• TABLE OF CONTENTS
HIDE
 Buffer zone management in Africa,...
 Training and outreach programs
 Conferences
 Position available at CSPI
 New publications
 Alternative farming systems information...
 AFSRE membership information request...






Title: Association of Farming Systems Research-Extension newsletter
ALL VOLUMES CITATION PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE PAGE TEXT
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00071919/00004
 Material Information
Title: Association of Farming Systems Research-Extension newsletter
Alternate Title: AFSRE newsletter
Physical Description: v. : ; 28 cm.
Language: English
Creator: Association of Farming Systems Research-Extension
Publisher: Association of Farming Systems Research-Extension
Place of Publication: Tucson AZ
Frequency: semiannual
regular
 Subjects
Subject: Agricultural systems -- Research -- Periodicals   ( lcsh )
Agricultural extension work -- Research -- Periodicals   ( lcsh )
Genre: periodical   ( marcgt )
 Notes
General Note: Description based on: Vol. 4, no. 1 (1993); title from caption.
Funding: Electronic resources created as part of a prototype UF Institutional Repository and Faculty Papers project by the University of Florida.
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: UF00071919
Volume ID: VID00004
Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier: oclc - 32987463

Table of Contents
    Buffer zone management in Africa, by Michael Brown, with Ruth Buckley, Alex Singer, and Leslie Dawson
        Page 1
        Page 2
        Page 3
        Page 4
        Page 5
        Page 6
        Page 7
    Training and outreach programs
        Page 8
    Conferences
        Page 9
    Position available at CSPI
        Page 9
    New publications
        Page 10
    Alternative farming systems information center
        Page 11
    AFSRE membership information request form
        Page 12
Full Text




Volume 3,
Number 2, 1992


A RE Volume ,
Association for Farming Systems Research-Extension Newsletter







Buffer Zone Management in Africa:
Searching for Innovative Ways to Satisfy Human Needs
and Conservation Objectives'

By Michael Brown,
with Ruth Buckley, Alex Singer, and Leslie Dawson


INTRODUCTION
The concept of buffer zones is not new to
the field of protected area management
and conservation. For protected area
planners, buffer zones-in the form of
game and forest reserves-have been used
for decades as "tools" to promote conser-
vation of biodiversity. Applying these
tools, however, has not always proven
successful in conserving biodiversity.
Nevertheless, a new generation of
experimentation with buffer zone
management (BZM) is now underway,
offering reasons for optimism.
In the past, the human dimension of
resource use has often been neglected
when compared to biological, economic,
and political factors. The most innova-
1 This article is reprinted from Buffer zone
management, a workshop organized by the
PVO-NGO/NRMS Project, Queen Elizabeth
National Park, Uganda, October 5-11, 1990.


tive BZM experiments now, however,
include the whole range of interested
stakeholders. Key stakeholders include
government agencies, conservation
nongovernmental agencies (NGOs),
development NGOs, and local resource
user groups (LRUs). Defining a greater
role for LRUs is especially important; if
their concerns are not responsibly
addressed, LRUs can make or break the
most theoretically elegant BZM initiative.
This document synthesizes discussion
and results of the Buffer Zone Manage-
ment in Africa Workshop that took place
in the Queen Elizabeth National Park,
Uganda, from October 5 to 11, 1990, and
was sponsored by PVO-NGO/NRMS, a
USAID-funded project managed by the
Experiment in International Living,
CARE, and the World Wildlife Fund.
At the workshop, over sixty men and
women from ten countries discussed


buffer zone issues and visited several
Ugandan buffer zone areas. The partici-
pants-who included LRUs, government
officials, and representatives of NGOs-
attempted to reach consensus on topics


In This Issue...

Buffer Zone Mangement in Africa by
Michael Brown, with Ruth Buckley,
Alex Singer, and Leslie Dawson.. 1
Training and Outreach
Programs ...................................8
Conferences .............................9
Position Announcement .............9
New Publications ..................... 10
Alternative Farming Systems
Information Center .................11


"A FISCAL CRISIS"
We are in desperate need of your dues to help finance the AFSRE publications. For those of you who have
already paid your dues, please help recruit more members. We all must do our part to keep these interdisciplinary
publications in circulation. Thank you for your support.





The Association for Farming Systems Research-Extension is an international society organized to promote the development and dissemination of
methods and results of participatory on-farm systems research and extension. The objective of such research is the development and adoption
through the participation by farm household members-male and female-of Improved and appropriate technologies to meet the socioeconomic
needs of farm families; adequately supply global food, feed, and fiber requirements; and utilize resources in a sustainable and efficient manner.






relevant to buffer zone management in
Africa. They shared observations on
existing management situations and on
promoting more effective techniques.
They attempted to set conceptual
frameworks for future BZM projects,
discussions, and workshops. This paper
highlights actual discussions of the
workshop and related issues implicit, but
not necessarily addressed, during the
workshop. In this article, both theory
and methodology are discussed.

Buffer Zone Challenges in
Management
Managing buffer zones successfully is
viewed as a promising, though difficult,
approach to conserving biodiversity. It
provides a "shock absorber" between
human activities and natural resources-
both flora and fauna-that lie within or
near core protected resource areas. In the
latest attempts to render BZM more
successful, it has remained fraught with


controversy. On the one hand, BZM has
proven problematic because of lack of
consensus as to whether buffer zones
should be inside or outside parks, what
their functions should be, and what
criteria should determine the area, shape,
and permitted uses within the zones. On
the other hand, controversy revolves
around proposed changes in the roles of
local resource users in the BZM. It is
increasingly apparent that managing a
buffer zone requires close cooperation
among all stakeholders, as conservation
can be achieved only by satisfactorily
addressing basic development needs of
LRUs in communities outside protected
areas. For many, the new level of
stakeholder cooperation required is
difficult and unprecedented. The
cooperation also may involve hard
bargaining among stakeholder groups
over resource rights and responsibilities,
because by definition different stakehold-
ers have different interests.


