• TABLE OF CONTENTS
HIDE
 WIAD proposal for materials...
 Appendix 1: Volumes and units
 Appendix 2: Participatory tools...
 Appendix 3: Course proposal






Group Title: Women in Agricultural Development (WIAD) papers
Title: Preliminary proposal for materials development
ALL VOLUMES CITATION THUMBNAILS PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00085561/00012
 Material Information
Title: Preliminary proposal for materials development
Series Title: Women in Agricultural Development (WIAD) papers
Physical Description: Archival
Language: English
Creator: Women and Agricultural Development Program
Publisher: Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, University of Florida
Publication Date: December 1, 1993
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: UF00085561
Volume ID: VID00012
Source Institution: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.

Table of Contents
    WIAD proposal for materials development
        Page 1
        Page 2
        Page 3
        Page 4
        Page 5
        Page 6
        Page 7
        Page 8
        Page 9
        Page 10
        Page 11
        Page 12
    Appendix 1: Volumes and units
        Page 13
        Page 14
        Page 15
        Page 16
        Page 17
        Page 18
        Page 19
        Page 20
        Page 21
        Page 22
        Page 23
        Page 24
        Page 25
        Page 26
        Page 27
        Page 28
    Appendix 2: Participatory tools and user perspectives for natural resource management
        Page 29
        Page 30
        Page 31
        Page 32
        Page 33
        Page 34
        Page 35
        Page 36
        Page 37
        Page 38
        Page 39
        Page 40
        Page 41
        Page 42
        Page 43
        Page 44
        Page 45
        Page 46
        Page 47
    Appendix 3: Course proposal
        Page 48
        Page 49
        Page 50
        Page 51
        Page 52
Full Text





PRELIMINARY PROPOSAL FOR MATERIALS DEVELOPMENT

Dec. 1, 1993
PROJECT TITLE: GENDER ANALYSIS TRAINING: OPTIMIZING RESOURCES
SUSTAINABLY (GATORS)

SUBMITTED TO: DR. MARIANNE SCHMINK, TROPICAL CONSERVATION &
DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM, CENTER FOR LATIN AMERICAN
STUDIES

DR. SANDRA RUSSO, WOMEN & AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT

DR. PETER HILDEBRAND, INTERNATIONAL TRAINING
DIVISION, IFAS

MATERIALS DEVELOPMENT TEAM:
Shari Bush, Anthropology
Bea Covington, FRE (Team Facilitator)
Deborah McGrath, Forestry
Gretchen Greene, FRE
Anne Todd Bockarie, Forestry (Team Facilitator)

DURATION OF PROJECT: JAN. 1- SEPT 1, 1994

PROJECT SUMMARY
The resounding impact of new environmental policies on
conventional agricultural production and the very survival of the
family farm as an enterprise was- poignantly voiced by
representatives from a number of farmers organizations throughout
the United States at a recent Farming System Research & Extension
conference in Gainesville, FL. The overwhelming need for
economical agricultural practices which were both ecologically
friendly and equitable within both the household and the community
was clearly not being met by agricultural universities and
international agricultural research institutes. This gap between
research products and farmer/community needs is evident worldwide.
Historically, many researchers, extension agents and natural
resource managers have been trained in very narrowly defined
disciplines which do not provide the tools and methods for a
systems approach to look at community resource problems.

The purpose of this project is to develop and adapt materials
which incorporate gender and community groups into agroecosytem
planning and management in neotropical environments. In this case
agroecosystem planning exploits the fundamental principles of
natural ecosystems (such as energy flows, nutrient cycling, or net
biomass production) in relation to the system's agronomic, social,
and economic functions and interactions. A materials development
team composed of graduate students and faculty from Anthropology,
Forestry, Ar C 1q~lEcoibmics, Home Economics, International
Studies & Pro am and the International Training Division has been

S1 -?^ [Ax

u / V . \ Tt








formed. The project is divided into two phases:


PHASE I:
PHASE II:


MATERIALS DEVELOPMENT AND TESTING
EDITING AND SYNTHESIS


The team will produce a series of diagnostc, participatory and
evaluation tools/techniques which are in the following method
categories: 1) awareness building, 2) descriptive, 3) problem-
solving, 4) aj lytical, and 5) evaluative through biweekly meetings
between Ja ~bpt., 1994. Key interest areas (either method
category or resource issues such as environmental deterioration and
i s impact on women and other stakeholders, gender differences in
conflict resolution, biodiversity) will be researched and materials
developed in both special topics courses and through a series of
participatory workshops. During Phase I the two team facilitators
will coordinate regular meetings and workshops to exchange ideas
and edit sectis. One facilitator will be responsible for
administrative scal management and materials testing coordination
and the other facilitator will' be responsible for outreach and
workshop coordination. In Phase II the team facilitator will be
responsible for coordinating meetings, correspondence, editing
(spanish and english) and graphics.
11>

The teaching units will be evaluated and teS~ tEfn graduate
courses and special seminars throughout the Sp ng 94 semester.
A participatory cross-training workshop will (be-leld in March to
collaborate with other institutions which have developed similar
materials. The final draft of the teaching units will be tested and
refined in OTS courses in 1995.

All materials developed will be collated in a publication for
Duke University Press consisting of two volumes. The first volume
will describe current socio-economic and biophysical background,
statistics, problems and strateg s for key human-dominated and
natural ecosystems of the tropic5). Gender issues and policy
concerns should be balanced-with biological limitations and
opportunities of the different ecosystems. Authors from both North
and South will contribute chapters in English and Spanish. The
second volume will focus on classroom methods and field techniques
in gender analysis, community participation, agroecosystem
assessment and a wide range of tools which are awareness building,
descriptive, problem-solving or analytical in function for use by
university level professionals. A preliminary outline for the two
volumes is found in Appendix I.

BACKGROUND
In the spring of 1993, a faculty training program entitled
"Integrating the User Perspective and Gender Analysis into
Agriculture and Natural Resource Management Courses" was jointly
sponsored by WIAD, ITD and TCD. The objectives of the program were
to:
1) address gender as a variable in relation to graduate


-t LA8








courses and research projects,


2) incorporate gender and the user perspective into the
development of graduate course curriculum,

3) develop and use specific training techniques in graduate
courses,

4) begin to develop a network of resources (people and other)
that would be useful in the incorporation of gender analysis
issues in the classroom.

Graduate students and faculty worked closely together in
developing new materials and modifying course curricula to include
gender issues over the course of the semester. At the close of the
training program, it was felt that the materials development
process which had been initiated should be continued and further
enhanced. A group of graduate students volunteered to organize
existing materials and develop new applications for the teaching
environment which could be used by university professionals. Over
the last 6 months the team of students with support of faculty has:

1) developed a preliminary outline and bibliography of
available materials

2) attended, collected and shared information from the AWID
meeting held in Washington, DC in October via the support of
the WIAD program

3) participated in the SANREM CRSP training workshop at
Virginia Polytechnic Institute in November with
infrastructural support from ITD (see Appendix II)

4) tested newly developed materials in several classroom and
workshop environments (see Appendix II)

In late November the group was approached by Dr. Swisher (who
had been supportive in developing the original outline in
September) in combining efforts with other professionals from the
Organization for Tropical Studies in developing a joint two volume
book combining up-to-date scientific knowledge and techniques on
managing tropical ecosystems in the neotropics. The proposed
collaborative effort would combine the expertise in the neotropics
and gender issues found at the University of Florida, the
preliminary tools development project in gender and the user
perspective in natural resource management and the field know-how
of years of OTS courses together. (Handout)








INTRODUCTION

In the mid 1960 s, a few agricu ural researchers in both
university and experiment station s ings, became aware of the
need to base research projects on frmers-identified problems and
priorities. The entire "livelih d system" in a community needed
to be considered to effect la ing change. In response to this
expanding focus, a number tools and research methods were
developed (Hildebrand, 198 Shaner et. al., 1982; Norman, 1980).
These tools and methods have been disseminated through Farming
Systems Research & Extension projects and training worldwide.

