers'andothers'practicecanwe can recognisesuccess andthe
potentialfor it; andonly by creativelyengagingtheir practicecanwe hopeto build on
success.

Conclusion

ln this chapter,we havelookedcloselyat someof the differentmethodsemployedto


understandand engage local knowledge and practice in the context of natural
resourcesresearchand development. We have contrastedsome well-known
'participatory'approaches with more consideredapproaches to the samequestion.

)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

UNDERSTANDING AND f,NGAGING PROJf,CT PRACTICE

Introduction

In the last chapterwe looked at different aspectsof the social (institutionaletc.)


differentiationof local knowledgeand practice,and how an understanding of these
shouldshapeapproaches andinfluencethe choiceandapplicationof methodsusedin
naturalresourcesresearchand development.We focusedon local knowledgeand
practiceas conventionallyunderstood,at the level of the 'community' or other
primary targetgroup. In the presentchapterwe will return to our expandeddefinition
of'local', and look more closelyat the wider institutionalcontextof development
practice. We will focus in particularon projectpractice(includingthe knowledge
and practiceof their stall), treatingprojectsas 'local' institutionswhoseknowledge
and practicemust also be understoodand engagedby developmentpmctitioners,
whethertheyareworkingwithin theseprojectsor not. The simplepoint we makeis
that we should understandand engageourselvesas well as other actors in the
developmentprocess. This is more than a question of engagingin critical
self-reflection. In this context engagingproclice unequivocally meanschanging
practice,andwe will suggestsomeofthe practicalwaysin whichthis mightbe done.

Theexternal interventiondebate

Beforewe tum to look at projectsaslocalinstitutions,we shouldsaysomethingabout


whatmight be calledthe 'externalinterventiondebate',which in somewaysparallels
the 'indigenousknowledgedebate',alreadydiscussed.In recentyears,a growing
numberof academics, includinganthropologists, havescrutinizeddifferentstagesof
the development process,from policy formulationthroughto impactevaluation,and
'deconstructed' the conceptswhich underlieits standardprescriptions.Long andvan
der Ploeg (1989) provide perhapsthe most authoritativeanalysisof intervention
practice,having first exposedthe theoreticalassumptionsunderlyingthe policy
modelswhich areadvancedin supportof it. Accordingto this analysis,intervention
is "an ongoing,socially-constructedandnegotiatedprocess,not simplythe execution
of an already-specified plan of action with expectedoutcomes"(1989: 22S) We
agreewholeheartedlywith this view and are happyto be identified with what might
be calledthe 'sophisticated'
conceptionof extemalintervention.

However,aswith the sophisticated conceptionof IK, this perspectiveon development


practicecan easilyslideinto a naiveanarchism.Longandvan der Ploegsuggestthat
their approach"can be usednot only to understand,but also to transformthe practice
of intervention"(1989: 242). We have written this book as our own modest
contributionto sucha programme,althoughwe havenot embracedan actor-oriented
approachto theexclusionofa structuralistandpolitical-economic perspective.At the
sametime, we do not believethat the transformation of interventionshould.or will.
result in its abandonment,
as someresearchers
imply, and we hold this view for a
numberof reasons.

Firstly, there is no evidenceto suggestthat the different international and national


agencieswhich cunentlyhavestakesin development interventionare aboutto give
themup. Secondly,we believethat we shouldbe strugglingto changethe practiceof
these agenciesbecausewe are stakeholdersin many of them (both as potential
employeesof them and as citizens of a nation which has its own agency and
contributesto others).Thirdly,evenif theydid tum their backson intervention,other
govemmentand non-govemment agencieswould probablycontinueto intervene.
Plannedinterventionis not the preserveof intemationaland national agenciesbased
in developedcountries,but is the practiceof many agentsat diflerent levelsin the
developmentarena. None of these agenciesor agentsshould be automatically
privileged,althoughthis is the positionadopted,explicitly or implicitly, by some
adherents of actor-oriented
researchandradicalpopulism.

Our own pragmaticapproachis to acceptthe reality of extemalinterventionwhile


activelytrying to changeits theoryand practiceso that it morecloselymatchesthat
reality. To someextentwe agreewith the positionadvancedby Hulme (1995)in his
discussionof altemativeapproaches to projectidentificationandplanning.He argues
that "thereis no optimalmodelfor planningagriculturalor rural projectsbut, rather,a
set of alternativesthat should be considereddependingon the specific context and
objectivesof an intervention" (1995: 211). The conclusionto his paper is
reproducingin full below.
"This paperhasattempted
to chart the wide rangeof responsesopen to those seekingto make project
planning and identification more effective, in terms of achievingthe stated objectivesof rural and
agriculturaldevelopment,It haspointedto the inadequacies of the onhodoxmodelupon which the
training of project personnelis largelybasedandfrom which most project planningmethodologieshave
beenderived. The conflictingimageofprojects aspolitical arenasin which powerful groupsconflict and
bargainin their attemptsto set and manipulatethe agendafor public action hasbeenpresented. This
appearsto havesignificantexplanatorypower in termsof actual project processes,but its rejection of
technicalanalysesas mereguisesfor self-interestis unsatisfactory.Thosewho continueto pusue the
narrow confinesof the orthodox model are likely to define 'what shouldbe' without relating this to
'what is'. Those who remain within
the boundariesof the political model may be academically
comfortable,but may conderm themselvesto being permanentlymarginalcritics who are not able to
contributeto changesin pfoject practice.

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.

The dominantirnageof projectsas a technocraticexercisemust be replacedwith a revisedimagethat


recognisesprojectsas arenasfor conflict, bargainingand trade-offs, and in which data and technical
tools havethe potentialto clarii/ likely outcomesand shapearguments.This is an altogetherlesscosy
imageofwhat projectsandprojectidentification areabout,but in realitythetextbooknotionsofproject
planninghavenevertranscended theircoverc."(1991:229-230)

In the following sections,we will applya similar perspective


to differentaspectsof
projectpractice,andnotjust to projectidentificationandplanning.

Incorporating local knowledgeinto project practice

Local knowledge(with or without practice)is generallyunderstoodto mean the


knowledgeof people in a project's target 'community' (usually rural dwellers).
Incorporatinglocal knowledgeinto projectpracticeis thereforetreatedas part of the
problemof makingprojectsmore 'participatory'by drawingthesepeopleinto the
projectprocessfrom startto finish andbeyond. Oneway of tacklingthis problemis
to examineeachstageof the projectprocess,lookingat waysin which this might be
achieved.

Project designand evaluation

Reg ( l99l ) arguesthat "If we want to give indigenousSWC [soil and water
conservation]and other forms of local environmentalknowledgea real chance,then
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).

Reij's characterization of identificationmissionsshould,perhaps,be qualified by


noting that not all projectsare'new' in the sensethat they are not all building on
nothing. It is importantthat identificationmissionsshouldtalk to publicofficialsand
membersof otherinstitutions(includingresearchinstitutions),not only becausethey
may haveimportantinformationon, and insightsinto, local knowledgeand practice,
but alsobecausetheyare importantstakeholders in their own right. Otherwise,it is
not unusualfor projectsto be proposedanddesignedaroundthe experienceof others
which have precededthem in the same location (see Box 4.1). In this case,
evaluationsof former project(s)may provide much of the requiredinformation,
especiallyif they have been conductedin a 'participatory'way. This does not
eliminatethe need for stakeholderanalysisand stakeholderworkshops,although
again,theseshouldnot be confinedto just the donor agencyand membersof the
1
target 'community'. If project identificationis startingfrom scratch,then Reij's
recommendationshavemoreforce.

A morewide-ranging assessmentofthe implicationsfor projectdesignis providedby


Blaikie et al. (1996), basedupon their more 'sophisticated'conceptionof local
knowledge. Farringtonprovidesa concisesummaryof their main argumentsas
follows.
"B&riers to fuller incorporation of LK
flocal knowledge] into researchand developmentprojects
include the (often unacknowledged)social and political agendasof outsideagencies,the professional
and cultural backgroundof their sta$ and the often contradictoryagendasamongstlocal people and
outside agencies. Structural and behaviouralfactors often lead outside agenciesto design projects
without allowing time for local participation. In additioL outsidersare often not adequatelytrained to
recognise and deal with unacknowledgedprofessionaland cultural agendaswhich may underlie
interactionsbetweenoutsidersandinsiders.

Progresstowardsremovingsomeofthese barrierscanbe madeby introducingnew skills into the design


and implementationof projects, including facilitation, conflict management,and negotiation,and by
supportingexistinglocal networksandpathways,andsuccessfulinsider- outsiderinstitutions.