Stakeholder Exclusion
Historically, serious negotiations
among the entire cast of stakeholders
have not been an integral part of pro-
tected area planning and management in
Africa. Two major reasons are suggested
for this phenomenon:
1. Both national planners and conserva-
tion NGOs believed they have had a
mandate to place the priorities of
biological conservation concerns over the
needs of LRUs. National planners pushed
their agendas forward when protected
areas could generate national revenues.
Conservation NGOs pressed for endan-
gered species and habitat preservation,
even at the cost of disrupting local
human communities and local econo-
mies.
2. National planners and conservation
NGOs who controlled the political power
and resources could attempt implementa-
tion of their agendas. Local resource users,


Baobab tree in Sudan. (Photograph by T.R. Frankenberger)






on the other hand, have often lacked
representation or economic power.
All too often, the call for innovative
approaches to buffer zone management
arose after traditional western resource
management approaches failed. This has
also been true for other types of inte-
grated conservation and development
projects (ICDPs). Many failures in
protected area management have resulted
from neglect of grassroots cultural and
economic factors influencing the behav-
ior of LRUs.
Why has this happened? Western
scientists and managers have tended to
assign highest priority to their own values
of preserving a corerr of Eden" in Africa,
with all its wildlife and habitat intact. In
conservation projects, when local
resource users' values, perceptions, and
socioeconomic adaptations were consid-
ered, it was generally only in passing.
Finally, planners have assumed that
LRUs are simply not interested in
conserving natural resources. Hence the
need for "external" conservation models
and approaches. As a result, local
resource users in practice often reject the
protected area management plans, which
assume that LRUs share (or can be
convinced to share) western conservation
norms and agendas.
Biologists and ecologists have begun to
recognize recurrent management failures
and have started searching for new
approaches. The search began after they
found themselves asking "Why aren't
people behaving the way we thought
they would?" or "What can be done to
get local people to buy into our conserva-
tion program?" Yet until recently
stakeholders' competing values and
interests and the lack of mechanisms to
reconcile these differences have resulted
in conservation approaches that reinforce
an "us-against-them" mentality.
Reconciling differences between
conservation needs and resource users
has proven particularly thorny and
represents the greatest challenge to
sustainable resource management.
New Interests Enter the
Bargaining Zone
When both the acceptance of the need
and the search for viable management
strategies begin, the buffer zone becomes
a "bargaining zone,"-a term coined by


Peter Lokoris, District Administrator in
Kasese District, Uganda, in his closing
speech at the BZM workshop. In the
process of bargaining, a myriad of
competing interests emerge among the
stakeholders:
* Local residents express their personal
and community's basic needs.
Park, forest, and game managers
describe the plight of the resources
they are charged to protect.
Development agencies outline
strategies to improve quality of life in
local villages.
* Researchers explain theoretical
requirements for the preservation of
pristine environmental conditions.
* Conservation NGOs try to develop
innovative ICDP approaches that forge
compromises between biological
conservation and human needs.
Finding compromises among the
interests of these competing stakeholder,
however, requires flexibility and the
fortitude to bargain. Unwillingness to
bargain ultimately jeopardizes the
conservation of biodiversity.
At the Ugandan workshop, partici-
pants arrived at a major consensus that
improving the key factors of process,
institutional arrangements, and commu-
nications are critical in BZM. To succeed,
however, these factors must be integrated
during buffer zone design with technical
variables such as size and remoteness of
protected areass, percentage of forest
cover, species composition, human
population density, land-use systems, and
management trends.
Accepting this consensus means that
issues that have been traditionally
neglected must now come to the fore-
ground of BZM approaches, which are a
subset of ICDPs. To meet their conserva-
tion objectives, planners must give serious
thought to maximizing participation of
all stakeholders, prioritizing communica-
tion flow, and preparing for forthright
bargaining among stakeholders.
These processes can not only bring out
conflicts, but also common interests
shared by all stakeholder groups. This
means that sociocultural, economic, and
political issues must be assigned the same
levels of priority as technical/biological
parameters.


Common interests among stakehold-
ers will, in most cases, include the long-
term protection of natural resources side-
by-side with sound economic and social
development of local human communi-
ties. Increasingly, even the staunchest
traditional conservationists realize that
satisfying human needs in buffer zones is
central to core protected area conserva-
tion. This implies assuring access to
productive resources in buffer zones as
well as to some areas in core protected
areas zoned for multiple use. It also
means adapting technologies where they
are appropriate and maintaining a
flexible operational mode to adopt new
approaches to conservation and develop-
ment, as needs and opportunities arise.

Stakeholders: Key Players in
Buffer Zone Management
Since the inception of buffer zone
management strategies, the most promi-
nent players have tended to be the people
who carry out most natural resources
management planning: representatives of
government agencies, international
donors, and international development
and conservation NGOs.
Central and provincial government
agencies, as well as conservation NGOs,
have made most of the decisions regard-
ing the design and implementation of
protected areas and their buffer zones. A
major weakness in this trend has been
that many of the stakeholders with direct
socioeconomic interests in the resources
have had little say in the fate of those
resources. For this reason, conservation
projects have not been as successful as
was hoped.
Just who are these stakeholders? The
list, for any given area in Africa, can
include:
* Local resource users (LRUs). These
may include farmers, fishing peoples,
ranchers, hunters, pastoral nomads,
artisans, and others.
* Nongovernmental conservation
groups.
* Nongovernmental development
groups.
* Commercial/industrial business
people, especially from such industries
as forestry, fisheries, and mining.
* Relevant government agencies,






especially managers of forestry, game,
mineral, and water resources.
* Locally elected political bodies.
* Private landowners.
* Conservation and science researchers.
* Donors.
In most buffer zone areas, LRUs are de
facto resource managers. As important
stakeholders, they use and make impacts
upon the resources. Thus, they partici-
pate in the areas' eventual fate even
though they have not formally partici-
pated in resource management planning.
The weakness in many BZM processes is
that the various stakeholders do not
acknowledge each other's de facto and
potential roles. The resulting poor
communication and coordination and
lack of collaboration often lead to
stakeholder groups working at cross
purposes to each other.

LRUs: Critical to BZM Success
Local resource users are the people
most frequently excluded from, yet
perhaps most critical in, conservation
and buffer zone management.
In a typical scenario, a centralized
government agency, upon the advice of a
conservation NGO, will create a protected
area and perhaps a buffer zone. To
protect the natural resources, a hunting
ban is mandated. Meanwhile, the local
hunters, who provide the staple source of
protein for their families, are given no
alternatives; they continue to hunt
despite the ban. Others in the commu-
nity may have traditionally collected
wood from protected forest reserves,
using the materials as cooking fuel and
construction materials. They too are left
with no alternatives and often continue
collection in the reserves despite bans or
official limits.
In both the above cases, traditional
resource use is categorized as criminal.
This may occur in situations where
resource use is in fact exceeding sustain-
able use limits, or it may occur where it is
only assumed that sustainable use is
being exceeded. All too often, buffer
zones and other ICDPs may be designed
on the basis of limited data and hence be
heavily laden with assumptions. As long
as assumption is distinguished from fact,