In conjunction with the development of the Farming Systems
methodology there has been a growing awareness that gender analysis
is critical for involving women in planning and results in more
successful and equitable development projects. Boserup, 1970;
Cloud, 1985; Poats & Feldstein, 1990; Thomas-Slayter et. al, 1990
and others have developed a variety of tools and techniques for
including the agendas of both females and males in agricultural and
community development activities.

Recent recognition by world leaders, academics and
practitioners of environmental problems has led to a search for
methods to manage natural resources sustainably in order to
mitigate the degradation of the natural environment and to ensure
an adequate resource base for future generation. The search for
participatory methods to involve both policymakers and the
immediate users of the resources in planning and monitoring is
evident in the expanding volume of literature on these topics.
Experiential learning theory (Kolb, 1984) and the le g process
approach which was championed by Korten in the 198 0 in commu' y
development planning are being embraced and redefi e by
agricultural and natural r source planners in the 1990 s. New
methods for develop)i~e community consensus building and
participatory problem solving for natural resource and landscape
issues are being tested for a wide range of resource issues as
outlined by William, Lev and Smith, 1993 (see Table 1).

PROBLEM STATEMENT

While each of the three focus areas (FSR/E, Gender Analysis
and Participatory Natural Resource Management) has a well developed
set of tools and methods, few combine all three into a
comprehensive framework. The critical need for methods which
include all .agroecosystem stakeholders in decision-making to
address pressing natural resource problems has led to a demand for
modifying and expanding existing tools used in both the FSRE and
gender arenas.









OBJECTIVES


The purpose of this project is to develop tools and methods
which cross the bridge between FSRE, gender analysis and natural
resource management paradigms. The materials development team will:

1. Collect, examine and evaluate existing tools and literature to
determine the degree to which they incorporate gender, natural
resources management and agricultural production.

2. Adapt and create participatory tools from an agroecosystems
perspective for use by academics and field researchers.

3. Pre-test and evaluate all tools in a classroom environment or
field exercise to determine their effectiveness.

4. Collate the materials into a publication which can be easily
used for teaching and training at a university or equivalent level.


EXPECTED BENEFITS

The ultimate goal of this project is to provide teaching
materials which help students to examine critically the
multiplicity of issues, objectives and conflicts in agroecosystem
management. The intended product will produce several significant
benefits including:

* a set of new tools and activities which can easily be
incorporated in part or as a whole into classroom teaching in
courses that address conservation, wildlife, forestry, women in
development, or sustainable agriculture.

* a framework for broadening the dialogue between all the
stakeholders in management decision-making such as communities,
policymakers, international organizations, environmentalists,
feminists and academic institutions.

* materials testing in a wide variety of university-level courses,
workshops and seminars that will expand curriculum to include
gender and agroecosystem issues and expose students to a variety of
teaching methods and participatory research tools.

METHODS

Participatory Team Meetings

The materials development team will meet bi-weekly to assemble
literature, coordinate the creation and adaption of tools,
activities and methods, edit draft unit sections and address team
logistical issues for managing the project. Each meeting will be
a participatory forum in which team members will generate the









agenda, monitor the objectives and evaluate progress. Mission
statements and objectives for activities which the group engages in
as a whole and any major decisions affecting the direction of the
project will be made by the team members together.

Publication Units

The tools and materials developed will be organized into the
following units: (This section is in transition depending on our
decision to collaborate with Hatch and Swisher. If we do, then
Unit I is integrate into volume I and Units 2-5. into Volume II)

UNIT 1: Theoretical perspectives of gender, agricultural
production and the environment.

UNIT 2: Activities and exercises for identifying the actors, and
discussing multiple issues and agendas in the
agroecosystem context.

UNIT 3: Tools for diagnosing, designing, evaluating and
monitoring multiple users in agroecosystem management.

UNIT 4: Strategies for combining, understanding or theory, actors
and agendas, and diagnostic information into practical
frameworks.
UNIT 5: Summary of method and recommended uses for materials

In-depth Studies

Selected graduate students will design and enroll in special
problems courses to address specific components of the project. The
proposed titles/descriptions of the in-depth research courses are
included in Appendix III. This will allow team members to focus
efforts on key areas, complete requirements towards doctoral
degrees, and involve faculty from a wider array of disciplines.
Through the independent study courses a number of smaller documents
will be produced which can then be aggregated into the larger
publication.

Cross-Training Workshops

The group will identify opportunities for collaboration and
exchange with other organizations and institutions (Clark
University, SANREM CRSP, Peace Corps, ECOGEN and GENESYS among
others). Where appropriate, the team will coordinate workshops to
provide opportunities for cross-training of research professionals
and students in agroecosystem and gender analysis in collaboration
with the WIAD training program.

Teaching and Training

Materials could be field tested in several graduate courses









and tentative arrangements have been made with some professors:

Professor Department Course
Dr. V. Viana Forestry FOR 6170 Tropical Forestry*
Dr. P. Hildebrand FRE AGG 5813 FSRE
Dr. S Smith Home Economics AEE 6935 WIAD*
Dr. S. Jacobson Wildlife
Dr. M. Schmink Anthropology ANT 5303 WID
Dr. A. Spring Anthropology ANT 6933 Gender & Develop*
Dr. A. Goldman Geography
Dr. C. Gladwin FRE ANT xxxx Ethnography*
Dr. P.K. Nair Forestry FOR 5301 Agroforestry
Dr. K. Buhr Agronomy AGG Agronomy

* collaborative arrangements have been finalized for these courses

Each session will be evaluated by team members, faculty and
student participants.

MANAGEMENT UNIT
Editorial Board:
DR. MARIANNE SCHMINK, TCD, CENTER FOR LATIN AMERICAN STUDIES

DR. SANDRA RUSSO, WOMEN & AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT

DR. PETER HILDEBRAND & MS. LISETTE STAAL, INTERNATIONAL TRAINING
DIVISION

PHASE I: Materials Development and Testing Jan-April 1994

Team Facilitator Administration/Testing: Anne Todd Bockarie,
Forestry (12 hr weekly for a total of 192 hours)

The facilitator's responsibilities include: facilitating
meetings, memos and communication, organizing materials, assemble
evaluations, logistical arrangements and contact with faculty for
testing of materials, purchase supplies and fiscal accounting.


Team Facilitator Outreach/Workshop: Bea Covington, FRE (156 hours)

The facilitator's responsibilities include: planning,
preparation and logistical arrangements, implementation, evaluation
and documentation of cross-training workshops. Outreach and
communication with other institutions and individuals regarding the
project and workshops.

PHASE II: Editing and Synthesis May-Sept. 1994

Team Facilitator Administration/Editorial: (10 hr weekly for a
total of 200 hours)









The facilitator's responsibilities include: facilitating
meetings, memos and communication, organizing materials, purchase
supplies and fiscal accounting, coordinating bilingual editing and
working with the editorial board to insure uniform presentation of
materials, interact with publishing entity, proofs, galleys,
graphics and correspondence.


Materials Team Members:

Materials team members will engage in the following tasks:
literature review, writing, adapting, testing, monitoring,
evaluating and editing materials. Members will actively
participate in the preparation and testing of unit sections for
editing at biweekly meetings, and completion of special topics
course requirements where appropriate.

Shari Bush, Anthropology
Bea Covington, FRE
Gretchen Greene, FRE
Deborah McGrath, Forestry
Anne Todd Bockarie, Forestry

Sandra Russo, International Studies & Programs
Marianne Schmink, Anthropology
Lisette Staal, International Training Division
Mickie Swisher, Home Economics
Pete are you doing any writing? ----

Special Topics Faculty Supervisors

Tentative arrangements have been and are being made for the
supervision of special topics courses with:

Dr. Marianne Schmink, Anthropology
Dr. Susan Jacobson, Wildlife
Dr. Suzanne Smith, Home Economics
Dr. Jeff Burkhart, FRE
See appendix III for an outline of courses

Infrastructural Support

The International Training Division has tentatively expressed
interest in collaborating in this effort by offering access to
office space, computers, xeroxing, fax and telephone services for
the materials development.