In terms of projea management,somepreliminaryfunding may be required to ensureearly dialogue


betweenscientists,developmentworkersandintendedbeneficiaries,so that a clearsharedunderstanding
of the designand implementationprocesscan be gained. Furthemore, policiesat the nationallevel in
developingcountries should be examinedto see in what ways they encourageor discouragethe
resilience,vitality andadaptabilityofLK. Theymayhaveparticularrelevanceto, for instance,the extent
to which LK incorporatedin plant selectionis protectedby legislationon intellectualproperty rights."
(r9e6.2)

It is interestingto notethat althoughBlaikieer al. (1996)examineda largenumberof


ODA (DFID) prqectsfor evidenceof a concemwith local knowledge,theyhavelittle
to sayaboutprojectevaluationas a specificactivity,apartfrom recommending that
action researchon on-going projectsinvolving local knowledge(in their restricted
definition) should be undertaken. Their silence may be related to the general
weaknessof DFID and other agenciesin project evaluation,especiallywhen the
projectshavebeencompleted.This is becausethe shortcomings of pastprojectsare
unlikelyto be acknowledged duringthe processof self-evaluation
by projectstaff and
otherindividualaid organization stakeholders.

Opportunitiesfor institutional leaming are therefore lost, though individual


practitionersmay gain somethingfrom their own experience.This problemexistsin
all sectors,not just in natural resourcesresearchand development. Time and
resourcesfor detailedpost-projectevaluationsare generallyscarceand certainly not
availablefor evaluatingeverypastproject. In this respect,the recommendation put
forwardin Blaikie et al. is quitereasonable,
especiallyif it canbe ensuredthat action
rs taken on the recommendations of suchaction research.Otherwise,more could
certainly be done to record and leam from practitioners' and other stakeholders'
opinionswhenprojectscometo an end (at the very leastby askingthem to fill in a
moreelaborateversionofthe typeof form usedto evaluateworkshops,or by holding
workshopsthemselves). Some platform from rvhich they can air their opinions
shouldbe orovided.
Theneedfor time

Blaikie et al. (1996) make the importantpoint that project designseldomallows


sulficienttime for localparticipation.A similarpointis madeby Reij, who notesthat
a major constraintupon incorporatinglocal knowledgeinto projectsis the fact that
"govemment,donoragenciesand the presswant quick and tangibleresults"(1991:
15). "It may take3-5 yearsbeforethe bestandmostacceptable technicalpackageis
identified, hencetangible resultscan rarely be obtainedbefore 5-10 years have
elapsed.It is essentialthat donoragencies andgovemments acceptthesetime frames
for projects"(1991:16). Althoughnot everyoneis aiming for'technical packages',
this point is valid. Oneof the supposedadvantagesof'participatorypackages',which
was mostexplicit in ,lR.A,is the relativespeedwith which they can be carriedout;
this characteristic('quick, easy and cheap') has helped to make them widely
acceptable.However,understanding and engaginglocal knowledge(and practice)
canbe a lengthyprocess,andprojectcyclesoftenprovideinsufficienttime.

This is not only neededfor outsideresearchers (Reij, andBlaikie el a/., recommend


that more formal researchon local knowledgeshould be undertaken),but also for
other projectstakeholders.Researchby an experiencedresearcher, especiallyif it
focusesupon particulartopicsor locations,can often be undertakenin a relatively
shortperiodof time. For example,an antkopologistwith relevantexperienceshould
be able to producea detailedanalysisof a village communityin a month or less,
dependingon how much researchhas alreadybeendone in the generalarea(PRAs,
which typically result in poorer analysis,may take much longer in terms of
person-days).In orderto engagelocal knowledgeand practice,however,theremay
be no alternativebut to follow the paceof the peopleand institutionsbeingengaged
(this appliesequallyto the posfPRA process).Projectmilestonesand calendarsare
generallymeaningless exceptin projectoffices.

Naturalresourcesprojectsmay also demandmoretime by their very nature. Many


tree species,for example,whetherwild or cultivated,do not reachmaturity during the
short life time of forestry,agoforestryand cashcrop developmentprojects. This
problem is particularlyacute in conservationprojects and those which support
communitymanagement initiatives. The developmentof communitymanagement is
a longtermprocessandunlessprojectsaredesignedsothattheir key activitieswill be
sustainable (whichtheyrarelyall canbe),the long-termprognosismaybe grim.

Time constraintscan sometimesbe overcomeby reproducingprojects;extending


them into anotherphaseor initiatinga furtherprojectbasedon the experienceof its
predecessor. Althoughthis maybe effectivein somecases,it is a dangerously ad hoc
approach.Decisionsaboutsecond(third etc.)phasesandprojectsareusuallymadeat
a very late stagein the cycle, and funding is often not secureduntil after a project has
ended. Meanwhile, uncertaintyprevails; project staff (and sometimesother
stakeholders) may not know whetherthey shouldbe preparingto concludetheir work
or continueit. Underthesecircumstances, it is difficult to planfor sustainability;it is
probably safestto assumethat the project will end and that attemptsshouldtherefore
be made*o rneetits originalobjectivesin thetime available.
Altemativeapproaches to projecttime framesareclearlyrequired. 'Processprojects'
arenot enough;a greaterflexibility hasto be built into the projectprocessitself, even
if this meansabandoningthe conventionalnotion of what a project is and what it
shouldlook like. This will obviouslybe diffrcult for mostaid agencies,in which the
paceof institutionalchangerarelymatchesthat which they demandof their clients
overseas.However,this issuemust be tackled if our capaci$ to understandand
engagelocal knowledgeandpracticeis to be developed.

One option may be to provide funds for open-endedsequencesof intervention'


which placea greaterrelianceon on-off consultancy inputsthan permanentpostings
in the field. Progresscan be evaluatedduring and after eachdiscreteinput, and inputs
canthenbe clearlytargetedandtheir institutionalimpactscarefullyconsidered.Such
a processwould providethe motivationfor promotingsustainabilityand a meansof
ensuringits development, especiallyin the periodsbetweenextemalinputs. It would
not be appropriatein everycontext,but it is evidentthat the traditionalprojectcycle
is often inappropriate.Under the circumstances, it would seemquite rational to
experimentwith altematives

Project objectives

Blaikie et a/. found that relatively few ODA natural resourcesprojectsmadeexplicit


reference to localknowledgein their titlesor statedobjectives,andconcludedthat the
data"suggestthatLK hasbeena minimallyidentifiedcomponentin ODA projectsto
date" (1996:24). The increasingemphasison 'participatory'approaches, however,
impliesthat this situationis changing.Blaikieet al. alsonotethatthe (ratheroblique)
recognitionof the importanceof theseapproachesin ODA's revisedRenewable
NaturalResources ResearchStrategtfor 1995-2005(ODA, 1994a)offerssomehope
for the future, athoughthere is a dangerthat a gap betweenrhetoric (the rhetoric of
'participation'andthe 'incorporation
oflocal knowledge')andpracticewill develop.

Thereis no intrinsicreasonwhy local knowledgeshouldfeatureexplicitly in project


objectives. It is more importantthat projectsshould have clear and achievable
objectives,that differenttargetgoups or stakeholders areclearlyidentified,and that
their own objectives (whether theseare construedas 'knowledge'or not) form an
input to project objectives. This might be achievedin a numberof ways. The
organizationof stakeholderworkshopsas part of the projectplanningprocesshas
much to recommendit, especiallyif theseworkshopsare facilitatedby consultants
who are relativelyindependent of the principalstakeholders.Processesof this kind
should ensurethat local knowledgeand ptactice are engagedfrom the very outset,
whatever specific project objectives emerge from negotiation between the
stakeholders. This kind ofengagement shouldalsopermeatesubsequent practice,and
to this extent local knowledgeand practiceshouldbe an integral componentof every
projectwhetherstatedin its objectivesor not.

This is alreadythe casein termsof our expandeddefinitionof local knowledgeand


practice,althoughit may not be recognizedas such. All projectsoperatewithin the
arena of local knowledgeand practice and engagethem, knowingly or not, in
differentways. The problemis that existingmodesof understanding andengagement
are often deficient,especiallywhen they are not critically and creativelyengaged
themselves.The meta-objective of all projectsshouldbe to understandand engage
localpracticein its widestsense,includingtheir own practice.

Project practiceas local practice

Theproject as a locdl institution

Projectsshouldbe consideredas local institutions,not only becausethey may be


based 'locally', but also becausethey directly engageother local institutions,
whereverthe projectitself is located.Projectsoftenform part of otherinstitutionsor
are linkedto themin someway. Theymay be strictlytemporaryinstitutionslasting
only for the durationof the 'project cycle', or they (or partsof them) may have a
longerlife, eitheras(semi-)autonomous institutionsor asintegralpartsof others(see
Box 4.1). Whenprojectsarebeingplannedit is importantquestionsto askwhat kind
of institutionsthey shouldbe. Thereis no singleanswerto this questionbecauseit
has to be approachedon a case-by-case basis,taking into accountboth project
objectivesandthedifferentinstitutionaloptionsavailable.

4.1 ZCCFSPas a local institution

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.