however, potentially innovative and risky
BZM projects may be justified.
In the above cases, hostility inevitably
grows between the local resource users
and "official" resource managers respon-
sible for planning. Conservationists
wonder why the local people do not
cooperate or appear to understand the
importance of the protected resources.
The local people see government officials
as uncaring, as being more concerned
about wildlife than about people.
Creation of protected areas may cause
the impoverishment of communities that
were once economically self-sustaining.
Local residents may become malnour-
ished and lack construction materials that
were once derived from the protected
area and/or its buffer zone. When such
conditions arise, the government may
then face political and moral challenges,
not to mention long-term challenges to
the resource base.
Genuine negotiations or bargaining to
facilitate BZM too often begin late in the
scenario, after all the major decisions
have been made. Attempts at "remedial"
or "token" participation can be too little,
too late, to save the resource base. By
then, previous policies may have de-
stroyed the cultural and economic fabric
of the local community.
Official resource managers sometimes
try to promote token local-level participa-
tion in the planning process. They hold
meetings, or "educational" sessions, and
conduct surveys or needs-assessments.
All the while, they mistake these largely
one-sided, top-down activities for true
participation.
Scientists and "development experts"
are often guilty of the same tunnel vision
as central government agencies. They
put their academic agendas or conserva-
tion objectives ahead of the values and
needs of local resource users. These
agendas and objectives reflect aesthetic,
recreational, and intellectual predisposi-
tions of experts (generally western,
though not always) more than they do
the results of longitudinal scientific
research or the local economic utility of
conservation.
Western conservation groups have also
tried their hands at buffer zone manage-
ment. It is not hard to imagine the
reasons for their failures. Even the most


well-meaning group may fail to compre-
hend the economic, cultural, and
political realities faced by local resource
users, upon which much of LRU behavior
is based.
In stressing the need to "get" resource-
user participation "right," as part of the
BZM process, workshop participants felt it
important not to over-idealize the
intentions or capabilities of resource
users. While LRUs should be "empow-
ered," workshop participants did not
conclude that local resource users should
necessarily be left with all planning and
management responsibilities.
In the past, local communities may
have achieved a good balance between
meeting their needs and preserving the
resource base. Today, however, commu-
nities can be hard-pressed to first recog-
nize, and then cope with, new forces at
play in their midst. Appropriate outside
technical assistance is very much needed,
given the dimension and complexity of
current situations.
Many factors contribute to the
complex and dynamic situation faced in
protected areas and their buffer zones
today. The factors touch on policy,
demography, and cultural resilience or
resistance to change.
In-migration, for instance, may have
caused overuse of resources. Cultivation
of cash crops, often replacing subsistence
crops, may destroy forest and soils. In
other cases, traditional slash-and-burn
practices may need to change when
deforestation is objectively discerned at
unsustainable levels as a spin-off of
itinerant agricultural systems. Pastoral
groups that once had access to large areas
of land, including the newly designated
protected areas, may now be confined to
a smaller area such as the buffer zone,
where the rationale underpinning
extensive grazing systems may be
undermined.
When combined with demographic
changes and new cultural preferences,
formerly well-adapted traditional resource
management systems can become
outmoded over time. Under such
circumstances, local resource users need
to work with other stakeholders in
finding ways to sustain both the commu-
nity and the resource base.






Why Local Users Are Left
Out of the Loop
We have previously mentioned that
the history of resource management
planning is replete with examples of the
systematic exclusion of local resource
users. The reasons for their
marginalization in BZM are profoundly
embedded in the history of development
in Africa. While these reasons are not
necessarily logical, they are nonetheless
expressed or felt as justifications for
action by powerful stakeholder groups.
First, there has been a widespread
assumption that Africa is on the brink of
ecological collapse and that the reasons
for this collapse have largely to do with
resource-user behavior over the last thirty
years. Given this assumption, many
conservation NGOs have been given
urgent mandates to implement programs
to preserve ecological processes, life
support systems, and biodiversity and to
promote sustainable use of ecosystems.
Many conservationists blame pro-
jected ecological collapses on the human
population increase, saying it unleashed a
vicious cycle of deforestation, soil
depletion, killing of wildlife, poaching,
livestock population increases, etc.
To many, the solution most frequently
proposed to the problem of biodiversity
and habitat loss seems obvious-they call
for limiting population growth and access
to resources. This solution has been
proposed because the urgency of
biodiversity imperatives seem to necessi-
tate a "conservative" land-use approach,
rather than dealing with the root causes
of resource users' poverty. In reality,
programs fail for many reasons, including
misunderstanding the prime causes of
resource degradation and poverty,
political events, lack of adequate techni-
cal understanding of human roles in local
ecology, and lack of follow-through or
enforcement of agreements with resource
users.
A second, corollary reason given for
excluding LRUs is that they are seen as
the source of, not the solution to,
resource problems. From this viewpoint,
including them in negotiations could
only cause more problems. Many
governments and NGOs perceive local
people as a nuisance, best coopted to
obtain their acquiescence.


A third, common reason for excluding
local resource users is the notion that
uneducated or illiterate peoples cannot
think rationally. For instance, scientists
may address grazing issues with abstract
mathematical models of carrying capac-
ity. They and others may assume that
because nomadic cattle herders cannot do
advanced calculations, they are incapable
of understanding the concept of carrying
capacity. Such scientists fail to take into
account centuries of co-evolution among
wildlife, livestock, and pastoral groups
such as the Somali and Maasai of East
Africa and the Peulh- and Tamashek-
speaking groups from West Africa. All
these groups have understood the
benefits of offtake through marketing,
coupled with indigenous systems of range
rotation. For those familiar with sophisti-
cated pastoralist flora taxonomies, the
notion of pastoralist irrationality and
insensitivity to resource management is
unfounded, if not comic.
Like those who consider population
growth alone as the problem, some
scientists ignore aggravating circum-
stances of resource degradation in
pastoral areas. These include situations
such as decreased available rangeland due
to arbitrary government gazetting
policies.
Rather than take the impact of these
policies into account, these scientists
conclude that pastoralists are obstinate
and intellectually deficient and thus
incapable of participating in planning.
This attitude often coincides with official
government thinking on pastoral
populations, which may be biased against
pastoralists and towards sedentary
agriculturalist positions on land use.
A fourth justification for leaving out
LRUs is conflict-avoidance on the part of
government managers. The avoidance
stems from hostility that has grown
between LRUs and resource managers.
Such hostility has historical roots in
countries such as Kenya and Tanzania,
where colonial and postcolonial govern-
ments created parks by fiat.
In such areas, LRUs have come to
associate their long-standing grievances
with the government with natural
resource management in general.
In the process of developing a man-
agement plan in collaboration with LRUs,


many stakeholders-including govern-
ment agencies-would rather avoid
conflict than face it. As much as people
would like to avoid conflict and hostility,
however, continuing to exclude disen-
chanted local resource users from the
management loop only serves to feed
their grievances and does nothing to
create conditions for sustainable resource
use in buffer zones. Such circumstances
doom to failure any proposed manage-
ment scheme.
A final reason that excludes local
resource users is an "intellectual blind-
ness," which causes scientifically trained
managers of protected areas to sometimes
simply ignore human communities living
outside park/reserve boundaries. They
fail to notice that western-inspired
conservation practices within protected
areas are not working as envisioned,
often due to acute pressures from outside
the protected area. In these cases,
managers must reach beyond strict
conservation goals. Using innovation
and flexibility, they must incorporate
human needs and human resources into
their plans.