BUDGET
Salaries:

Team Facilitator Administration/Testing (OPS)
192 hr @ $18.75/hr (Jan-April 1994) 3600

Team Facilitator Outreach/Workshop (OPS)
156 hr @ $18.75/hr (Jan-May 1994) 2925

Team Facilitator Administration/Editorial (OPS)
200 hr @ $18.75/hr (May-Sept 1994) 3750

Cross Training Workshops: (pending discussion of transport/lodging
issue of invited participants for a 2-3 day session March 18)
communications (fax, fedex, mail, phone)
supplies (paper, flipcharts, markers)
vehicles
space
xerox
refreshments/reception
transport/per diem/lodging?

Supplies:

Materials collection: 750
library fees, photocopying reference materials in the library,
book purchases

Office materials 500
discs, paper, pens, staples, post-its, flip charts, chalk,
markers

Infrastructural Support: 1000
accounts needed to cover fax, phone, office space, fedex, general
photocopying of materials in editing/testing process











TIMELINE
1993 1994
Preproposal Proposal
Activity Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apl May June July Aug Sept
----------------------m- -------- m ------------------- m -------------------------------mm----------
Literature Review X--------------------
Resource Collection X--- ------------------------- x


PHASE I: DEVELOPMENT/TESTING
Materials Writing
Unit 1
Unit 2 X--
Unit 3 X--
Unit 4 X--
Unit 5
Testing X-


Evaluations


X---------------------------x
------------------
---------------------------x
-------------------------------X
X-------i------x
-------------------------x


X------------------------------------


Special Topics Outputs
Cross-training Workshop


1. Planning (40 hr)
2. Preparation (40 hr)
3. Implementation (56 hr)
4. Report/Recommendations (20 hr)


---------------------x


X-----X
X----X
X--x


X--X


PHASE II: EDITING


Collate, standardize materials


X.-----------m-----. x


Submission to OTS


Re-editing


Final Submission X
-------------------------------mm---------- -------------------------


x----x









REFERENCES
Boserup, E. 1970. Women's role in economic development. St. Martins
Press, NY.

Cloud, K. 1985. Women's productivity in agricultural systems:
considerations for project design. In: Overholt, C. Anderson,
M, Cloud, K and J. Austin (eds.). pp. 17-56. Gender roles in
development projects. Kumarian Press, West Hartford, CT.

Hildebrand, P. 1981. Combining disciplines in rapid appraisal: the
sondeo approach. Agric. Admin. 8:423-432.

Kolb, D. 1984. Experiential learning: Experience as the source of
learning development. Prentice Hall, NJ.

Korten, D. 1980. The Learning Process Approach. Development
Administration.

Norman, D. 1980. The Farming Systems approach: relevancy to the
small farmer. MSU Rural Dev. Paper No. 5. MSU, MI.

Poats and Feldstein. 1990. Working Together. Kumarian Press

Thomas-Slayter, B. et. al. 1993. Tools of Gender Analysis. ECOGEN,
Clark University.

William, R. Lev, L. and F. Smith. 1993. Learning and Consensus-
Building: Ways to Improve Complex Natural Resource Issues. In
Press.







Table 1. Participatory approaches for complex, value-laden situations or "wicked" and/or
messy problems.

Approach Purpose Reference


Coordinated resource manage-
ment planning (CRMP)

Negotiation, Conflict resolution
(interest-based problem-solving)


Total quality management
(TOM)

Participatory problem-solving,
Organizational learning, and
Strategic assumption surfacing
and testing (SAST)
Interactive or transactive plan-
ning


Soft systems


Critical systems heuristics


Total systems intervention (TSI)


Ranchers and agency people (BLM/
USFS) agree in managing livestock,
wildlife, and forest/range habitat.
Search for common interests, develop
best alternatives to negotiated agree-
ment (BATNA), and seek win/win
improvements and consensus.
Improving customer service, quality of
goods and services, and involving
people in the entire process.
Participants representing diverse
viewpoints will challenge assumptions
and can work toward consensus with
a participatory process.
Participatory planning process involv-
ing learning, adaptation, and constant
search for improvement.
Participatory approach where inter-
ested persons share diverse values/
beliefs and focus on accommodation
and consensus to improve complex
situations using systems pictures/
diagrams.
Participatory approach with regulato-
ry or other control agencies where
"what is" and "what ought to be"
are explored.
Participatory approaches involving a
dominant systems methodology linked
with one or more supplemental ap-
proaches designed to improve com-
plex, value-laden situations.


Anderson


Levritz, Fisher &
Ury, Doyle &
Straus

Crosby, Demming


Senge, Whyte,
Weisbord, Mason


Ackoff, Friedmann


Checkland, Check-
land and Scholes


Ulrich


Flood & Jackson








VOLUME I

Part I Introduction

1. Discussion of human domination of ecosystems
Swisher and Hatch

2. Socio-cultural aspects of ecosystem management
Schmink and Russo

3. The structure of research and outreach for tropical ecosystem management

a. Agriculture and forestry
Ruttan

b. Natural systems 9
Sanderson -

4. Natural resource economics
Hatch

Part II Managing Tropical Ecosystems: Problems and Perspectives

1. Human Dominated Ecosystems

a. Plantation Agriculture (Swisher)

i. Expansion of Banana Production in Sarapiqui (Trivoleta)

ii. Palma Tica (Ortiz)

iii. Pindeco (Solano)

iv. Farmer Managed Cooperatives (Mesa)

b. Input Intensive Non-Traditional Cropping Systems (vegetables, ornamentals,
etc.) (Alfredo Montes)

i. Mini-Legumbre Production (Acuna)

ii. Organic Vegetable Production (Sasaki)

iii. Guatemala Export Production by Small Farmers

iv. Research and Extension by Producer Associations in Ecuador (Stansly)





c. Traditional Farming Systems

i. Frijol Tapado (Rosemeyer)

ii. Guayami (Chela Vasquez)

iii. Shade Grown Coffee (Liana Barbar)

iv. Traditional Polyculture (Gleissman, Altieri, or Wilken)

v. Dominican Republic Agro-Forestry Systems (Rocheleau)

d. Extensive Cattle Production (Joe Conrad) ( Sh vDS) CIAr V- ^-
l.e 0 tU- .cA-Tn (l
i. Finca La Pacifica (Haugnauer)

ii. Atlantic Lowlands (Swisher)

iii. The Hamburger Connection (Nations)

iv. Landscape Analysis of Argentinian Cattle Production (Villareal)

e. Dairy Production (Rojas and Odegard) (C, Oes "
2 icvt it-.l'krtD
i. Intensive Production (Jiminez)

ii. Double Purpose (Romero)
SZtV'rlL. i2U .L vinui'r.r~ CAr-^S P

f. Other Livestock Production Systems (Miguel Velez) -Inde. cas- sk- lk rb &e

i. Iguana farming U -

ii. Micro-livestock (Popenoe)

g. Aquaculture

i. Shrimp farming in Ecuador
(Dunning and Hatch)

ii Family-Scale Tilapia Systems in Guatemala
(Hatch and Popma)

h. Planted Woodlands (Jorge Hernandez or Simpson)

i. Ston Forestal (????)







.--- - .- ; ..,; .-". "







ii. Native Species (Ewel)

iii. Herbivory, Pollination and Genetic Techniques in Native species
Selection for Re-Forestation
(Carpenter)

iv. La Selva Long Term Trials (Butterfield)

v. Puriscal Reforestation Project (Jorge Hernandez)

2. Natural Ecosystems

a. National Parks and Biological Reserves (Jose Maria Rodriguez)

i. Corcovado Gold Miners (Vargas)

ii. Guanacaste National Park: Reconstruction Biology (?????)

iii. Biodiversity and the Private Sector: The Case ofINBIO (Valerio and
Leon)

iv. Opossums at Palo Verde (Monica Marquez)

v. Peccaries at La Selva (UNA)

vii. Palo Verde National Park (McCoy)

b. Biosphere Reserves, Buffer Zone, and Biological Corridor Management (Luis
Diego Gomez)

i. Indigenous Peoples' Management: Barra Honda Eco-Tourism (?????)

ii. BOSCOSA (Campos)

iii. La Selva Braulio Carrillo Corridor (Fredie Morales)

iv. Maya Biosphere Reserve (Estuardo Secaira)

c. Natural Forest Management and Protection (Richter and Butterfield)

i. CATIE Demonstration of Oak Forest Management (John ?????)