Day-to-day managementwas left to NRI. In the early years, the designatedNRI


ProjectManagerin the U.K. playeda key role in settingmilestonesandensuringthat
they weremet. Later on, a new ProjectManagerwho gavemuchmore autonomyto
ZCCFSP'sFieldManager(an NRI employee).NRI headquarters wasthenconcemed
mainlywith providingadministrativesupportandmoregeneraladvice. Up to a point,
this systemworked well, although some TCOs regrettedthat BDDEA and./orother
extemaladvisorswerenot availableto providemoreactiveguidancealongthe lines
of the mid-termreview.
ODA andNRI werenot the only 'extemal'stakeholders in ZCCFSP.TheForeignand
CommonwealthOffice (FCO) providedTechnicalCooperationFunds (to support
TCOsin post,includingtheir families)throughthe British High Commission(BHC)
in Dar es Salaam,Tanzania.As the ultimateoverseerof British aid to Tanzania,the
FCO,tsHCalsohada vestedinterestin the project'sprogress.For example,towards
the end of the projectthe Field Managerwas askedto provideBHC with a list of
ZCCFSP's'tangibleoutputs'. Followingdissatisfaction with political developments
during and after Zanzibar'sfirst multi-partv elections in November 1995, the
FCO,tsHCintervenedand suspended British aid to Zarzibar. This put an abruptend
to plansfor a newprojectdesignedto build on ZCCFSP'swork to date. Planningfor
this was well advanced,had involved the active participationof the Zanzibar
govemment,and was actively supportedby ODA.tsDDEA. Ironically, the new
projectwasto havehada moreexplicitlyinstitutionalfocusthanZCCFSP.

ZCCFSP'sprincipal institutional locus in Zanzlbar lay within the Ministry of


Agriculture, Livestock and Natural Resources(MALNR). At the start of the project,
it wasattachedto theparastatalCashCropsandFruit Commission(CCFC),but it was
later relocatedto the Sub-commission for Researchin the Commissionfor Research
and Extension (the organizationof the MALNR into this and three other
Commissions, Planningand Administration,Agricultureand Livestock,and Natural
Resources,was relativelynew). ZCCFSPwas one of four donor-fundedprojects
dominatingthe work of this Sub-commission, andwasgenerallyreferredto as 'Cash
Crops' to distinguishit from 'Food Crops' (under the IFAD-funded Zanzibar
SmallholderSupportProject),'Coconuts'(the GTZllDA-fundedNational Coconut
DevelopmentProgramme), and 'PlantProtection'(the Dutch-fundedprojectentitled
'Strengtheningthe Plant ProtectionDivision of Zanzibar'). All
these projects
developedextensionactivities,in manycasesindependently of the Sub-commission
for Extension(supportedby a UNDP-fundedproject and implementedby FAO).
Althoughthe differentprojectscollaboratedon specificprogrammes, their different
approaches to researchand extensionremaineda constantsourceof friction, both
statedand unstated.

ZCCFSP'sinstitutionalpresencewas further complicatedby the attachmentof an


APO agroforesterand two employeesof the Sub-commission for Forestry(in the
Commissionfor Natural Resources),and the appointmentof a TCO marketing
economiston the understandingthathe wouldalsowork within the Ministry of Trade,
Industryand Marketing. ZCCFSP'srvideninginterpretationof its objectives,and
especiallyits drive to institutionalizea Farming Systems/Farmer Participatory
ResearchapproachthroughoutMALNR, conflicted with its primary institutional
location(not to mentionthe widely-heldperceptionthat its main job was still to
developcashcrops,and in particularaltemativesto cloves). As one projectwithin a
singleSub-commission, ZCCFSPdid not havethe institutionalstrengthto carry its
expandedobjectivesthrough. This is onereasonwhy the proposedfollow-onproject
wasto be basedin the Commissionfor Planningand Administrationwhereit would
potentially have a much wider impact on MALNR and be able to tackle the
recognized weaknessesof MALNR asan institution.
However, relatively little thought was given to the sustainabilityof ZCCFSP's
activitiesas the 'CashCrops' sectionin the Sub-commission for Research.It could
be arguedthat if ZCCFSPhadstuckmorecloselyto originalobjectives,especiallyas
thesewere perceivedwithin MALNR, more attentionmight havebeenpaid to this
issue. One TCO even suggested that ZCCFSPshouldhave remainedwithin the
CCFC, and thereforeoutsidethe line structureof MALNR altogether. Planning for
the new project,and the generaloptimismthat it would go ahead,delayedserious
consideration of the 'CashCrop' section'sfutureuntil it was too late. Negotiations
secureda promise of support(for one year) from IFAD firnds, but past experience
suggested that this promisemay not translateinto practice. When ZCCFSPwas
discontinuedin June 1996,capitalequipmentwas handedover to the 'CashCrops'
section(who continuedto usethe projecttitle). Within a monthof the handover,the
project's successorhad run into diffrculties, partly becauseMALNR could not afford
to pay its runningcosts(ZCCFSPhad subsidizedsomeof thesecosts,althoughthe
original project agreementhad specifiedthat this was the responsibilityof the
Zamibar government).The local institutionswhich ZCCFSPhad created,including
its FRGs.havehadsimilardifficulties.

Ihstitutionaloplions

There are severalobviousways in which projectscan be strengthened.As local


institutions,they shouldbe accountable to their stakeholders.The problemis that
somestakeholderinterestsare frequentlyignoredat the expenseof others. Many
projectsthereforebecomesites of conflict betweendifferent interests,and are riven
with disputes over purpose,the distribution of resources(including training
resources),and the ownershipof their tangibleand intangibleproducts(including
researchresults). Some degreeof conflict is to be expectedin any institution,
especiallyin one with the diverseanay of individualand collectivestakeholders so
tlpical of projects. Project planners,however,are often unableor unwilling to
consider all the options which might reduce the potential for conflict; project
practitionersmay alsobe ill-equippedto dealwith conflictswhenthey arisesbecause
of a similarblindnessto altemativesandlackof management skills.

Someform of stakeholder engagement shouldbe the startingpoint for everyproject.


Plannersand practitionersmay be more familiar with stakeholderanalysis(SA).
Grimbleel al. (1995)suggest
the followingdefinitionof SA:
"An approachfor understandinga
systemby identifyingthe key actors or stakeholdersin the system,
andassessing their respectiv€interestsin that system.Stakeholdersincludeall thosewho affect,and/ or
are affectedby, the policies,decisions,and actionsof the system;they can be individuals,communities,
social groups or institutions of any size, aggregationor level in society. The term thus includes
policy-makers, planners and administratorsin govemment and other organisations,as well as
comrnercial andsubsistence usergroups."(1995:3-4: originalpassage in italics)

Grimbleet al. alsoidentifuwo key objectivesof SA:


"(i) to improve the ef/ecti',vnessof policies and projects on the ground, by explicitly considering
stakeholders'interestsand the challengesthey may present,identi!,ing and dealingwith (before they
arise) conflicts over natural resourcesbetweenstakeholdergroups, and consideringth€ potential fcr
cooperation andcompromise.

(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)

In these quotations,SA is being describedin the context of natural resource


management. Grimbel et al. argte convincingly that SA can be both a powerful
analytictool azd a stepping-stone to activitiesdesignedto empowerlesspowerful
stakeholders. SA can be applied at different levels and at different stagesof the
projectprocessfor a varietyof purposes.Althoughthey do not specificallymention
this, SA canbe appliedequallywell to the analysisof projectsas institutions,to help
determinewhat institutional form they should take and how they might be adapted
overtime to thechanginginterestsoftheir differentstakeholders.

The major limitationof SA in this contextis that it is primarilydesignedas a tool to


be usedby just one set of stakeholders, extemalprojectplannersand practitioners.
As its name suggests,the primary emphasisis on analysis. To the extent that
understanding is a necessary prerequisite for practice,this is satisfactory.However,
on its own, SA doesnot ensurestakeholderengagement,so the meansfor achieving
this shouldbe activelyexplored. The holdingof stakeholder workshopshasalready
beenmentiioned.Thesemay be particularlyeffectivein the early stagesof project
design if all Ihe major stakeholdersare represented,and if the workshops are
facilitatedby relativelyneutralagents,suchas independent local consultants.This
kind of approach should not be limited to the design phase alone; just as SA can,and
should, be undertakenat different stagesof the project cycle, SE (stakeholder
engagement) shouldalsopermeateprojectpractice.Both formaland informalmeans
of ensuringstakeholder involvementshouldbe employedthroughout.

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

If projectsareto functioneffectivelyaslocal institutions,local stakeholdersareto be


enabledto exercisetheir different stakesin the project, and projects are to aim for
sustainabilityin the medium-to long-term,carefulattentionmustbe paid to the roles,
skills,andtrainingofproject practitioners
andotherindividualactors.