NEW ATTITUDES, NEW IDEAS
Fortunately, many members of the
conservation community are changing
their approach to resource management
and conservation. Increasingly, they
strive to become more people-oriented
and more sensitive to the culture and
needs of local resource users. Integrated
conservation and development projects
are an important innovation in this
respect, although they are still at an early
stage. Few empirical data are available to
show how effective the new approaches
will prove. Monitoring is thus a crucial
element of these projects.
Concurrently, conservationists are
studying indigenous knowledge bases,
produced over centuries by myriad LRU
communities. This knowledge has
shaped indigenous management and, if
creatively used, could serve as the basis
for much conservation management
planning. In fact, throughout the world,
in most remote and sparsely populated
tropical forest regions, conservationists
now often encourage gazetting that
enables hunter-gatherer groups access, if
not full stewardship, of forest zones.






Beyond this, conservationists face this
reality: When local people do not
understand or accept resource manage-
ment policies, they are unlikely to
cooperate. Under these circumstances,
both conservation policies and projects
will fail.
Workshop participants in Uganda
agreed on the best way to garner the
agreement and cooperation of local
resource users. LRUs, they thought, must
be assured of active participation in
creating management policies in the first
place. LRUs must "own" or internalize
the policy as much as it is "owned" by
government officials, conservationists,
scientists, economists, and the interna-
tional community at large.

STAKEHOLDER COLLABORATION
IS POSSIBLE: USE WORKSHOPS TO
BEGIN BREAKING BARRIERS
Asking groups as divergent as cattle
herders, bureaucrats, and scientists to
collaborate is demanding. These groups
have trouble gathering in the same place,
let alone setting the same priorities or
working out appropriate solutions to
conservation challenges. However,
effective buffer zone management
requires representatives of all stakeholder
groups to meet, communicate, and
bargain in good faith.
One approach that can be used
initially is a workshop, or series of
workshops, such as the one held in
Uganda. Whatever methods are used,
participants must overcome a
collection of long-standing, built-in
barriers to sustained dialogue and good-
faith BZM bargaining.
To the extent that a buffer zone
management workshop succeeds, it may
have two-fold results. On one hand, it
may establish a framework for more
effective resource management. On the
other hand, within the buffer zone itself,
it may further a democratic process for
community problem identification and
solutions.

BZM Workshops:
One Approach to Solutions
The Buffer Zone Management in Africa
Workshop was organized to accomplish
two goals: to learn about current trends


in buffer zone management in Africa and
to test the workshop forum as a tool in
management itself. The organizers
hypothesized that (1) local resource users
could make important contributions to
BZM analysis and design and that (2)
diverse stakeholders could communicate
effectively. The organizers feel that these
hypotheses were confirmed during the
workshop.
The participants visited several buffer
zone areas in Uganda and spoke with
local resource users and other stakehold-
ers. They studied how each buffer zone
was managed and noted where manage-
ment could be improved.
For purposes of discussion, partici-
pants organized their findings into six
categories of information:
The situation. What is the consensus
on the current resource management
situation? Workshop participants tried to
identify the physical area in question; the
needs, wishes, and responsibilities of
stakeholders; their perceptions of the
buffer zone and its management; and the
results of any resource-use restrictions on
people's lives.
The values. How do stakeholders'
values agree or conflict regarding the
buffer zone and its management? Does
any conflict preclude collaboration in
management?
The changes. How have changes
affected the buffer zone situation?
Participants looked especially at recent
changes or trends that have had positive
or negative effects on stakeholders or
natural resources.
The approach. What approaches-
technical, administrative, social, political,
external, and personal-are used to
manage the buffer zone? Are legal,
financial, or political approaches taking
precedence, for example?
The responsibilities. What roles do
various stakeholders play and what
responsibilities are they offered and
accept? Who monitors the situation'? Do
decision-makers return to their constitu-
ents for approval on key decisions? Who
pays for what? Is there a written, agreed-
upon buffer zone management plan? Is
there a method for changing the plan
when conditions warrant?


The definitions. Do stakeholders agree
on where protected areas and buffer zones
are located? How are the buffer zone areas
defined? How are the rights, obligations,
and restrictions communicated and
understood?

Assumptions for Organizing the
Ugandan BZM Workshop
In preparing the Buffer Zone Manage-
ment in Africa Workshop, organizers
worked with their own set of assump-
tions. Underlying the approach was the
belief that threats to existing resource
management systems in many places
appear to be failing. Thus, protected area
managers should seek and try new
methods. Workshop assumptions
included:
* Few resources of African protected
areas will survive another generation,
unless communication and coopera-
tion improves among stakeholders of
protected area resources.
New resource management methods
should integrate conservation and
development goals ranging from the
local level to national and intera-
tional levels. This implies that local
resource users should be pulled into
the resource-management process.
Buffer zone management is just one
aspect of natural resources manage-
ment. It is a complex and difficult
approach, however, because it also
integrates cultural, social, political, and
economic factors with the scientific
and technical aspects of conservation.
Communication and coordination
traditionally have been poor among
protected-area stakeholders because
the various parties make incorrect
assumptions about each other.
However, it is possible for participants
in a large, culturally and linguistically
diverse workshop to communicate
with each other and come to better
levels of understanding.
The facilitated workshop format
described here may be a good way to
improve communications among
stakeholders at all stages of the BZM
process.