ii. OSA Forest Harvesting Methods (?????)

iii. Forest Regeneration (Denslow and Butterfield)


...L..,..............~ ~ .1. ~ - .~.. _______________ -







d. Aquatic Systems (Deutsch) (C 4---\ t--'V )

i. La Selva Water Quality (Pringle)

ii. Gulf of Nicoya (Villalobos)

iii. UNA study on Terraba Estuary (Jimenez)

i)Vv- frc<^- /? (^JiL^-







VOLUME H Tropical Managed Ecosystems: Diagnostic and Evaluation Techniques

Part I Introduction ,' C- (. 4-
^/ _Le ^P ^I sJ

Part II Loca Use of Resources c ,- ---

1. Awareness

Group brainstorming
BFkarie GCv-rtz-&

Agro-ecosystem model


2. Description

Local Resource Use Inventory
Bentley

Regional Transect -
Cortez

3. Problem Statement

4. Analysis

Matrix Ranking


Economic Valuation Techniques for Non-market Goods
Hatch

Part III Environmental Deterioration and Over-exploitation of Resources

1. Awareness

Historical trends
BFiMMfe G-AmTt-S

Wildlife or Resource Flash Cards
--h iB- CA7--cR5-_S

2. Description

Land Use Capability and Soil Erosion








Vasquez and Cubero

Measuring Biodiversity
Valerio

Environmental Danger Calendars
Bvtkwe CGp-A-T^sS

3. Problem Statement

Water Quality Testing
Deutsch, Monge and Paaby

What Does the Picture Show
Baiiie CGA-T-wS-

4. Analysis

Terrain Mapping
Gilbert Vargas

Rainfall Intensity Measurement
Gilbert Vargas

Part IV. Resource Use Conflicts

1. Awareness

Biological assessment


Role Play for Different User groups
ruoamm ( aAsa-Tos

2. Description

3. Problem Statement

Problem Diagram and Circles


Participatory Rural Appraisal
Swisher

4. Analysis


-~-`---------- --I`C-----^-ll.l~~1~








Access and Control of Resources by User Group


Power Mapping
Swisher

Part V. JIndfficien Resource Use (-~f

1. Awareness

Legume Nodule Analysis
Rosemeyer and Zimpfer

2. Description

Energy Use
Fluck and Swisher

Market Surveys
Hatch

3. Problem Statement

Labor Utilization Calendar


4. Analysis

Economic Analysis of Alternative Resource Uses
Hatch










UNIT TWO
Who Are We, What Are We. Why Are We Here




Rational


When discussing gender and the environment from an
agroecosystems perspective there are a number of different issues
and questions that form the basis of the current debate related to
sustainable agricultural production and natural resource
management. Additionally there are a number of actors and
institutions involved. Each brings to the discussion a different
understanding of ecological and environmental issues and
constraints. The dialogue is further muddied by the fact that
institutions and individuals often have different, frequently
conflicting agendas. These varied agendas and world views can be
extended beyond the institution to the individual as well. When
combined with the real conflicting issues and agenda perspectives
individual and institutional factors make the process of defining
and executing a research agenda a difficult one.

In order to function effectively in a participatory research
process it is essential that individuals and institutions address
major issues involved in the current debate. At the community and
institutional level actors in the participatory process must
recognize, acknowledge and respect different perspectives In
order for this climate of mutual respect to be achieved individuals
must have a clear understanding of their own biases, agendas and
world views.



Objectives


The first set of sessions in this unit will be designed to get
individuals to recognize/identify values and biases that they bring
to the participatory process. The sessions will facilitate the
identification of individual and collective agendas as well.
Participants will evaluate the effects of these issues and agendas
on the way they view and participate in the research process.

The second set of sessions will address the major conflicts
and areas of debate within the agroecosystem perspective. The
sessions will be designed so that participants become aware of the
impacts of world view and agenda on their involvement in the
debate.








INITIAL BIBLIOGRAPHY

Bergman, Robert. Problems of Cross Cultural Educational
Research.

Boyd, T.A. Value Orientations Influencing Decision Making in
Rural Communities.

Brewer, Marilynn & Bary Collins. (eds). Inquiry and the Social
Sciences.

Cook Thomas, R. Guidelines for Planning. Establishing Objectives
and Values and Formulating a Code of Ethics for an
Institution of Higher Education.

Currie et al. Environmental Policy Formation: The Impact of
Values.

Dalis, Gus. Teaching Strategies for Values Awareness and
Decision Making in Health Education.

Decisions Values and Groups.

Fishburn, Peter. Decision and Value Theory.

Guidelines for Evaluating and Documenting Traditional Cultural
Properties.

Haughey, John. Personal Values in Public Policy: Essays and
Conversations in Government Decision Making.

Keeney Ralph. Value Focused Thinking.

Levi, Issac. Hard Choices: Decision Making Under Unresolved
Conflict.

Levinsion D. A Guide to Social Theory.

Lewis, Hunter. A Question of Values.

Patton, Michael O. (ed). Culture and Evaluation.

Pattanaik Prasantak. Voting and Collective Choice; Some Aspects
of the Theory of Group Decision Making.

Radnus, Linda. The Development of and Instrument to Measure
Values Clarification in the Area of Ecology.

Shaftel, Fannie R. Role Playing for Social Values: Decision
Making in the Social Studies.

Smith, Maury. A Practical Guide to Values Clarificaion.








Simon, Sidney. Beginning Values Clarification: A Guidebook for
the Use of Values Clarification in the Classroom.

Simon, Sidney. Values Clarification: A Handbook of Practical
Strategies for Teachers and Students.

Social Choice and Public Policy.

The Cultural Appraisal of Development Projects.

Young, Robert (ed). Identifying and Implementing the Essential
Values of the Profession.








The User Perspective and
Natural Resource Management
UNIT III Diagnostic and Participatory Tools
Introduction:

The purpose of this module is to present a variety of diagnostic
tools, which necessitate local participation, to assist in the
collection, organization and interpretation of information pertaining
to the management and use of an agroecological landscape by different
biosocial groups. From this information, the impact of different user
groups on natural ecosystem functioning, and the effect of natural
resource management (nrm) policies angd/9 Wtecnoloi on differ

user groiBs MY be ammeoGed berlr itle-mentation.

Central to the methodologies presented in this module is the
authors' belief in the necessity of assessing the impact of different
biosocial natural resource user groups on biophysical ecosystem
processes prior to the introduction of an agroecological technology or
implementation of a natural resource policy. While the authors
continue to embrace traditional FSRE/PRA methods of evaluating the
impact of agricultural techn19gie on n entire farm hougohol, th4
tHliS Drenhted here go one stap frt6 with the inclusion of human
impact on an entire ecosystem unit or landscape in the analysis of
constraints and opportunities for technology and/or natural resource
policy development. To emphasize these issues, it seems appropriate
to define the following terminology that will be used throughout the
sessions of this module.

user group: different groups of people, each with their own
agenda for deriving some type of economic or social benefit#
froN lans pe,

lafc&6ea 1 che biophysical environment under assessment
within the scope of interaction between varied human user
groups and natural ecosystem (wildlife and plant
communities) processes and interactions.
biosocial problems: conflicts in resource use and management
resulting from the interaction between different user
groups.
environmental consequences: issues arising from the impact
of human resource consumption, use and management on natural
ecosystem processes and functions.
The following table provides examples of "secondary data and
potential sources that should be collected
The tools will be presented in the format of a lesson plan which
explains the purpose, construction and use of each diagnostic and
analytical methodology. The lesson plans will be organized as
sections of a seminar series which can be used for that purpose by a
trainer, or simply individually by natural resource professionals,









The User Perspective and
Natural Resource Management

UNIT III Diagnostic and Participatory Tools
Introduction:

The purpose of this module is to present a variety of diagnostic
tools, which necessitate local participation, to assist in the
collection, organization and interpretation of information pertaining
to the management and use of an agroecological landscape by different
biosocial groups. From this information, the impact of different user
groups on natural ecosystem functioning, and the effect of natural
resource management (nrm) policies and/or technologies on different
user groups may be assessed before implementation.