The institutional culture of donor-funded projects typically revolves around


dichotomiesof 'us andthem', insidersandoutsiders,operatingat differentlevels. At
one level, 'we' are the expatriatetechnicalstaff and 'they' are our local (usually
govemment-employed)counterparts;at anotherlevel, 'we' are all the practitioners
directlyattachedto the projectand 'they' areotherministryemployees, includingthe
superiorsof our counterparts;at yet another level, 'we' are all the donor-funded
projectsand 'they' arethe hostgovernment.Perceptions of this kind, while in some
ways unavoidable,can also be highly counter-productive, especiallywhen they are
translatedinto project practice and affect the ways in which different institutional
actorsare engaged.Similar dichotomiesmay operatewithin the wider institutional
culture,for example,within the ministryor department to whicha projectis attached,
but this is no reasonfor reproducingthem. As an aspectof local practice,including
our own, perceptions suchastheseshouldfirst be understood andthen engaged(and
wherenecessary, countered)in asconstructive a wayas possible.

4.2 Disciplinarity, interdisciplinarityand participationwithin ZCCFSP

In its last year (1995-96),ZCCFSPhad an unusuallylarge expatriateteam of four


TCOsand two APOs. Theseincludedthe project'sField Manager(an economist),
three agronomists(two on Ungujaand one on Pemba),an agroforester (Unguja),a
marketingeconomistGlnguja)anda socialanthropologist (Pemba).To someextent,
they workedseparately, partly becausethey were basedon differentislandsand, in
two cases,becausethey had close links with other institutions (the agroforester
workedwith staffin the Sub-Commission for F while themarketingeconomist

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).

Most of the expatriateteam'sZanzibaricounterparts wereMALNR employees.The


majorityhadreceivedbasictrainingin agriculturalscience(with someexceptions, to
certificateand diplomalevel). On both islands,the expatriateand nationalproject
staff were allocatedto threesections:agronomy,post-harvest, and socio-economics
(a fourth section,agroforestry,was confinedto Unguja). This division was often
counter-productive and madeit difficult to co-ordinatethe work. On Pemba,the
three sectionswere effectively integratedinto one for the purposesof most research
exercises.On Unguja,however,attemptsto achievea similardegreeof integrationin
everydayactivitiesfailed,partlydueto resistance andantipathyamongstsomeofthe
personnelinvolved.

For a long time, decision-making was dominatedby the expatriateteam meeting


aloneon Unguja. Major decisionswerethen presented to Zanzibai counterparts as
fait accompli. However,in the last yearsof the project,somepositivechangeswere
made. Monthly projectmeetingswereheld and importantissueswere discussedby
all the technicalstaff, includingdecisionsaboutthe allocationof funds for training
activities of diflerent kinds (including study tours). The meetingsfrequently
engendered heateddebateand werea distinctimprovementon the previouspractice.
Towardsthe endof the project,a ZanzibariHeadof Projectwaschosen.Prior to this
appointment,the expatriate Field Manager had no effective counterpart and the
Zanzibai staff had no effective representative.The Field Managerhad dealt directly
with individualstaff at one level. and the AssistantCommissionerfor Researchat
another. When ODA funding endedand the expatriatestaff left, the new Head of
Proiectremainedin controlof whatwasleft ofZCCFSP.

Projectresources and includepersonnel,skills,and opportunitiesfor trainingas well


as financialand materialresources, and thesehaveto be allocatedand controlled.
Financialcontrolis alwaysa sensitiveissue,especiallyifhost institutionsareshortof
funds and/orhavea reputationfor managingthem poorly (and at worst, comrptly). If
the personnelofa hostinstitutioncannotbe trusted,it is arguablethattheyshouldnot
be chosenasrecipientsof projectassistance (unlessthe projectis designedto promote
greateraccountabilityand transparencywithin the institution). In more regular
circumstances,thereareseveralof waysof haadlingthis issueeffectively. Insteadof
handingoverall financial control to a singleexpatriateprojectmanager(who may also
be financially incompetentor comtpt), a systemof checksand balancescan be
introduced;a boardof'directors' or otherpersonnelcouldbe createdto reviewmajor
decisionson the allocationof projectresources.Iffinancial andotherresponsibilities
canbe safelyhandedto the hostinstitution,it maybe appropriate to appointa project
managerfrom within the institution and leave the expatriate staff with primarily
technicalandadvisoryroles.

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.

Trainingstrategies shouldaim to improvethe skills availableto projectsboth in the


shortand long-term. This shouldincludetacklingthe 'normal professionalism' and
'conservatism of development professionals'highlightedby Blaikie et al. (1996)by
creatingmore effectiveblendsof naturalscienceand social science,technicaland
institutionalskills; and this appliesto both nationaland expatriatestaff. Natural
resourceprojects are frequentlyoverloadedwith expatriatesand nationalswith
primarilytechnicaltraining. In orderto understand and engagelocal knowledgeand
practiceat all levels,a varietyof non-technicalskills is alsorequired.Theseinclude
the ability to analyseinstitutions,and interactand negotiatewith other institutional
actors from olfice to field level. This does not mean that every development
practitionershouldbecomea socialscientist,but the importanceoftheseskills should
be recognized andstepstakento ensurethattheyareexercisedmorewidely.

Implicationsfor policy

Throughoutthis book,we haveemphasized the needto understand and engagelocal


knowledgeand practicerathermorerigorouslythanhasnormallybeenthe case,and
we havesuggested someof the ways in which this might be achieved. However,
questionsof policy alsoneedto be addressed.We will beginby consideringcurrent
DFID strategy,andthen discussmorespecificstrategies relatingto the allocationof
resowcesfor naturalresourcesresearchanddevelooment.

A strategtfor lhefuture'l

ODA,{DFID'sRenewable NaturalResourcesResearchStrategy(RNRRS),which was


introducedin 1990and revisedin 1993-94,is unashamedly
technicaland explicitly
basedon a 'productionsystemapproach'. The revisedRNRRS for 1995-2005is
introducedasfollows:
"The revisedStrategyaimsto generatereplicablenew
technologiesand improvedknowledgein natural,
and relevantsocial, sciencesthrough a more rigorous scientific approachto problem solving. It will
IJ
promote the uptake and application of researchproducts for the removal of constraintsto the
sustainabledevelopmentand managementof renewablenatural resources ifl tropical developing
countries. It will focusmore on demandcriteriato improvethe quality, relevance,uptakeand impactof
research."(ODA 1994a:2; seealso1994b:vii)

The technical orientation of the RNRSS is evident in its definition of


'commodity/resource productionsystems'(research will focuson sevenof these)and
reflected in its organizationinto 12 programmes,the majority of which are
discipline-based(for example, Aquaculture Research,Fisheries Management
Research, FishGeneticsResearch andFishPost-Harvest Research).TheEnvironment
ResearchProgramme,which is administeredseparatelyfrom the RNRSS but is
designedto complementit, is similarin its conception.

The emphasison'demandcriteria'offers a little hope,but not much. Blaikie et al.


cautiouslystated:
"With the introduction of the revisedRNRRS
it is likely that LK ocal knowledgel (together wirh
'participation') will featuremore strongly in project frameworks
and in annual/ completionreports.
However,thereis a dangerthat it will do so morein letter than in spirit, andthat a gap betweenrhetoric
and practicewill develop. That is that researchagendasmay continueto be prirnarily set by Western
scientificpractic€,with a cursorynod towardsindigenousmanagement strategiesandLK. The reasons
for this haveto do with the difficulties of managingthe researchinterfacewhich, in the neo-populist
paradigm,becomeconsiderablymore complex. It needsto be ernphasised that the implicationsof an
explicit LK componentfor the researchprocessare considerable,and involve a profound shift in the
social and political relationshipsbetweenNR lnatural resources]researchscientists,extemal agencies
and their clients, and in the ways in which these structure themselves,make decisionsand relate to
othersin the professional sphere."(1996:24-25)

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

The vast and growing literature in favour of participatory approachesto natural


resourcesresearchand developmentpromptsthe assumptionthat they have been
endorsedwith the same fervour by policy-makers,and that resourcesare freely
availablefor their use. However,just as the participatorymessage
hasyet to trickle
down to somepractitioners,it is encounteringsimilar, if not greater,difficulty in
moving upwardsto the policy-makers. While many practitionershave at least
embracedthe rhetoricof participation,evidencesuggeststhat many policy-makers

t4
havenot, eitherbecausethey haveactivelyresisteddoing so, or becauseare largely
ignorantofthe partici patorymovement.

Thereare severalreasonsfor this, someof which relateto the political economyof


development.Many policy-makersare adherents(declaredor not) of neo-classical
economics (the source of traditional modemization approaches)whereas many
developmenttheoristsand practitionershavebeenmore stronglyinfluencedby the
radical alternatives(including neo-Marxism,feminism, and the environmental
movement)underlyingparticipatorypopulism. These are the ingredientsof an
age-old ideological conllict which, although it rarely surfaces,exists beneath
developmentpolicy and practice. It is not difficult to seewhy resourcesmight be
deniedto the participatorylobbyin this context.