Techniques: How to Make a
Buffer Zone Workshop Succeed

The Ugandan Buffer Zone Manage-
ment Workshop indicated that many of
the workshop's assumptions were correct.
The most important lesson learned was
that a variety of stakeholders can analyze
situations and communicate effectively,
despite differences in language, culture,
profession, and social class. Groups
organizing similar workshops in the
future should keep in mind the following
suggestions, also drawn from the Ugan-
dan workshop experience:
Preparation. Attempt to include
representatives from each stakeholder
group that influences the area in ques-
tion. Keep logistical limits in mind,
though, and do not invite more people
than can be realistically managed and
accommodated. It is unlikely that all
interests can be accommodated in a
multicase study forum.
When inviting key government
officials from ministries of environment,
forestry, national parks, etc., advise each
that they will participate as representa-
tives of one of many stakeholder groups.
Ask them to seek fresh dialogue and new
ideas, rather than simply offering the
"party line."
Advise all invited participants that the
workshop will be a complex undertaking.
It will call on everyone's forthright
participation. Patience and mutual
respect will both be prerequisites.
Choose facilitators carefully for the
various sessions and the overall event.
Make sure that the facilitators clearly
understand the goals of the workshop
and which types of issues are suitable for
in-depth discussion.
Organize discussion themes around
various case studies or field trips. The
Ugandan workshop used the previously
mentioned themes: situation, values,
changes, approach, responsibilities, and
definitions. Other themes could also be
used to help focus discussion.
Prepare background documents in the
key lingua francas of participants, using
the chosen themes.
Be sure that translators are available
for field trips, small groups and plenary
sessions where participants need transla-
tion.


Workshop structure. Use both small
group and plenary sessions. Small group
sessions should be used to facilitate
communication during field trips. Small
groups should later choose a spokesperson
to report during plenary sessions on the
group's findings and discussions. The
members of small groups should be made
up of a mixture of representatives from
different kinds of stakeholder groups.
Because BZM entails political, social,
ecological, and economic considerations,
everyone should expect heated discus-
sions and complex negotiations. The
patience of all participants will be
required. Make good communication
among stakeholder groups the first
priority, assuring that resource users,
government representatives, NGOs, and
donors speak and listen to each other
with open minds. Facilitators should
encourage the least vocal participants to
speak up, because they may need prompt-
ing to air their views. Facilitators should
also steer discussions back to issues of
common concern, rather than allowing
talk to drift to esoteric matters. Be patient
about reaching consensus on definitions,
objectives, etc. Consensus may be easier
to find near the workshop's end.
Case studies. It may help to study a
number of buffer zones before attempting
to solve issues of a single case. Allow all
participants to present case studies to the
plenary session. Do not necessarily
feature a particular case study as the
workshop's centerpiece. Focus on generic
issues of interest to all.
When selecting buffer zone case
studies, do not worry about finding the
perfectly successful case. Seek, instead,
buffer zone areas where conservation and
development issues overlap to varying
degrees of satisfaction to stakeholders.
Field trips. No written documentation
rivals field observation. Field trips
enliven case studies-and participants-
and help illustrate theoretical discussions.
Allow plenty of time for field trips to case
study areas. The Ugandan field trips took
three days, and the complexity of issues
were not fully developed in some cases.
Participants should meet and speak
with a variety of stakeholders at each site.
Provide translators where necessary. Field
trip participants should take notes. Ask
small groups to discuss their observations


before reporting to the plenary sessions.
Evaluation and follow-up. Through
written and oral evaluation, find out
what aspects of the workshop were
successful and least successful. Use
participant suggestions to organize future
events.
Do not be discouraged if everything is
not resolved by the end of a workshop.
An initial workshop may be considered a
success if it simply gathers all the stake-
holders together long enough to initiate
dialogue aimed at finding new under-
standing and approaches to the situation.
In this sense the process itself is the key
product.
Convening the whole range of
stakeholders to address the management
of a particular buffer zone may not be
possible. In such cases, plan a succession
of meetings.
Provide participants with written
documentation of their efforts, being
especially careful to note areas of consen-
sus and disagreement. The participants
of the Ugandan workshop were provided
with a full report and this summary
document, and a videotape of the
proceedings is also available.

THE PROSPECTS FOR BZM
This document has stressed the proce-
dural or "softer" aspects of buffer zone
management. It has done so because
biological or political considerations
have predominated BZM and conserva-
tion discussions. This has been, argu-
ably, at the expense of the conservation
of biodiversity.
A new era of participatory
approaches to conservation has in-
creased attention to the needs of people
who are resource-poor and politically
weak. The new approaches will also
promote more effective participation
among all relevant stakeholders groups.
Change is required if the core protected
areas and their buffer zones are to be
conserved through sustainable develop-
ment. Considerably more innovation
and collaboration, leading to forthright
partnerships, must be demonstrated in
the coming years.
The authors hope that this document
has outlined an approach that will prove
adaptable to BZM situations in Africa or
elsewhere-regardless of their particularities.







TRAINING AND OUTREACH PROGRAMS


Two Training Courses in
Agroforestry

Since 1983, ICRAF (the International
Center for Research in Agroforestry) has
conducted training courses in topics
relating to agroforestry and develop-
ment. This year two courses are offered,
both of which are organized specifically
for researchers with outside funding.
The Agroforestry Research for Develop-
ment course, which will be held October
12-30, 1992 in Nairobi, Kenya, is for
individuals with a B.Sc. or M.Sc. or
equivalent degree, plus experience in
research, development, training, or
education. Participants will become
familiar with the concepts, methods,
and problems of agroforestry, including
both on-station and on-farm research,
the diagnosis of land-use constraints,
and the design of agroforestry technolo-
gies. The course is divided into four
modules, which include introduction of
agroforestry concepts and methods;
agroforestry technologies; agro-forestry
research, including problem diagnosis,
technology design, and on-station and
on-farm experimentation; and biophysi-
cal and socioeconomic evaluation of
agroforestry systems.
The training course on Experimental
Design and Analysis for Agro-forestry
Research will be held from November 23
to December 12, 1992 in Nairobi, Kenya.
Participants will learn how to set
experimental objectives, select experi-
mental treatments and research sites,
design plot structures and field layouts,
organize measurements and data
collection, analyze and present results,
and complete standard experimental
protocols. This three-week course will be
offered to practicing agroforestry
scientists; participants are expected to
have an M.Sc. or equivalent degree in a
related discipline, plus two years of
hands-on experience in agricultural or
forestry experimentation. Proficiency in
English is required.


Estimated costs per participant are
US$5,900 for the Agroforestry Research
for Development course and US$4,800
for the Experimental Design and
Analysis course. These costs include
tuition, instructional materials, accom-
modations for 22 days, meals, transport
within Kenya, and health insurance.
They do not include travel to and from
Nairobi. The deadlines for applications
are July 31, 1992 for the Agroforestry
Research for Development course and
August 31, 1992 for the Experimental
Design and Analysis course.
For more information and application
forms, contact: Course Coordinator,
October 1992 Training Course, ICRAF
Training Programme, International
Centre for Research in Agroforestry, P.O.
Box 30677, Nairobi, Kenya; Tel.: (254-2)
521450; Fax: 521001.