Central to the methodologies presented in this module is the
authors' belief in the necessity of assessing the impact of different
biosocial natural resource user groups on biophysical ecosystem
processes prior to the introduction of an agroecological technology or
implementation of a natural resource policy. While the authors
continue to embrace traditional FSRE/PRA methods of evaluating the
impact of agricultural technologies on an entire farm household, the
tools presented here go one step further with the inclusion of human
impact on an entire ecosystem unit or landscape in the analysis of
constraints and opportunities for technology and/or natural resource
policy development. To emphasize these issues, it seems appropriate
to define the following terminology that will be used throughout the
sessions of this module.

user group: different groups of people, each with their own
agenda for deriving some type of economic or social benefit
from the landscape.

landscape: the biophysical environment under assessment
within the scope of interaction between varied human user
groups and natural ecosystem (wildlife and plant
communities) processes and interactions.

biosocial problems: conflicts in resource use and management
resulting from the interaction between different user
groups.

environmental consequences: issues arising from the impact
of human resource consumption, use and management on natural
ecosystem processes and functions.

The following table provides examples of "secondary data and
potential sources that should be collected

The tools will be presented in the format of a lesson plan which
explains the purpose, construction and use of each diagnostic and
analytical methodology. The lesson plans will be organized as
sections of a seminar series which can be used for that purpose by a
trainer, or simply individually by natural resource professionals,









researchers, academics, and local communities as potential tools for
assessing the impact of different user groups on an agroecological
landscape.
Each session will be organized in the format of a lesson plan
which will include the following components:

Presentation of Tools/lesson

1. Tool name (session title)

2. Session learning/application objectives

3. Tool description (introduction)
a. definition
b. purpose
c. procedure and materials
d. results
e. usefulness
f. time requirement

4. Tool construction exercise using primary case study

5. Application exercises using constructed tool with primary or
secondary case study

6. Participatory use by local communities

7. Evaluation

8. Background reading list

*Summary of use, pros and cons of tools presented.

*Hints on using tools as a NRM professional or trainer.








References


Chambers, R, Pacey, A., and L.A. Thrupp (Eds.). 1989. Farmer
First: farmer innovation and agricultural research. Intermediate
Technology Publications, London.

Crosby, B.L. 1991. Stakeholder Analysis: What it is and how to
use it. Implementing Policy Change Project.

Feldstein, H.S, Poats, S.V., Cloud, K., and R.H. Norem.' Conceptual
framework for gender analysis in farming systems research and
extension. In: Feldstein, H., and Poats, S. (Eds.) Working
Together, Gender Analysis Volume I. Westview Press, Boulder,
Colorado.

Kabutha, C., Thomas-Slayter, B., and R. Ford. 1990. Participatory
Rural Appraisal: an innovative methodology for effective community
development. Paper presented at African Studies Association
Meeting, Baltimore, Maryland.

Lightfoot, C. 1990. Participatory methods for ecologically sound
agriculture. Paper presented at the Asian Training on Research
Diagnostic Tools for Farm and Household Analysis, International
Potato Center, Los Banos, Philippines.

McCorkle, C. 1993. Biosocial Groups in Agricultural and Natural
Resource Management: a framework for sustainable development.
Paper presented to Women in Agricultural Development Program,
University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida.

Poats, S.V., Feldstein, H.S., and D.E. Rocheleau. 1989. Gender
and intra/inter-household analysis in on-farm research and
experimentation. In: Wilk, R. (Ed.). The Household Economy.
Westview Press, Boulder, Colorado.

Raintree, J.B. 1987. D&D Users Manual: an introduction to
agroforestry diagnosis and design. The International Council for
Research in Agroforestry, Nairobi, Kenya.

Rhodes, R.E. 1987. Basic field techniques for rapid rural
appraisal. Proceedings of the 1985 International Conference on
Rapid Rural Appraisal.


















UN IT FOUR
Putting it All To ethf7-







co-. I I d


C, L iltE r



'J io soncia1 Groups in
Agriculturp and Ncatur-ai Resource Management, ri



-h t
*r 't'












A L
i!: L ~f-' ... ..i













.5 DU- -
r-
A.r..'jtut1 Eitn4C1 Naua Resduc ~ MnJ.C>e th tp2~~eEiis pr~css






S'L C y-
f'3tual T r -.i,.t ions; r -"~i il ce








E- f
t~ -I Z:t uVi-ceri;z L . demonEtf--er the r-neeg rr n


c4J--r*;eit~ji ret~ -Fi WrE -r their- -zopic!srt ion tttii
Th.Eft~C~ *Ie u 'v1cpe -~i ~!1Fi.~z I-: y aas 0r i:?J f-4.-~y 4.le~irte dt~~e gr-n i





:s i ch t Ui~r;
-~~ cc.- -;A .
-idi _~t *,_~ 1' .AIJ~3ezl. *. .





h Ji )>ifs sjE cnce-* i.~1 j i- i*-me'Lt.~ t-i: '.ru~ .-p i aiL- i c2 tj2JT;A Z1








I I
- -~lT~lr?- 'L;' lJM 11, I ttCi5 sus-P.














"RELIF ::"- S~T.. a l I a ,, dR...........




4ti-. V. -- d Y +ovinski (Eds ) ,9.92i rd ._ n. ."---

', -

.= --2-- ... -. ... T

r..... .. . .; . :-,- -,n d C & ]. ri',- -'.. .. .













Ph,- -. -ii. .- *- -i --..".. .. a








Oldid, L., nd J.. Alcoh. 1991. Biod ersiy- Cutr

Cnservati and Ecode-,Ylopent Nestview Press Inc., Boulder.
Co 1. a e




I u f ..- a-. -- 1 ~ ,-e- and rs ,






.RNartl ?oir- The us: taina..le .r.. Tre Prtoga; I- "-.. London.





-olu ia UnM,,- "-," y ?7 -..dgS..nY -ci,,.' ., Ca:!bri-d-se Niversity Pre---= ,-
C -.b r v Qa e








.-j. rn -n f aric.l ..r. . rc-s
n~r4 4 -.r~cn [iir-l s-.


AcvrJicultureg? and *-uan Values.






SANRAM CRISP TRAINING
INNOVATIVE RESEARCH APPROACHES TO SUSTAINABILITY
November 20-24, 1993
Virginia Polytechnic Institute Blacksburg Va




Participatory Tools and the User Perspective for Natural Resource
Management
Monday November 22
3:30-5:55


OBJECTIVES

Through participation in this activity participants will:

1. understand the relationships between gender, user groups and
stakeholder analysis and the importance of approaching
information gathering from a user perspective through an
interactive lecturette.
2. demonstrate an understanding of the construction and use of
participatory tools by completing a set of user
disaggregated tools using the information presented from the
Burkina Faso site experience and information provided by key
informants.
3. be able to evaluate and discuss the pluses and minuses of the
different tools and discuss the modifications needed to use
the tools at individual work sites.
4. be able to identify the type of information needed to
construct each tool and the type of analysis that can be done
with each tool.
5. be able to evaluate the degree to which certain tools lend
themselves to use in a participatory framework.


TIME


3:30-3:50


3:30-3:33





3:33-3:35


3:35-3:50


ACTIVITY

Lecturette on GA & UP


Welcome to our session. I
want to begin by having you
silently look at this
picture. (lady/witch on
overhead)

What do you see?
(participants tell what they
see)

This picture is an
illustration of the
fundamental reason that it is
so critical that we approach
all of our information
gathering, analysis and
problem solving with a clear
understanding of all of the


MATERIALS


overhead projector,
extension cord,
lady/witch
transparency
Sandra's overhead
flip chart
markers










































3:50-3:55


3:55-4:00


different groups involved.
DIFFERENT PEOPLE SEE THINGS
DIFFERENTLY. THEY HAVE
DIFFERENT NEEDS, OBJECTIVES,
and CONSTRAINTS.

For many of us the most
obvious differentiation
criteria has been sex. While
there are a number of ethical
and philosophical arguments
for including or focusing
solely on women we take the
approach that, while women
were certainly the most
obviously ignored group they
are not the only ones. In
fact women are only part of
the gender equation. When we
talk about gender we are
talking about males and
females (not just men and
women). It has been our
experience that once people
are sensitized -(through
exposure to the concepts and
tools of gender analysis) to
looking beyond their own
social, cultural and ethical
world views user groups start
popping up all over the
place. Our objective has
been to devise a set of
methods for capturing and
analyzing information from
these multiple entities.