The questionswhich this raisesarerarelyaddressed by the optimisticproponentsof


participation.In his critical rcviewof BeyondFarmerFirst (ScoonesandThompson,
1994), Fanington (1995) notes that "the book is permeatedwith simplistic
perceptionsofthe conditionsin whichpublicsectorresources maybe allocatedto (or
deniedto) the rural poor." Referringspecificallyto less developedcountries,he
arguesthat participatoryapproachesrequiremore resourcesthan are usually available
in publicsectorresearch ald extensionservices:
"We cannotsimply
assumethat participatoryapproaches are self-evidentlydeservingof greaterresource
allocations: existingpolitical pressuresare likely to favour continuedstrongrepresentationof better-off
farmers. By what political and managementprocessesmight we expect some reversal of cuneni
resourceallocationpatterns?Thisis a qu€stionthatthebookdoesnot adequately address."(1995:6)

Farringtonmight equally have been referring to the allocation of resourcesin


developedcountries,althoughthe political pressuresagainstparticipationtake a
somewhatdifferent form. He continuesby arguing that the editors' definition of
'transferof technology'nowhererises
abovethe level of caricature,but is conflated
with a topdown technologydevelopmentandextensionapproach:
"The time is ripe for redefinitionand somerehabilitation
ofthe conceptof technologytransfer: it does
not necessarilyimply purely "science-driven"modesof operation(though it does admit the important
possibility that ideasfor researchand for new technologiesmay come from both scienceand from
farmers). Even if technologieshave been developedby profoundly participatory processes,there
remainsthe needto offer themas optionsto otherswho mayfind themuseful,regardlessofwhether this
processis termed"sharing","dissemination", "extension"or "technologltransfer".(1995:6)

Farringtonsuggestsrelying insteadon the use of the media (including radio) for


middle and high incomefarmers,therebysavingon resourceswhich could then be
allocated to lower income farmers for whom face-to-face approachesare more
necessary. He also suggestsa need to explore altemativesto farming. Farm
households differ widely in their capabilitiesandlevelsof commitmentto agriculture;
typically,poor farmerscombinestrategies to meethouseholdfood requirements (for
example,by sellingtheir labourto othersin additionto working their own farms).
Farringtonconcludesby endorsingCarroll's (1992) argumentthat development
plannersshouldalsoadoptmultiplestrategies by promotinga combinationof income

t)
generation(farming included), the creation of casual, unskilled employment
and'safetynets'.
opportunities,

Farringtonis arguingrealisticallythat resources shouldbe bettertargetedif we want


to meetthe needsof resource-poor farmers.Theseissuesareusuallyglossedover by
proponents of participatoryapproaches and in this respectwe agreewith Farrington;
an enhanced understanding of practice,includingthe practiceof policy-makers,both
demandsandallowsusto engagepracticesfategically.ln somecases,this may mean
using methodswhich are not participatoryin the fullest sense(Biggs' 'collegiate'
mode),but our ultimateobjectivesare the sameas, or very similar to, thoseof the
populists. As Edwards (1994) noted, researchdoes not have to be directly
participatoryto be relevant.Similarly,we areunlikelyto achieveour objectivesifwe
only engagethe practiceof (or 'participatewith') the peoplewe want to help most.
The knowledgeand practiceof our own policy-makers might be an obviousplaceto
begin.

Conclusion

There are many ways in which project desigrrand practicecan be improvedto


enhancethe capacity of projects to understandand engagelocal knowledge and
practice in their widest sense. There is also a considerableneed to consider
alternativesto the normal 'project package', with its restrictive format and
time-frame. Why the whole package? Is there scope for specific institutional
interventions,longer-termbut more focused interventions,the use of rolling
consultancies,closercollaborationwith NGOs? Theseare questionswhich do not
apply to natural resourcesresearchand developmentalone,but must be consideredif
local knowledgeandpracticeareto be engagedmoreeffectivelythanat present.For
the samereasons, thereis an evidentneedto examinecriticallythe policy framework
in whichnaturalresources researchanddevelopment areembedded.

l6
CHAPTERFIVE

CONCLUSION

The messageof this book is simple: understanding and engaginglocal knowledge


andpracticearecriticalto naturalresources
researchanddevelopment.Althoughthis
is not a new idea,we havegivenit a muchwider interpretation by emphasizingthat
understanding andengagingshouldnot be confinedto a singlesl,nchronicdomain(of
primaryprojectbeneficiaries),
but ratherextendedovertime andto differentlevelsof
institutionalspace.

More importantly,however,we haveemphasizedthe needto understandand engage


knowledgeand practiceat different levelswith much greaterthoroughness than is
usuallythe case. The methods andtools generallyrecommended for this taskarenot
entirelysuitable,or appliedaswell (or ascreatively)astheymightbe; thoughtless use
of the standardpRl{'package' is a goodexampleof this. However,altemativesare
available,includingdevelopingthe potentialof more'traditional'methodsof inquiry.
Understandingis the key to effectiveengagement, andthis appliesto engagingproject
practiceaswell asto planninginteractions at communitylevel.

Before ending, let us recap the sequenceof our argument. Conventional


understandingsof knowledgeand practice are strongly coloured by the 'indigenous
knowledgedebate'and the way in which this has developed.This debatecan be
characterized by the (incomplete)shift from a 'naive' to a 'sophisticated'conception
of indigenousknowledge'(IK). The naiveconceptionis overwhelminglytechnical,
while the sophisticated conceptionemphasizes the social (political, economicetc.)
dimensionsof IK. The latteris no doubtan improvementoverthe former,althoughit
still carrieswith it a narrow focus on 'knowledge'which has led to impractical
proposalsfor practice.

Knowledgeis more satisfactorilytreatedas an aspectof practice,and more effort


should be put into understandinglocal practice in its different manifestations.
Differentwaysof doingthis aresuggested by recentsocialdevelopment theorists,and
we examined the relative usefulnessof these, with particular reference to
'structuralist'and'actor-oriented' After emphasizing
approaches. the needto analyse
how practicechangesover time, we tumed our attentionto the meaningof'local'.
Conventionalapproaches to IK (andpractice)focusalmostexclusivelyon one set of
actorsin the developmentarena,membersof the (usuallyrural) 'community' By
contrast,we expanded the definitionoflocal to includethe knowledgeandpracticeof
otheragents,includinggovernment, NGOs,andevenprojectsthemselves.

We thenconsidered how local knowledgeandpracticecanbe engagedat community


level. Different methodsand approacheswere examined,starting with the standard
'participatory'packages,
includingPRAs. Thesewerefoundwantingin a numberof
respects,especiallywhen used(as they usuallyare) in an inflexible and uncreative
way. They often provideonly a superficialunderstandingof local knowledgeand
practice,and an insufficientlydevelopedmeansof engagingthese. Alternative
approaches whichcanmakeup thesedeficiencieswereconsidered, includingthe case
study approachand the importanceof building upon local practice (including
innovationandsuccess) asa meansof engagingit. The needto usedifferentmethods
andapproaches strategically
andagainsta backgroundofa coherentunderstanding of
local practicewasalsoemphasized.

Finally, we retumedto the wider definition of local knowledgeand practice,and


looked at the questionof engagingprojectpractice. We beganwith an extended
discussionof the 'extemalinterventiondebate',retumingto someearliertheoretical
themesandarguingthat interventionhasto be constructively engaged andnot naively
rejected. Different proposalsfor incorporatinglocal knowledgeinto project practice
wereconsidered, focusinguponlocal knowledgeas conventionallyunderstood.We
then examinedprojectsas local institutions,and lookedat the differentimplications
of this in termsof variousinstitutionaloptionsand the ways in which the skills of
project actors might be improved,enablingthem to understandand engagethe
practiceof otheractors(aswell astheir own) moreeffectively.We concludedwith a
brief look at someof the wider implicationsof our argumentfor policiesrelatingto
naturalresources researchanddevelopment.

To reiterate:the knowledgeand practiceof all the participants(individualactorsand


institutions)in the processof natural resourcesresearchand developmentare
important.Theprimarytaskof projectandotherdevelopment practitionersshouldbe
to understand and engagelocal knowledgeand practice(using 'local' in its widest
sense)ascomprehensively andcreativelyaspossible.Thereareno shortcutsto doing
this. However,the potential advantagesof a comprehensiveunderstandingof local
knowledgeand practiceare considerable;not least in fosteringa more creative
approachto engagement with the promiseof more equitableand thereforeeffective
i nteractions.
BIBLIOGRAPITY

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

Alcom, J. B. (1995) 'The Scopeand Aims of Etbnobotanyin a Developing


World', in R. E. SchultesandS. von Reis(eds.)(1995). 23-29.

Altieri, M. A. (1995) Agroecologt: Ihe Scienceof SustainableAgriculture (xcond


edition). London: IntermediateTechnologyPublications.

Appleton,H. E. and l{ll, C. L. M. (1994) 'Genderand IndigenousKnowledgein


Various Organisations',IndigenousKntwledge and Developmefi Monitor, 2
(3),8-l l.