Organic Farm Tours
and Workshops

Workshops on product marketing,
organic farming methods, and the
Amish community will be a special
feature of the tenth season of the
Organic Farm and Garden Tours,
presented by the Ohio Ecological Food
and Farm Association (OEFFA). The
OEFFA Tours will be held on four
consecutive Saturdays from August 1 to
August 22, 1992 and also at a later
follow-up workshop on October 17,
1992. Lunches will be available at three
of the tours, featuring Ohio-grown
organic produce, grain products, and
meat.
The OEFFA Tours will include visits to
both small and large organic vegetable
operations, an organic Amish farm and
blacksmith operation, a garden educa-
tion center, an organic apple orchard, a
large organic grain and beef operation,
and a successful farmers' market.
Workshop topics will include
covercrops, organic grain marketing,
produce marketing, organic greenhouse


production, and a look at the Amish
community as a model for sustainable
agriculture. The Tours are free to
professional growers and the general
public alike, but the workshops and
lunches will require a small fee and
preregistration.
For more information and preregistra-
tion, contact: OEFFA Farm and Garden
Tours, 65 Plymouth St., Plymouth, OH
44865, USA; Tel.: (419) 687-7665.

Tillers' Workshops for 1992

Tillers International offers a variety of
hands-on workshops in traditional crafts
and agricultural skills. Tillers has
revitalized many nearly lost rural crafts
to provide a strong historical base for its
creative work towards sustainable rural
development. Some upcoming courses
include Oxen Basics (July 14-18, 1992),
which presents an introduction to
working with oxen, driving teams,
building and fitting yokes, and doing
field work; Sustainable Pasture Practices
(August 22, 1992), exploring the man-
agement of intensive rotational systems,
frost seeding, and weed control; Animal-
powered Transportation (September 1-2,
1992), focusing on traditional cart and
wagon designs; Ensilage and Hay
Making Methods (September 8-12,
1992); and Blacksmithing (October 20-
24, 1992).
Preregistration is suggested, as class
sizes are limited. For more information
about courses, costs, and lodging at
Tillers' Guest House, contact: Tillers
International, 5239 South 24th Street,
Kalamazoo, MI 49002, USA; Tel.: (616)
344-3233.








CONFERENCES


Conference on
Desert Development


The Fourth International Conference
on Desert Development: Sustainable
Development for Our Common Future
will be held in Mexico City from July 25-
30, 1993. The conference is organized by
the International Desert Development
Commission in collaboration with the
Government of Mexico and other
national and international organizations.
The conference program will include
plenary sessions, lectures, technical and
scientific working groups, poster sessions,
exhibitions, and postcongress technical
tours. Social and cultural activities will
also be available for participants and their
companions. Topics will include soil and
water conservation, irrigation and water
management, saline-tolerant plants,
alternative energy sources, agroforestry,
agrochemical and pollution control,
animal production, crop ecology,
socioeconomic problems of arid zones,
and conservation of natural resources and
recycling. Conference languages will be
English and Spanish.
Papers and posters are invited on these
selected topics and other areas of interest.
The final date for receipt of abstracts is
September 1, 1992.
For further information, contact: Dr.
Manuel Anaya Gardufio, Executive


Secretary Scientific Committee IV ICDD,
Colegio de Postgraduados, Montecillo,
Edo. de Mexico, 56230, Mexico; Tel.: (52)
595-45701; Fax: (52) 595-45723; or P.O.
Box 91, Chapingo, Edo. de Mexico,
56230, Mexico.

Conference of Agricultural
Research Administrators

The 1992 International Conference of
Agricultural Research Administrators will
focus on current conditions affecting
agricultural research and development in
the countries of the former Soviet Union,
Sub-Saharan Africa, and Eastern Europe.
The conference's theme is "Mechanisms
of Public/Private Collaboration." The
conference is presented by the Agricul-
tural Research Institute, an association of
industry, academic, government,
scientific, and professional groups
involved in research related to food,
agriculture, natural resources, and the
environment.
The conference is designed for public
and private sector agricultural research
scientists, managers, and administrators
from around the world. It will provide a
forum for exchange of ideas, sharing of
experience, and international network-
ing. It will also serve as a vehicle for the
generation of international cooperative
and collaborative efforts involving public


and private sector agricultrual research
and development at all levels-business
and industry, government, universities,
scientific and professional groups, and
other organizations and institutions.
The conference will be held from
September 13-19, 1992 at the McLean
Hilton, McLean, Virg. For more informa-
tion, contact the Agricultural Research
Institute, 9650 Rockville Pike, Bethesda,
MD 20814-3998, USA; Tel.: (301) 530-
7122; Fax: (301) 571-1837.

Forest Remnants Conference

The Smithsonian Migratory Bird
Center will host a two-day symposium
for ecologists, conservationists, social
scientists, land-use policy specialists, and
grass-roots rural development organizers.
The symposium will focus on the
ecological and social benefits of forest
remnants in the tropical landscape and
steps that can be taken to promote their
conservation and wise management.
The symposium will include brief
talks, response and discussion sessions,
and a poster session. The symposium is
planned for September 10-11, 1992 at
the National Zoological Park of the
Smithsonian Institution. For more
information, contact: Jamie K. Doyle,
SMBC, National Zoo, Washington, D.C.
20008; Tel.: (202) 673-4908.


Position Available at CSPI

The Center for Science in the Public
Interest (CSPI), a national nonprofit
organization that works on health and
environmental issues, is seeking a
Director for its Americans for Safe Food
(ASF) project. This project seeks to
increase the availability of food that is
free of chemicals, drugs, bacteria, and
other contaminants. ASF addresses issues
of sustainable agriculture, foodborne
illnesses, irradiation, chemical contami-
nants, and other issues. CSPI focuses on


nutrition, food safety, and other con-
sumer and health issues, and is largely
donor supported.
The Director is responsible for provid-
ing technical assistance to local coali-
tions, researching and drafting reports on
food safety, lobbying for national and
state food-safety legislation, assisting with
fundraising, generating publicity, and
supervising a small staff. The position is
full-time and based in Washington, D.C.
Some travel is required.
Applicants should have at least five
years' demonstrated experience in


organizing advocacy campaigns and a
substantive background in sustainable-
agricultural, environmental, or food-
safety issues. An advanced degree in
science or law is preferred. The salary
range is US$35,000 to $45,000, depend-
ing on experience and qualifications. A
full range of health and other benefits is
included.
Send resumes to Jennifer Douglas,
CSPI, 1875 Connecticut Ave., NW, #300,
Washington, D.C., 20009, USA; Tel.:
(202) 332-9110; Fax: (202) 265-4954.