What are some of the
different user groups that
you all have encountered in
the work that you have been
doing? (oral offering of user
groups) Dr. Sandra Russo, a
colleague of ours has created
a nice framework for looking
at the different user groups
(overhead). Has she gotten
all the ones we have listed?
(if not add ones the group
came up with)

We have been talking about a
variety of tools and
techniques that are
participatory. When you look
at this overhead, can you
think of ways/issues that
might help or hinder the
involvement of a particular
user in .a participatory






exercise? (list answers on a
flip chart)

We are going to come back to
these issues in a little bit.
While you are involved in the
group activities I want you
to keep these issues in mind.



Multiple Group Activity


For our participatory
activities we are going to be
using what is called a fish
bowl technique. How many of
you are familiar with this
method? We are going to
divide you into three large
groups. Within each group
there will be some observers
and some doers. You will
have a chance to be both
before the afternoon is over.
There will also be time to
share what each of the three
groups has done so you won't
miss out on anything.
At the beginning of Irma's
presentation you were handed
a task sheet. There are
three different color task
sheets. There are three
different colored dots on the
wall. Go to the dot that is
the same color as your task
sheet.

Group leaders give overview
and instructions to small
groups


4:00-5:30


4:00-4:05

























4:05-4:15


4:15-4:45

4:45-5:00

5:00-5:30

5:30-5:55


Round one of fishbowl

BREAK

Round two of fishbowl


Processing of Participatory
Activities


tape, flip chart
for implications
flip chart for
strategies


colored paper with
tasks printed on
them
dots to match task
sheet colors





















task sheets (3)
cowpeas, broad
beans
matrix on flip
chart (2)
access & control on
flip chart (2)
stakeholder grid on
flip chart (2)






5:30-5:45


5:45-5:55


groups present summary of
their activity/tool (5 min
per group)

discussion of implications &
strategies, based on
participant notes on task
sheets. Facilitator writes
general trends, suggestions
on flip chart.


two flip chart
pages
markers






SANRAM CRISP TRAINING
INNOVATIVE RESEARCH APPROACHES TO SUSTAINABILITY
November 20-24, 1993
Virginia Polytechnic Institute Blacksburg Va




Matrix Ranking and Scoring Activity
Monday November 22
4:00-5:30


OBJECTIVES

Through participation in this activity participants will:

1. gain an understanding of the uses of matrix ranking and
scoring techniques by completing a matrix ranking exercise.
2. evaluate the +/- of a participatory process for completing a
matrix exercise.
3. discuss the implications of involving different user groups in
the participatory process.


TIME ACTIVITY MATERIALS

4:05-5:30 Matrix Ranking Exercise beans
matrix on flipchart
paper
task sheet for
watchers

4:05-4:15 Introduction, Instruction

We are going to do a matrix
ranking and scoring exercise.
I am going to split you into
two groups. For the first
half hour one group will
construct a matrix and the
other will watch. After a
break we will switch. After
both groups have completed
the activity we will come
back together with the larger
group to talk about the tool
we completed and the
implications of using the
tool in a participatory
framework with multiple user
groups.
Before we get started a
little background for those
of you who may not be
familiar with the technique.
Use of a matrix format for
ranking and scoring different
criteria has recently become






popular. I was first exposed
to it through Robert Chambers
presentation at a Farming
Systems Symposia and have had
the opportunity to work with
Clive Lightfoot on such an
exercise. The framework for
the task is actually pretty
simple. You were each given
a task sheet before Irma's
presentation. You were asked
to identify indicators for
sustainability. As a group
you will now need to decide
which of those indicators to
include. Once that is done
you will list them along the
vertical axis of the blank
matrix (hold up blank matrix
outline). You will then need
to decide what criteria you
will use to rank each
indicator. These criteria
are listed along the
horizontal axis. You will
each be given a the same
number of beans. As a group
you will have to decide how
many beans to place in each
box. You will also have to
decide how to weight the
beans. You will have 30
minutes.

If you are an observer I have
another task sheet for you to
fill out. I ask you not to
discuss among yourselves
during the exercise. We will
have time to share at the
end.

4:15-4:45 Matrix Ranking Activity 1

4:45-5:00 BREAK


Matrix Ranking Activity 2


5:00-5:30





Stakeholder Analysis: The Case of Tiwai Island, Sierra Leone

Introduction to Stakeholder Analysis

I. The purpose of stakeholder analysis (SA) is to determine whose
interests should be taken into account when designing, testing, and
disseminating technology and/or management policies.

A. Ask class how stakeholders can be differentiated by: (gender,
ethnic group, social caste, socio-economic group, age,
religion, wildlife, plant community.)

II. SA concept and methodologies evolved from (mid-late 1980s):

A. Farming Systems Research and Extension (FSRE)
-multidisciplinary methodology for technology development that
integrates farmers with researchers and extensionists in a
systematic procedure for identifying and solving agricultural
problems.

B. Gender Analysis: Differentiates by gender: Who makes
decisions, does labor, controls land, capital, and natural
resources, uses products produced, controls outputs, knows
about current farming practices/natural resource use

C. Diagnosis and Design (D&D ICRAF)
-methodology for the diagnosis of land management problems and
design of agroforestry solutions adapted to fit the needs of
different resource users.

D. Rapid Rural Appraisal (RRA Chambers et al) and Participatory
Rural Appraisal (PRA Kabutha et al.)

E. Political Science Implementing Policy Change Project

III. Application of SA in FSRE, D&D, PRA, and tropical forest management
description and diagnosis of forest resource use conflicts and
development of potential resource management options

FSRE Stages: -Description and Diagnosis (Sondeo, RRA, secondary
information, surveys
-Design and Planning
-Testing (research station & on-site)
-Extension (recommendation,
dissemination, stakeholder adaptation and adoption

D&D diagram: Prediagnostic, diagnostic, design and evaluation,
planning, implementation

IV. Why important... practicality, equity, future success of management
plan/technology- past failures didn't take into account perspective
of users of technology/policy

V. Stakeholder Analysis is one of many diagnostic tools:

-agroecosystem transects and maps (Rhodes 1985, Lightfoot 1990)
-agricultural & natural resource seasonal calenders (FSRE, PRA)
-bioresource flow & farm modeling (Lightfoot 1985)
-resource access and control by gender matrix (Poats, Feldstein,













A STAKEHOLDER ANALYSIS OF NATURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT:

THE CASE OF TIWAI ISLAND WILDLIFE SANCTUARY








by

Anne Todd Bockarie
Deborah McGrath

November 1993









A Case Study of Tiwai Island Wildlife Sanctuary

I. Introduction

Tiwal Island is the largest river island in Sierra Leone, West Africa. It is located about 60 km inland
from the Atlantic Ocean in southern Sierra Leone close to the Uberian border. The extensive Gola Forest
Reserve system (450 km2 of rain forest) lies 6 km downstream from Tiwai and the heavily farmed Kambul
South Forest Reserve (40 km2) is found 3 km upstream.

Actual ownership of the island is unresolved due to the fact that is lies in the middle of the Moa river
which demarcates the boundary between two provinces (Southern and Eastern), two districts (Pujehun and
Koya) and two chiefdoms (Bari and Koya). The actively-farmed mainland areas around the island are
communally-owned by two Paramount Chiefs (Magona from Bar and Kanneh from Koya).

Tiwai carries no permanent human settlements, but otherwise represents in microcosm the main
features of the Guinean Forest zone in which little truly undisturbed primary forest remains. Tiwal Island is
unique in that it is the home of 11 different primate species including chimpanzees and the Red Colobus
monkey. Electric fish, crocodiles and the endangered pygmy hippopotamus frequent the waters near the
island. The rain forest habitat is diverse with over 800 butterfly species, 140 different types of trees and 118
bird species.' About half of the island supports old secondary forest (40-60 years) while the remainder is
a patchwork of swamp and riverine forest, and farmbush which consists of young secondary forest growing
on recently abandoned farms and a few active farms established by people from five neighboring villages.