Bebbingto4 A. (1991) 'Indigenous Agricultural Knowledge Systems,Human


Interestsand Critical Analysis:Reflectionson FarmerOrganizationin Ecuador',
Agricalture and Human Values;8, 14-24.

Bebbington, A. (1993) Rural People's Knawledge,Farmer Organisations and


Regiotnl Development: Implicationsfor Agricaltural Researchand Extension,
ODI AgriculturalResearchandExtensionNetwork PaperNo.41.

Bebbingto4 A. (1994) 'Theory and Relevancein Indigenous


Agriculture:
Knowledge,AgencyandOrganisation',
in D. Booth(ed.)(1994). 202-225.

Bebbington,A., Merrill-Sands,D. andFarrington,J. (1994) Farmer and Community


Organisafionsin Agricultural Researchand Extension: Functions,Impactsand
Questions,ODI AgriculturalResearchandExtensionNetwork PaperNo.47.

Bentley, J. W. (1994) 'Facts, Fantasiesand Failures of Farmer Participatory


Research,lgriculture andHumanValues,11, 140-150.

Biggs S. (1989) Resource-poorFarmer Pafttcirytton in Research: A Sythesis of


Experiencesfrom Nine Natiornl Agric,trltural fusearch Systems,ISNAR /
OFCORComparative StudyPaperNo.3.
Biggs, S. D. (1990) 'A Multiple Sourceof InnovationModel of Agricultural
Research andTechnology
Promotion',WorldDevelopment,18(ll\, l48l-1499.

Biggs, S. D. and Fanington,J. (1991) 'Assessing


the effectsof FarmingSystems
Research: Time for the Reintroduction of a Potitical and Institutional
Perspective',Joumal of AsianFarmingSystemsAssociation,l, I 13-131.

Biot, Y., Blaikie, P. M., Jacksoq C. and Palmer-Jones,


R. (1995) Rethinking
Research on land Degradation in Developing Countries, World Bank
DiscussionPaperNo.289.,Washington D.C.

Blaikie, P., Brown, K., Stocking,M, Tang,L., Sillitoe,P. and Dixon, P. (1996)
'UnderstandingLocal Knowledge
and the Dynamicsof Technical Changein
DevelopingCountries', paper presentedto the Socio-economicMethodologies
Workshop(ODANatural ResourcesSysternsProgramme),29-30 April.

Booth, D. (1994a) 'RethinkingSocialDevelopment:An Overview',in D. Booth


(ed.)(lee$. 3-34.

Booth,D. (1994b) 'How far BeyondtheImpasse?A ProvisionalSumming-up',


in D.
Booth(ed.)(1994).298-311.

Booth, D. (ed) (1994,) Rethinking Social Development: Theory,Researchand


Practice. Bumt Mill, Harlow: LongrnanScientific& Technical.

Brokensha,D , Warre4 D. and Wemer, O, (eds.) (1980) IndigenousKrutwledge


Systemsand Development.Lardaalrl.:UniversityPressof America.

Bunclq R. md Lopez, G. (1995) Soil Recuperationin Central Amerim: Sustaining


Innovationafter Intervention, IIED GatekeeperSeriesNo.55.

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.

Carney, J. (1991) 'Indigenous Soil and Water Managementin Senegambian


Rice
FarmingSystefirs', Agriculture and Human Values,8, 37-48.

Canoll, T. (1992) Intermediary NGOs: The Supporting Link in Grassroots


Development.WestHartford, Connecticut:KumarianPress.

Carter, L (1995) Alley Farming: Have Resutrce-poorFmmers BeneJited?,ODI


NaturalResourcePerspectives,
No.3.

Carter,J. (1996) RecentAppr<nchesto Participatory ForestResourceAssessment


@ural DevelopmentForestryStudyGuide2). London: ODL
Cerne4 M. (ed.) (1985) Putting People First: Sociologiml Variables in
DevelopmentProjectJ. Baltimore: The JohnHopkinsPress.

Chambers,R. (1983) Rural Development: Putting the Lost First. London:


Longmans.

Chambers, R. (1993) Challengtng the Professions: Frontiers for Rural


Development.London: IntermediateTechnologyPublications.

Chambers, R, (l99aa) 'The Originsand Practiceof ParticipatoryRural Appraisal',


lf orld Development,22, 953-969,

Chambers, R. (1994b) 'Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA): Analysis of


Experience',WorldDevelopment,22, 1253-1268.

Chambers,R. (1994c) 'ParticipatoryRural Appraisal@RA): Challenges,Potentials


andParadigm',World Development,22, 1437- | 454.

Chambers,R. (1995) Poverty and Livelihoods: WhoseReality CountsT, IDS


Discussion
PaperNo.D347.

Chambers,R., Pacey,A., and Thrupp,L. A, (eds.) (1989) Farmer First: Farmer


Innovation and Agricultural Research. London: IntermediateTechnology
Publications.

M (1995) 'SalvagingNature: IndigenousPeoples,ProtectedAreasand


Colchester,
BiodiversityConservation',UNNSD SocialDevelopmentNews, 12,14.

Comwall, A., Guijit, I. and Welboum, A. (1993) AcknowledgtngProcess:


Challengesfor Agria tural Reseqrch and Extension Methdologt, IDS
DiscussionPaperNo.D333.

Cornwall, A. and Jewkes,R. (1995) 'What is ParticipatoryResearch?',.Socjal


Scienceand Medicine, 4l , 1667-1676.

Critchley,W., Reij, C. and Wilcocks,T. J. (1994) 'IndigenousSoil and Water


Conservation:A Review of the Stateof KnowledgeandProspectsfor Building
on Tradition', Iand Degradationand Rehabilitation,5,293-314.

Davies,S. (1994) 'Introduction: Informatio4 KnowledgeandPower', IDSBulletin,


25 (2), 1-r3.

Davis,E. W. (1995) 'Ethnobotany:An Old Practice,A New Discipline',in R. E.


andS. von Reis(eds.)(1995). 40-51.
Schultes

Dei, G. J. S. (1988) 'Crisis and Adaptationin a GhanaianForest Community',


AnthropologicalQumterly, 6l (2), 63-72.
Dore, R. (1994) 'Why Visiting SociologistsFatl', World Development,22 (9),
1425-1436

Drinkwater,M. (ed.) (1994) Former Participafion and Farmer ResearchGroups:


Worlahop Commentary and Papers, proceedings of an ARPT National
Workshopheld at Kabwe,Zambia,1-6February1993.

Drinkwater, M. and Sutherland,A. (1994) 'Evaluationof FarmerParticipationin


ARPT', in M. Drinkwater(ed.)(199\. 2-59

Edwards, M. (1989) 'The Irrelevance of Dwelopment Studies', Third World


Quarterly,1l (l).

Edwards,M. (1994) 'RethinkingSocialDevelopment:The Searchfor 'Relevance",


in D. Booth(ed.)(1994). 279-297.

Eyben,R. (1991)'TheProcessApproach',paperpresentedtotheNaturalResrrurces
AdvisorsConference,Bangor,July 1991.

Fairhead, J. (1991) Indigenous Technical Knan'ledge ond Natural Resource


Managementin Sub-SalwranAfrica: A Critical Reiew. Chatham:Natural
ResourcesInstitute.

Farringto4 J. (1994) Public Sector Agricahural Extension: Is There Ltfe After


Strilctural Adjustmezt?,ODI NaturalResourcePerspectives,
No.2.

Farringto4 J. (1995) Review of 'Beyond Farmer First', Tropical Agriculnre


AssociatronNewslelter,15(2), 5-6.

Farrington,J. (1996) Socio-economicMethds in Natural ResourcesResemch,ODI


Natural ResourcePerspectives
No.9.

Farrington,J. andMartin, A. (1988) Farmer Participation in Agricalnral Research:


A Reviewof Conceptsmtd Practices,ODI OccasionalPaperNo.9.

Fernandez, M. E. (1994) 'Gender and lndigenous Knowledge', Indigenous


Knantledgeand DevelopmentMonitor,2 (3), 6-7.

Fernandez,P. (1995) 'Indigenous Seed Practices for SustainableAgriculture',


IndigenousKnowledgeand DevelopmentMonitor,3 (1).

Feyerabend,P. (1975) Against Method: Outline of an Anarchistic Theory of


Krutwledge London: Verso.

Fisher, R. J (1995) 'Local Knowledge of Dryland Salinity in the Hunter Valley,


Australia',IndigenousKntwledge and DevelopmentMonitor, 3 (l), 13-14.

Frazer,J, G. (1923-26) TheGoldenBough (third edition). London.


4
Freire, P. (1996) Pedagogt of the Oppressed(trans. M. B. Ramos). London:
PenguinBooks.

Gibson, C. G. and Marks, S. A. (1995) 'TransformingRural Hunters into


Conservationists:An Assessmentof Community-basedWildlife Managernent
Programsin Africa', WorldDevelopment,
23 (6),941-957.

Grandin, B. E. (1988) Wealth Ranking in Smallholder Communities: A Field


Mmtuol. London: IntermediateTechnologyPublications.