CONFERENCES


Conference on
Desert Development


The Fourth International Conference
on Desert Development: Sustainable
Development for Our Common Future
will be held in Mexico City from July 25-
30, 1993. The conference is organized by
the International Desert Development
Commission in collaboration with the
Government of Mexico and other
national and international organizations.
The conference program will include
plenary sessions, lectures, technical and
scientific working groups, poster sessions,
exhibitions, and postcongress technical
tours. Social and cultural activities will
also be available for participants and their
companions. Topics will include soil and
water conservation, irrigation and water
management, saline-tolerant plants,
alternative energy sources, agroforestry,
agrochemical and pollution control,
animal production, crop ecology,
socioeconomic problems of arid zones,
and conservation of natural resources and
recycling. Conference languages will be
English and Spanish.
Papers and posters are invited on these
selected topics and other areas of interest.
The final date for receipt of abstracts is
September 1, 1992.
For further information, contact: Dr.
Manuel Anaya Gardufio, Executive


Secretary Scientific Committee IV ICDD,
Colegio de Postgraduados, Montecillo,
Edo. de Mexico, 56230, Mexico; Tel.: (52)
595-45701; Fax: (52) 595-45723; or P.O.
Box 91, Chapingo, Edo. de Mexico,
56230, Mexico.

Conference of Agricultural
Research Administrators

The 1992 International Conference of
Agricultural Research Administrators will
focus on current conditions affecting
agricultural research and development in
the countries of the former Soviet Union,
Sub-Saharan Africa, and Eastern Europe.
The conference's theme is "Mechanisms
of Public/Private Collaboration." The
conference is presented by the Agricul-
tural Research Institute, an association of
industry, academic, government,
scientific, and professional groups
involved in research related to food,
agriculture, natural resources, and the
environment.
The conference is designed for public
and private sector agricultural research
scientists, managers, and administrators
from around the world. It will provide a
forum for exchange of ideas, sharing of
experience, and international network-
ing. It will also serve as a vehicle for the
generation of international cooperative
and collaborative efforts involving public


and private sector agricultrual research
and development at all levels-business
and industry, government, universities,
scientific and professional groups, and
other organizations and institutions.
The conference will be held from
September 13-19, 1992 at the McLean
Hilton, McLean, Virg. For more informa-
tion, contact the Agricultural Research
Institute, 9650 Rockville Pike, Bethesda,
MD 20814-3998, USA; Tel.: (301) 530-
7122; Fax: (301) 571-1837.

Forest Remnants Conference

The Smithsonian Migratory Bird
Center will host a two-day symposium
for ecologists, conservationists, social
scientists, land-use policy specialists, and
grass-roots rural development organizers.
The symposium will focus on the
ecological and social benefits of forest
remnants in the tropical landscape and
steps that can be taken to promote their
conservation and wise management.
The symposium will include brief
talks, response and discussion sessions,
and a poster session. The symposium is
planned for September 10-11, 1992 at
the National Zoological Park of the
Smithsonian Institution. For more
information, contact: Jamie K. Doyle,
SMBC, National Zoo, Washington, D.C.
20008; Tel.: (202) 673-4908.


Position Available at CSPI

The Center for Science in the Public
Interest (CSPI), a national nonprofit
organization that works on health and
environmental issues, is seeking a
Director for its Americans for Safe Food
(ASF) project. This project seeks to
increase the availability of food that is
free of chemicals, drugs, bacteria, and
other contaminants. ASF addresses issues
of sustainable agriculture, foodborne
illnesses, irradiation, chemical contami-
nants, and other issues. CSPI focuses on


nutrition, food safety, and other con-
sumer and health issues, and is largely
donor supported.
The Director is responsible for provid-
ing technical assistance to local coali-
tions, researching and drafting reports on
food safety, lobbying for national and
state food-safety legislation, assisting with
fundraising, generating publicity, and
supervising a small staff. The position is
full-time and based in Washington, D.C.
Some travel is required.
Applicants should have at least five
years' demonstrated experience in


organizing advocacy campaigns and a
substantive background in sustainable-
agricultural, environmental, or food-
safety issues. An advanced degree in
science or law is preferred. The salary
range is US$35,000 to $45,000, depend-
ing on experience and qualifications. A
full range of health and other benefits is
included.
Send resumes to Jennifer Douglas,
CSPI, 1875 Connecticut Ave., NW, #300,
Washington, D.C., 20009, USA; Tel.:
(202) 332-9110; Fax: (202) 265-4954.









NEW PUBLICATIONS


Environmental Change and
Dryland Management in
Machakos District, Kenya,
1930-1990


Overseas Development Institute
Working Papers

Rapid population growth of 3-4
percent per year, such as that experi-
enced in Kenya, is generally thought to
be inimical to the environment. This
study, led by Dr. Mary Tiffen and
Michael Mortimore of the Overseas
Development Institute (ODI), in associa-
tion with a team of ten scientists from
the University of Nairobi, shows that the
environment in 1990 in Kenya was in
fact in better condition than in the
1930s, despite a population growth from
250,000 to 1,250,000. In particular, soil
erosion had been slowed, with almost all
arable land protected by terraces.
Predictions of a fuelwood crisis had not
been fulfilled, due to the number of
farmed and protected trees. Livestock
and crop production had kept up with
population growth despite the spread of
people into the more arid areas of the
District. New technologies and farming
systems have been introduced through a
combination of local adaptiveness and
innovation and government programs.
Over the long term rainfall had remained
erratic, with sequences of dry years
appearing to follow a cyclical pattern but
with no evidence of a downward trend.
This study is unusual in its combina-
tion of work of physical and social
scientists. Preliminary findings are now
available as ODI Working Papers. Work
is continuing on the synthesis that will
draw out policy lessons applicable to
other semiarid areas.
For more information or to order any
of the Working Papers in this series,
contact ODI Publications, Overseas
Development Institute, Regent's College,
Inner Circle, Regent's Park, London NW1
4NS, UK.


Plants in Indigenous
Medicine and Diet:
Biobehavioral Approaches


Nina L. Etkin, ed.


This book advocates a comprehensive
approach to the pivotal role of plants in
meeting human dietary and medicinal
needs. Promoting a biobehavioral/
biocultural focus on indigenous plant
research, the book contains perspectives
represented by 18 contributing scholars
from a variety of disciplines, including
agriculture, anthropology, human
biology and physiology, pharmacology,
nutrition, folklore, and primary health-
care planning and delivery in
nonindustrialized societies. The book
aims to assist those trained in Western
sciences and medicine to understand
that indigenous people often possess a
vast knowledge of the plant kingdom, a
knowledge from which Western scholars
have much to gain.
To order Plants in Indigenous Medicine
and Diet, contact: Gordon and Breach
Science Publishers, c/o Order Depart-
ment, P.O. Box 786 Cooper Station, New
York, NY 10276, USA, or P.O. Box 90,
Reading, Berkshire RG1 8JL, UK; U.S.
Tel.: (800) 545-8398; Fax: (212) 645-
2459; International Tel.: (0734) 568316;
Fax: (0734) 568211.