II. Habitat Descriptions

Closed Old Secondary Forest

The secondary forest is composed of a mosaic of gap, successional and mature tree patches.
Leguminous species predominate in a formation known as the Heritiera/Lophira type. Some researchers
hypothesize that this forest type is more adaptable to canopy changes from human activities such as logging
because the predominate tree species have broader ecological niches than similar species in either South-
East Asian or South American rain forests.2 Silvicultural studies in both Ghana and Nigeria on the effect of
using the Tropical Shelterwood System (imported by Asian foresters to promote natural regeneration of
timber species) indicate that when the canopy is opened by selective poisoning, cutting or burning there
is a substantial increase in the growth of lianas (vines) as opposed to a promotion of natural regeneration
of economic tree species.3

Another common gap colonizing species is Musanga cecropioides. It coppices readily and is used
for poles in roof construction. The root bark is mixed in kola nuts to cure coughs. It's fruits are important
to the diets of several of the primate species during the dry season. Ceiba pentandra and Pycnanthus
angolensis are successional species that have multiple uses which include:4 edible leaves for sauces,
wood used for canoes and cooking utensils, sap used topically for skin diseases or steamed and inhaled
for headaches and cooking oil processed from the seeds.

Although several important timber species are present (Brachystegia leonensis, Piptadeniestrum
afrlcanum and Detarium senegalense), the nearest sawmill in 90 km away on very poor roads making
commercialization of timber impractical. Furniture, canoes, rope and building materials from many tree
species found in this habitat are all obtained by village men for household use and for sale in local market.
Plant and tree products collected and processed by village women are made into medicinals which are
critical to human health because western medicine is unavailable and/or extremely expensive.








The Diana monkey, Black and White Colobus, Red Colobus and Olive Colobus monkey are all
dependent on the closed old secondary forest habitat for their survival.5 Tiwal is unique in that it has very
high populations of all four species compared to other reserves in West Africa. Scientists have estimated
that a minimum patch size of 10-20 km is necessary for a mixture of primate species with a population
maximum of 500 (this assumes no hunting pressure or human influence).2 None of these species are
agricultural pests, however their meat is "sweet" so they are preferred game for hunters supplying the
substantial bushmeat trade over the border to Liberia. Dried monkey meat is purchased by restaurant
brokers in US dollars (current exchange rate is 1 US $ = 500 SL dollars).

Chimpanzees, duikers, Demidoff's galago, and many bird species are found in both the forest and
farmbush habitat. Duikers and birds are hunted for meat, whereas chimpanzees are seldom if ever eaten
locally. Local hunters hired by foreign traders capture chimpanzees for biomedical research in the United
States, Japan and Europe is the main threat to their survival. A single chimpanzee is sold for US $1-5,000,
however, the hunters only receive a daily wage plus expenses (US $ 20/week).

Swamps and Riverine Habitat

Moist areas commonly have Pentaclethra macrophylla and Uapaca guineensis in the canopy.4
Wildlife and humans compete in the collection of edible seeds from both these species. Women make
cooking oil from the seeds which is a critical caloric component of the diet when palm oil is not available.
P. macrophylla readily coppices after being cut and burned, favoring its re-establishment in farmed areas.2
Branches are use for fuelwood. Raphia hookerii is a predominate palm species in the swampier areas which
has many important uses: 1) wine for ceremonies is made from the sap, 2) mats and most baskets for
harvesting crops are made from the leaf veins and 3) the fronds are the major source of roofing material
for all buildings. Fronds are harvested yearly to rethatch homes for the 4 month rainy season. Many people
are concerned about a possible shortage of thatch due to uncontrolled harvesting.

The Moa river is a very important resource for many different stakeholders. Fish (supplemented by
bushmeat) is the staple source of protein for all the villages located near the river. Men and boys set nets
tied with heavy stones that extend across the tributaries of the Moa catching not only fish, but the
occasional crocodile. During the dry season women build circular enclosures along the banks and
capture/breed smaller species of fish for harvesting at regular intervals. If there is a surplus of fish, they are
dried by the women and then sold in the local market for between SL $ 10-20/lb.

The waters around Tiwai are one of the last remaining habitats in the world for the rare pygmy
hippopotamus. Any hippo that is killed must by law be given to the Paramount Chief because the organs
are believed to have spiritual power.

The area is also one of the most significant breeding grounds of the black fly which transmits
onchocerciasis or river blindness. Most of the villagers living along the river have the disease. Fishermen
and women tend to have frequent eye infections which eventually lead to blindness. A new drug to treat the
disease has been produced, but villagers don't have access to it.

Extensive diamond deposits are found in the swamps and sandy banks of the island. Ownership
and mining rights are a hotly debated issue not only between the two chiefdoms, but also within the national
government because diamonds are important source of foreign exchange which the country badly needs
to pay it's debts to the International Monetary Fund.








Fannbush


The most common farming system is a rotational bush-fallow of approximately 1 ha of rice, the
staple food crop, intercropped with vegetables, cotton, beans, sesame seeds, melons and cassava on the
uplands. In the second year of rotation women plant peanuts, cassava and vegetables on the upland farm
after which the land is left fallow for 10-20 years. There is a strict division of labor in farming with men
clearing land and women planting, weeding, processing and marketing. Both men and women harvest.
Principle ownership of crops is also segregated by gender. Women have control over production and retain
income from upland intercrops, palm kernels, peanuts, cassava, small paddy rice farms in swamps and the
harvesting of wild fruits, medicines, leaves and bush yams from secondary forest. Men have responsibility
for upland rice, and peanuts or cassava if they are a cash crop for the household. Men also engage in cash
cropping of tree crops (coffee, cacao, kola and oil palms) and paddy rice monoculture in swamps as an
alternative source of food production. The Paramount Chief receives a portion of all harvests from the farms
as a sign of respect for his leadership.

In higher population areas, fallows are less than 15 years resulting in decreased crop yields and an
annual pre-harvest food shortage. People rely on forest products to sustain them during the "hungry
season". Harvesting of wild palm heart, bush yams, fruits, and tree leaves which are made into sauces for
the main meal are all survival foods. Little information is available on sustainable harvesting or regeneration
of many of these tree and plant species. Fuelwood, collected by women and children during land clearing
for farms, is the only source of energy for booking.

Tiwai has a lower tree species diversity than the nearby Gola reserve due in part to past farming
activities.2 Burning kills off most seedlings and saplings of the mature forest species. In addition, farming
has been concentrated near the banks of the river creating erosion problems. Farmers leave very hard-
wooded overstory trees which are difficult to cut. The combination of the river and the burned farm areas
may act as a barrier for seed dispersal between the Island and the neighboring forest.

Sooty mangabey, Spot-nosed monkey, Green monkey and Campbell's monkey are very adaptable
to changes in habitat and do well in both forest and farmbush habitats. All three species are abundant in
Sierra Leone and elsewhere. Both the mangabey and Campbell's monkey are known agricultural pests that
destroy upland rice and many other crops.

II. Creation of the Tiwai Island Wildlife Sanctuary

In 1979, researchers from the City University of New York, University of Miami and University College
London identified the island as a possible site for primate research. By 1982 a verbal agreement was
reached between the research team and the Paramount chiefs from Bari and Koya Chiefdoms which
temporarily restricted hunting and farming on the island so that the studies could proceed to monitor the
primate groups. Working with colleagues at the University of Sierra Leone, officials from the Ministry of
Agriculture and Natural Resources (MANR), Members of Parliament and the Paramount Chiefs, the
researchers promoted permanent preservation of the island in its natural state. The island became a
community wildlife sanctuary in 1987 through an Act of the Sierra Leone Parliament under the provisions
of the Wildlife Conservation Act of 1972.

Tiwai Island Wildlife Sanctuary was created as a model of a small-scale, locally-controlled nature
reserve in which several functions could be combined including:

1) a community wildlife sanctuary which Integrates income generation from tourism and employment
and the preservation of a unique natural area and









2) a field research station for scientific research on West Africa's Guinean rain forest.