Grimble,R., Chan,M-K, fulionby, J. and Quan,J. (1995) Treesand Tradenfs' A


StakeholderApproach to Naturql ResourceManagement,IIED Gatekeeper
Series-No.52.

Hasler,R. (1995) Political Ecologiesof Scale: TheMulti-tiered Co-management


of
ZimbabweanWildlife Resources,IIED (in associationwith The CAMPFIRE
CollaborativeGroup) Wildlife andDevelopmentSeries,No.7.

Hassaneiq N. and Kloppenburg, J. (1995) 'Where the Grass Grows Again:


Knowledge Exchange in the SustainableAgriculture Movenent', Rural
Sociologt,60 (4), 72l -740.

Hobley, M. and Shah, K. (1996) What Makes a Local Organisation Robust?


Evidencefrom India and Nepal, ODI NaturalResourcePerspectives,
No. I 1.

Howes, M. and Chambers,R (1979) 'IndigenousTechnicalKnowledge: Analysis,


Implicationsand lssrues'
, IDS Bulletin, lO, 5-11.

Hulme,D. (1995) 'Projects,Politicsand Professionals: AltemativeApproachesfor


ProjectldentificationandProjectPlann;ng', Agricultural Systems,47,2ll-233.

IDS Workshop (1989) 'Farmer'sKnowledge,InnovationsandRelationto Science',


in R. Charnbers
et al. (eds.)(1989),3l-38.

IIED (1994) ll/hose Men? An Ovemiewo/ Comrrunity Apprmches to Wildlife


Mcmagement (a report to ODA). London: IIED.

ISNAR (1994) Report of a Workshop: Sttengtheningthe Role of Farmers'


Organizations in Technologt Developmentand Transfer, ISNAR Briefing
Paper,No.15.

Jacksoq C. (1993) 'Doing What ComesNaturally? Women and Environmentin


Dwelopment', lYorld Development,2l (12), 1947-1963.

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

Lakatos,I. andMusgrave,A. (eds.) (1970) Criticism ond the Growth of Knowledge.


London: CambridgeUniversityPress.

Lindskog, P. and Tengberg,A. O99q 'Land Degradatio4 Natural Resourcesand


Local Knowledge in the SahelZone of Burkina Faso', GeoJoumal, 33 (4),
365-375.

Long, A. (1992) 'Goods,KnowledgeandBeer: TheMethodological Significance


of SituationalAnalysisand Dscourse',in N, Long and A. Long (eds.)(1992).
147-170

Long,N. andvan derPloeg,I. D. (1989) 'Demythologizing PlannedIntervention:An


Actor Perspective',SociologiaRuralis, 29 (3/4), 226-249.

Long, N. and van der Ploeg, J. D. (1994) 'Heterogeneity,Actor and Structure:


Towards a Reconstitutionof the Concept of Structure', in D. Booth (ed,)
(1994). 62-8e.

Long, N. and Long, A. (eds.) (1992) Battlefieldsof Knawledge: TheInterlockng of


Theoryand Practice in Social Researchand Developmenl. London and New
York: Routledge.

Longhurst,R. (1988) 'CashCropsandFood Security:CashCrops,HouseholdFood


SecurityandNutition' , IDS Bulletin, 19(2),28-36.

Mathias, E. (1995) 'Frameworkfor Enhancingthe Use of lndigenousKnowledge',


IndigenousKna+,ledgeand DevelopmentMonitor, 3 (2), 17-18.

Maundu,P. (1995) 'Methodologyfor Collectingand SharingIndigenousKnowledge:


A Ca:c Shtdy', IndigenousKrcwledge and DevelopmentMonitor, 3 (2), 3-5.

Mazur, R.E. and Titilola, T. S. (1992) 'The Social-economic


Dimensionsof Local
Knowledge Systemsin African SustainableDwelopment', SociologtaRuralis,
32 (2t3),264-286.

Merrill-Sands,D. and Collioq M-H. (1992) 'Making the Farmers'Voice Count;


Iszuesand Opportunitiesfor Promoting Farmer-Responsive
Research',paper
presentedto the |2th Anmml Farming SystemsSryposiazr, Michigan State
University,13-18 September.

Mosse,D. (1994) 'Authority, GenderandKnowledge:TheoreticalReflectionson the


Practice of Participatory Rural Appraisal', Developmentand Change, 25,
497-526.
Mosse,D., with the KRIPB ProjectTeam (1995) 'People'sKnowledge'in Project
Planning: The Limits and Social Conditiorrs of Porticirytion in Planning
Agricultural Development,ODI Agricultural Researchand ExtensionNetwork
PaperNo.58.

Mosse, D., with the KRIBP Project Team (1996) Local Institutions and Farming
SystemsDevelopment: T1roughts from a Project in Tribal WestemIndia, ODI
AgriculturalResearchandExtensionNetworlg PaperNo,64.

Nabasa,J,, Rutwara, G., Walker, F. and Were, C. (1995) Particirytory Rural


Apprarsal: Practical kperiences. Chatham:NaturalResourcesInstitute.

Ndufa, J. K., Ohlsson,E., Swinkels,R. and Shepherd,K. D. (1993) 'Participatory


Research Methods for Agroforestry Technology Development in Western
Kenya', paper presentedto the workshop on Design, Implementation and
Anolysisof On-farm Trials, Arlsha,28 June- 2 July.

Nelson, N. and Wright, S. (eds.) (1995) Power and Participatory Development:


Theoryand Practice, London: IntermediateTechnologyPublications.

Niemeijer, D. (1995) 'Indigenous Soil Classifications:Complicationsand


Considerations',Indigenous Knowledge ord DevelopmentMonitor, | (l\,
20-21.

ODA (1992) The Process Approach to Projects, Technical Note No.4, Aid
Economicsand SocialDepartment,ODd London.

ODA (1994a) RenewableNatural ResourcesResearchStrategt 1995-2005, final


report, NaturalResourcesResearchDepartment,ODd London.

ODA (1994b) A Guide to the RenewableNatural ResourcesResearchStrategt.


London: ODA.

Okali, C., Sumberg,J., and Faningon, J, (1994) Farmer Pmticipatory Research:


Rhetoricand Realir!. London: IntermediateTechnologyPublications.

Popper,K. (1959) TheLogrc of ScientificDiscovery. London: Routledge& Kegan


Paul.

Popper, K. (1966) The Open Society and its Enemies (fifth edition, revised).
London: Routledge& KeganPaul.

Prance,G. T. (1995) 'Ethnobotany Todayandin theFuture',in R. E. Schultesand


S. von Reis(eds.)(1995) 60-68.

Pretty, J. N. (1995) RegeneratingAgriculture: Policies and Practice for


Susnirubility and Self-reliance. London: EarthscanPublications.
Pretty, J. N. and Chambers,R. (1994) 'Towards a Leaming Paradigm:New
Professionalismand Institutionsfe1 dgricu!ture', in L ScoonesandJ. Thompson
(eds.)(199a). 182-202.

B., Warreq D. M. and Babu, S. C. (1991) 'IndigenousNatural


Rajasekaran,
ResourceManagernentSysternsfor SustainableAgricultural Development: A
GlobalPerspective',
Journalof InternationalDevelopment,3 (l), 1-15.

Reij, C. (1991) IttdigenousSoil and WaterConservafionin Africa,IIED Gatekeeper


SeriesNo.27.

Richards,P. (1985) IttdigenousAgricultural Revolution London: Hutchinson.

Rocheleau,D. (1994) 'Participatory Researchand the Race to Save the Planet:


Questions, Critique and Lessons from the Field', Agriaiture and Human
Values,ll,4-25.

Schultes,R. E. and von Reis, S. (eds.) (1995) The Scopeand Aims of


Ethrnbotany in a DevelopingWorld. Lorrdon: DioscoridesPress.

Scoones,L, Melny( M. and Pretty, J. N. (1992) TheHiddm Harvest: Wld Foods


and Agricultural Systems: A Literature Reviewand Anrntated Bibliography.
London: IIED.

Scoones,I. andThompsoqJ. (1994) 'Knowledge,Power andAgriculture - Towards


a TheoreticalUnderstanding',in L Scoonesand J. Thompson(eds.) (199a).
t6-32.

Scoones,I. and Thompson,J. (eds.) (1994) BeyondFarmer First: Rural People's


Knanledge, Agriculnral Research and Extension Pracfice. London:
IntermediateTechnologyPublications.

Simpsoq B. M. (1994) 'Genderandthe SocialDitrerentiationof Local Knowledge',


IndigenousKnowledgeandDevelopment Monitor,2 (3),2l-23 .

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.