Farming for the Future:
An Introduction to Low
External Input and
Sustainable Agriculture


by Coen Reijntjes, Bertus Haverkort, and
Ann Waters-Bayer.

Farming for the Future is a comprehen-
sive examination of appropriate strate-
gies and techniques that lead to Low-
External-Input and Sustainable Agricul-
ture (LEISA) in tropical farming systems.
The book includes a thorough explora-
tion of methods of helping farmers to
make their farming systems more
productive and reliable while preventing
degradation of the resource bases on
which they depend.
The main focus of the book is on
farmers who presently operate with low
levels of external input. A foundation of
background theory, practical ideas, and
sources of further information from a
multidisciplinary point of view are
provided, establishing a framework for
all those involved in solving problems
and raising the overall productivity and
efficiency of farming systems in a
sustainable way.
The volume is based on eight years of
work by the Netherlands-based Informa-
tion Centre for Low-External-Input and
Sustainable Agriculture (ILEIA) and arises
from experiments by innovative and
experimenting farmers, field workers,
and supporting scientists of the ILEIA
network. The book also draws upon a
wide range of recent publications and
includes new input from staff members
of the Departments of General
Agronomy and Extension Science at the
University of Wageningen, plus other
independent professionals and advisers.
Farming for the Future is available by
order through local bookstores, or
contact: Customer Services Department,
Macmillan Education, Houndmills,
Basingstoke, Hants RG21 2XS, UK; Tel.:
(0256) 29242.







ALTERNATIVE FARMING SYSTEMS


INFORMATION CENTER


The Alternative Farming Systems
Information Center (AFSIC) is part of the
National Agricultural Library (NAL),
which is located in Beltsville, Md. The
center is supported in part by the Low
Input/Sustainable Agriculture (LISA)
program of the Department of Agricul-
ture, established by Congress to encour-
age research, education, and information
delivery aobut farming systems that
preserve the natural resource base while
maintaining economic viability. The
Center is a focal point for those inter-
ested in obtaining information from
either the scientific or popular literature
on all types of alternative farming
practices.
Services offered by the center include
assistance in accessing NAL's extensive
collections of a broad range of agricul-
tural subjects; reference to organizations


or experts in the field who can provide
additional information; identification of
current research by USDA agencies;
bibliographies on topics such as biologi-
cal control of pests, water-conserving
irrigation, and green manures and cover
crops; and brief complimentary searches
of the AGRICOLA database on specific
topics or exhaustive searches on a cost-
recovery basis.
The AFSIC also provides document
delivery services through the lending
branch at NAL. Documents can be lent
through local libraries or land-grant
universities. The center can also provide
photocopies of journal articles from
AGRICOLA citations or from the NAL's
collection on a cost-recovery basis.
Your help can expand AFSIC services.
The center's staff work to ensure that
NAL acquires books, periodicals, reports,


and other materials related to alterna-
tive, low input, or sustainable agriculture
to enrich its already extensive resources.
You can help by contributing publica-
tions of your latest projects or research;
recommending books or serials that
should be added to the collection, and
suggesting organizations with whom
AFSIC might cooperate or who might
provide AFSIC with grants or funds for
special projects.
For more information about AFSIC,
write or telephone: Alternative Farming
Systems Information Center, National
Agriculture Library, Room 304, 10301
Baltimore Boulevard, Beltsville, MD
20705; Tel.: (301) 344-3704. For more
information about lending services,
contact: Lending Branch, Room 300,
National Agricultural Library, 10301
Baltimore Boulevard, Beltsville, MD
20705; Tel.: (301) 344-3755.


The AFSRE Newsletter is supported by a U.S. AID-supported grant (58-319R-9-003) from the Office of International
Cooperation and Development, United States Department of Agriculture; the Office of International Programs, Institute
of Food and Agricultural Sciences, University of Florida; contributions from AFSRE members; Title XII funding; and the
Office of Arid Lands Studies, The University of Arizona. The editors welcome articles, news items, and publication
announcements for consideration in future issues.

Address comments, contributions, and requests for mailing to:


Timothy R. Frankenberger, Editor
Association of Farming Systems Research-Extension Newsletter
Office of Arid Lands Studies
The University of Arizona
845 N. Park Avenue
Tucson, AZ 85719 USA
Tel.: (602) 621-1955
Fax: (602) 621-3816


Staff.
Associate Editors:
Daniel M. Goldstein and
Nancy Schmidt
Design: Arid Lands Design, 1992













JAFSRE


Association for Farming Systems Research-Extension Newsletter
Office of Arid Lands Studies, The University of Arizona
845 N. Park Avenue, Tucson, AZ 85719 USA
Tel.: 602-621-1955, Fax: 602-621-3816


Membership Information


Institutional


Family


Individual


Student


Affiliate


United States, Canada, Western Europe,
Japan, Australia, New Zealand $80 $60 $50 $20 na
All other countries $60 $30 $20 $20 $10
Affiliates receive the AFSRE Newsletter, all other members receive both the AFSRE Newsletter and the Journal for Farming Systems
Research-Extension. Membership dues can be paid by a check drawn on a U.S. bank or by international money order payable to
Association for Farming Systems Research-Extension in U.S. dollars. Please send membership fees along with the completed form
to:
Dr. Timothy J. Finan, Secretary/Treasurer
AFSRE
Department of Anthropology
The University of Arizona
Tucson, AZ 85721 USA
ASSOCIATION FOR FARMING SYSTEMS RESEARCH-EXTENSION MEMBERSHIP DIRECTORY

1. Family name
2. First name and middle name or initial


3. Female_


Male


Age Citizenship.


4. Title or position
5. Department
6. Institution
7. Postal mailing address


8. Telephone Fax Telex
9. Primary languages)
10. Other spoken languages (indicate fluent, f proficient, p, basic, b)
11. Other languages read
12. Highest educational degree Discipline
13. Current professional interests


14. Experience: Name of project, capacity, country



15. Would you like to volunteer to serve as an AFSRE country representative to collect association dues in local currency and forward
them, in U.S. dollars, to the treasurer if you can legally do this in your country of residence?




University of Florida Home Page
© 2004 - 2010 University of Florida George A. Smathers Libraries.
All rights reserved.

Acceptable Use, Copyright, and Disclaimer Statement
Last updated October 10, 2010 - - mvs