Sinclair,F. L., Walker,D. H., Joshi,L., Ambrose,B. andThapa,B. (1993) Useof a


Based Systems in the Imprwement ol Tree Fdder
Resourceson Farmland in the fustem Hills of Nepal: Pilot Phase,report of
researchundertakenin ODA Forestry and Agroforestry ResearchStrategy,
AdaptiveProjectR5470.
Southem, A. J. (1994) Acquisition of IndigenousEcological Knowledge about
Forest Gardens in Kandy District, Sri Innka, unpublishedM.Phil. thesis,
Universityof Walesat Bangor.

Sumberg,J. and Okali, C. (1988) 'Farmers,On-farmResearchandthe Development


of New Technolory',Expl.Agric., 24,333-342.

Sweet, C. F. and Weisel,P. F. (1979) 'ProcessversusBlueprint Models for


DesigningRural DevelopmentProjects', in G. Honadle and R. Klauss (eds.)
Internqtional Development Adninistration: Implementation Analysis for
DevelopmentProjecls. New York: Praeger. 127-145.

Thapa,B. (1994) Fmmers' Ecological Knowledgeabaut the Matngement and (/se


of Fmmland Tree Resourcesin the Mid-hills of fustem lr'epal, unpublished
Ph.D.thesis,Universityof Walesat Bangor,

Thap4 B. (1995) 'Incorporation of IndigenousKnowledge and Perspectivesin


AgroforestryDevelopmett',AgroforestrySystems,30, 249-261.

Thapa,8., Sinclair,F. L. and Walker,D. H. (1995) 'Incorporationof Indigenous


Knowledgeand Perspectivesin AgroforestryDevelopment(Part 2: Case-study
on the knpact of Explicit Representation
of Farmers'l(nowledge)', Agroforestry
Systems,30,249-261.

Thiollay, J. M. (1995) 'The Role of TraditionalAgroforestsin the Conservationof


RainForestBird Diversityin Sumatra',ConservationBiologt,2,335-353.

Thompso4 J. (1995) 'Participatory Approachesin GovernmentBureaucracies:


Facilitating the Processof Institutional Change', World Development,23 (9),
1521-r554.

Thompsoq J. (1996) 'Moving the IndigenousKnowledgeDebate Forward?',


DevelopmentPolicy Review,14, 105-112.

Thompson,J. and Scoones,I. (1994) 'Challengingthe PopulistPerspective:


Rural
Peoples' Knowledge, furicultural Research, and Extension Practice',
Agricahure and Human Values,I l, 58-76.

Thrupp, L. A. (1989) 'Legitimizing Local Knowledge: From Displacementto


Empowermentfor Third World People', Agricalture and Human Values, 6,
t3-24.

Uphotr, N. (1992) Local institutionsand Participationfor SustaitableDevelopment,


IIED Gatekeeper SeriesNo.3l.

[various] (1994) Linking Farmers' Organisationsand Resemchers:Four Case


Studies,ODI AgriculturalResearchandExtensionNetwork PaperNo.50.
Walker, D. H. (1994) A Knowledge-basedSystemsApprmch to Agroforestry
Research ad ktension, unpublishedPh.D. thesis, University of Wales at
Bangor.

Walker,D. H., Sinclair,F. L. andKendo4 G. (1995) 'A Knowledge-based Systems


Approach to Agroforestry Researchand Extension', AI Applicatiotts, g (3),
6t-72.

Walker, D. H., Sinclair,F. L. and Thapa,B. (1995) 'Incorporationof Indigenous


Knowledgeand Perspectivesin AgroforestryDevelopment@art l: Rwiew of
Methodsandtheir Applications)', AgroforestrySystems,30,235-248.

L. J. andTitilol4 S. O. (1989) 'IndigenousKnowledge


WarrerqD. M., Slikkerveer,
Systems: Implications for Agriculture and International Dwelopment',
Teclmologtand Social Change,ll.

Waneq D. M., Slikkerveer,L. J. and Brokensh4D. (eds.) (1995) The Cultural


Dimension of Development: Indigenous Kn<mledge Systems. London:
IntermediateTechnologyPublications.

Webber,L. M. and Isoq R. L. (1995) 'ParticipatoryRural AppraisalDesign:


ConceptualandProcesslswes' , Agricultural Systems,47, lO7-l3l .

WelbourqA (1991) 'RRA andthe Analysisof Difference',RM Notes,14, 14-23.

Wells, M. P. (1995) Bidiversity Conserwtion and lncal Peoples' Development


Aspirations: New Priorities for the 1990s,ODI Rural DevelopmentForestry
NetworkPaperNo.l8a.

Young, A. (1989) for Soil Consemation. Wallingford: CAB


International.

2. ZANZIBAR

FAO (1995) Formulation of a National Forest Policy for knzibar, report to the
Govemmentof the United Republicof Tanzania.Rome: FAO.

Goldmaq H. V. (1996) A ComparativeStudyof Swahili in TwoRural Communities


in Pemba,Zanzibar, Taruania,unpublishedPh.D. thesis,New York University.

Kitwana, M., Kombo, Y. H. and llarvey, S. (1996') Wakulina rn Kilimo Mseto


hnzibm, Forestry Technical Paper No.32, Sub-commissionfor Forestry,
Commissionfor Natural Resources,Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock and
Natural Resources.Zanibar.
Koenders,L. (1992a) Agriculture in Pemba: Facts and Figures, unpublished
feport.

Koenders,L, (1992b) Faurn of PembaIsland: A Checklistof AnimatsOcctrring


on Pemba Island, Tanzonia (PublicationNo.l). Dar es Salaam: Wildlife
ConservationSocietyof Tanzania.

Koenders,L. (1992c) Flora of PembaIsland: A Checklist of Plant Species


(PublicationNo.2). Dar es Salaam:Wildlife ConservationSocietyof Tanzania.

Kombo, Y. H. (1996) IndigenousTreesfor AgroJorestry:High Potential Speciesfor


the Coral Rag of Unguja, ForestryTechnicalPaperNo.29, Sub-commission for
Forestry,Commissionfor Natural Resources,Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock
andNaturalResources,Zanzibar.

Krain, E. (1994) Land Terure in Zanzibar,discussionpaper,NCDP.

ODA (1993) Repolt on a Visit to Zanzibar: Mid-term Reviewof Tnnzibar Cash


Crops Farming SystemsProject,2g Novernber- 3 December1993. Nairobi:
BDDEA.

Smitb P. D. (ed ) (1992a) Agricaltural Reseorchand Developmentin hnzibar: An


Anolysk of the Literature. Bangor: Centrefor Arid Zone Studies,Universityof
North Wales.

Smith, P. D. (ed,) (1992b) A Bibliography of Agrictrltural Resemch and


Developmentin hnzibar (two volumes). Bangor: Centre for Arid Zone
Studies,Universityof North Wales.

de Villiers, A. K. (1996) QuanfifuingIndigenousKnowledge: A Rqid Methodfor


AssessingCrop Performarrcewithout Field Trials, ODI Agricultural Research
andExtensionNetwork PaperNo,66.

Williams, A. and Jum4 K. M. (eds.) (1996) Local ManagementPlan Preparation


Guidelines(draft), ConservationandVillage ForestrySub-sections,Commission
for NaturalResources,Zanzibar.

Williams, R. O. (1949) The Useful ond OrnamentalPlonts in Zanzibor and


Pemba. Zanibu: GovernmentPrinter.

A full set of ZCCFSPreports is availableat NRI, as well as in the former project


library in the Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock and Natural Resources,Forodhani,
Zauibar.

ll
About theauthors

Martin Walsh is a social anthropologist in the Social Sciences


Departmentof the Natural ResourcesInstitute in the University of
Greenwich,and a Visiting ResearchFellow in the Schoolof African and
Asian Studiesin the University of Sussex. He has extensivepractical
and researchexperiencein rural and urban developmentin Africa, and
hasworked in a variety of sectorsasa freelanceconsultant(1985-92),a
ResearchFellow in the University of Sussex(1992-94), and as the
social anthropologiston the ODA-fundedand NRl-managedZavibar
Cash Crops Farming SystemsProject (1994-96). His most recent
consultancywork has focused upon biodiversity conservation and
communitywildlife management.He holds a M.A. and Ph.D. in social
anthopology from the University of Cambridge,and has published
widely in differentfields.

Sharon Haney is a freelanceconzultant currently working with a


CARE-funded conservation project in Zaruibat. She has wide
experienceof agroforestryand farmer participatoryresearch,focusing
upon the social aspects of local ecological knowledge in
community-based naturalresourcemanagement.Shehasworked in the
Pacific(1990-92),South-eastAsia (1988-89),and East Africa (1987,
1993-96),with both NGOs and bilateral agenciesin a variety of local
and nationalinstitutionalsettings. Until recentlyshewas carrying out
agroforestry research for the ODA-funded Zavibar Cash Crops
Farming Systems Project, working in collaboration with the
FINNIDA-funded,Zanzibu ForestryDevelopmentProject. Sheholdsa
B.Sc. in Agriculture from the University of Westem Sydney
(Hawkesbury),Australia,and a M.Sc. in Agriculture,Environmentand
Developmentfrom the Universityof East Anglia.

You might also like