Between 1986-92, several U. S. Peace Corps volunteers were assigned to the island to establish an
environmental education program, create a locally-administered visitors facility to provide a source of
employment and income from tourism for people in the surrounding villages and conduct a management
survey of both the natural resources of the area and the various organizations which were interested in
deciding how the sanctuary should be managed. Since 1987, attempts have been made to establish a
formal administrative structure to oversee the management of the sanctuary. The debate between all parties
concerned has been very heated as who should have the authority to establish and enforcement multiple-
use guidelines.

IV. Conflicting Vested Interests of the Stakeholders

The current administrative structure was a hodgepodge of decision-makers with everyone instructing
the acting manager on what should or should not be harvested, pruned, gathered, farmed, hunted or built.
Each time an action was taken, at least one group was unhappy with either the immediate result or potential
future consequences. For example, the villagers requested permission to cut down a tree which harbored
a large colony of weaver birds which periodically raided their crops. The researchers were outraged at the
loss of the single tree and the precedence it set. The MANR supported the action because the Wildlife Act
of 1972 permitted defending crop resources from agricultural pests and the Paramount Chiefs ignored the
whole matter.

Several factors contributed to the lack of consensus about the administrative structure and lines of
authority needed for managing the sanctuary for multiple use. First, each group had it's own mission which
it tried to infuse into the management plan. Table 1 briefly lists the different missions of the organizations.
More importantly, each stakeholder group involved in the negotiations had a hidden agenda or vested
interest and was indirectly trying to influence the new management plan to protect this interest.

Further analysis of which organizations wielded formal authority (Fig. 3) compared to those which
generated informal authority (Fig. 4) are enlightening. The formal visible relationships between the
organizations granted the authority for controlling resource management at the local level to either the
Paramount Chief and/or the forest rangers of MANR. This authority was sanctioned by the political and
administrative processes of Parliament and MANR. (Note however, that the Ministry of Mines has the power
to grant mining rights to an area regardless of what any other branch of government does).

Njala University, foreign researchers and the international donors all have only persuasive power
(Fig. 4) because they controlled international funding and actually lived on Tiwai Island. Informally, they had
persuaded every participating agency, except the local people, to promote the concept of a nature preserve
and research facility with a limited community development function as a secondary goal. They are
adamantly opposed to the local people farming, hunting or gathering forest or swamp resources. However,
the local people are dependent upon these resources for all their basic needs. On an informal basis the
researchers had been very successful in gaining decision-making power. No agency, however, was in a
position to grant them formal authority to manage the island. Furthermore, the Paramount Chiefs, who
ultimately have the most authority over the actions of the local people, had agreed on paper to accept the
concept of a wildlife sanctuary because it would leave the area undeveloped. The Paramount Chiefs
controlled an extensive crew of diamond miners, harvested that occasional pygmy hippo for an important
ceremony and dabbled in the profitable Uberian bushmeat trade. If either the MANR or Njala University
became actively involved in the area they might loose control of these assets.








V. Questions to Consider


1. Which specific natural resources does each stakeholder group use? How do they use them? What are
the ecological and social consequences of that use today? What can we predict for 20 years from now?

2. What resource uses by the different groups are compatible? Which are conflicting? Is one habitat type
more affected than another? Is one habitat type more resilient than another to these types of use?

3. What solutions could you suggest for these resource use conflicts? What are the pro's and con's of each
solution? What ecological principles and practices need to be consider in a multiple use management plan
for each of the habitats? In this case what does "multlple-use mean? Are the local people really managing
their own resources? Which stakeholder groups) is/are in a position to form and enforce management
guidelines? Which groups have the power to undermine that authority? What are the incentives for each
of the groups to follow management guidelines? What compromises are needed?

4. If you were given the task of coordinating the development of the management plan what additional
Information would you need? How would you get it? What strategies would you use to work with the
different stakeholder groups? How would you evaluate whether your plan was successful?



VI. References

1 Hammer, B. 1989. Kikihun Field Guide, Folk Stories, Fauna & Flora, Facts & Figures. Tiwal Island
Wildlife Sanctuary and New York Zoological Society's Wildlife Conservation International.

2 Davies, A. G. 1987. The Gola Forest Reserves, Sierra Leone: Wildlife Conservation & Forest
Management. IUCN Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK.

3 Nwoboshi, L C. 1987. Regeneration success of natural management, enrichment planting and
plantations of natural species in West Africa. In: Mergen, F. and J. R. Vincent (eds.) Natural
Management of Tropical Moist Forests. Yale University, School of Forestry & Environmental Studies.
New Haven, CT.

4 Savill, P.S. and J.E.D. Fox. 1967. The Trees of Sierra Leone. Government Printing Office. Freetown,
Sierra Leone.

5 Oates, J. 1986. Primate Conservation in West Africa. Primate ve 29:20-24.








Table 1: Brief outline of the mission and hidden agendas of the different organizations involved in
establishing an administrative structure for Tiwai Island.


Interest Group


Mission


Vested Interest


1. Donor agencies wildlife community involvement funding
World Wildlife Fund conservation in resource management
African Wildlife Foundation
Wildlife Conservation International


2. Foreign researchers study habitat 1.preservation of site written
City University NY in natural state & oral
University College London 2.maintain facilities skills and
University of Miami international
linkages


3. Njala University educate 1.maintain research expertise
(University of SL) students facilities in wildlife
2.access to donors management
via foreign researchers


4. Peace Corps community develop unique new personnel
development conservation programs funding


5. MANR regulate access to donor funds national
forest via foreign researchers structure
resources and credit for new idea


6. Paramount Chiefs welfare of maintain control of authority
constituency valuable resources to mobilize
(diamonds) local action


7. Local people secure maintain control of personnel
basic needs valuable resources intimite
food/money (land) knowledge
of resource


Resources






Figure 3. Power Map of Formal Visible heldt i tships
Between Interest Groups in CBottlling
Local Management of Tlwal Island

International Donors Ministry of MANR Parliament|
Education


Foreign Njala Forest Peace Paramount
Researchers University Rangers Corps Chiefs


-Research --
Station


Legend Local People Managing Natural Resourcesi
Power generators ........
Power wielders -


__ ______I___I_ _II









Figure 4. Power Map of Informal Invisible Relationships
Between Interest Groups In Controlling
Local Management of Tiwal Island
.............. ................. ......
itional Donors Ministry of MANR Parliament
Education


:oreian Niala Forest I Peace Paramount


Power generators ........
Power wielders


~i_







QUESTIONS TO DISCUSS IN YOUR GROUP


9 Select a person to record your discussions for a 5-10 minutes
presentation to the large group.


* Fill in the Stakeholder Analysis Matrix for one land type.


9 List the environmental (water, soil, crops, trees, animals) and
biosocial (laws, rules, customs, organizational structures)
constraints for that land type.


* Discuss and list different environmental and biosocial
opportunities to resolve these resource conflicts in a sustainable
way based on your own experience and concepts you've learned
in class. Who needs to be involved in implementing your
suggestions?


0 Determine what environmental and social consequences could
result from your suggestions. Which groups would benefit? which
groups would lose?








STAKEHOLDER ANALYSIS FOR TIWAI ISLAND



SECONDARY FOREST SWAMPS & RIVER FARMBUSH
DONOR AGENCIES
FOREIGN RESEARCHERS
NJALA UNIVERSITY
PEACE CORPS
MANR
PARAMOUNT CHIEFS
MEN
WOMEN
WILDUFE
PLANT COMMUNITY
CONSTRAINTS:
Biosocial
Environmental
OPPORTUNITIES
Biosocial
Environmental











STAKEHOLDER ANALYSIS FOR TIWAI ISLAND


CONSTRAINTS:
Environmental
(water, soil, tee
crops, animals..)

Biosocid
(laws, rules,
custorns,
arganizational
stuctures..)

OPPORTUNITIES:
Environmental




Biosocial




CONSEQUENCES:
Environmental


SECONDARY FOREST SWAMPS & RIVER FARMBUSH


.9-


I I


.4 t


Biosocid











COURSE PROPOSAL

(Shari Bush)





PROPOSED TITLE: "Gender and the User Perspective in
Agriculture and Natural Resource Management"



S FACULTY ADVISOR

Dr. Marianne Schmink in Anthropology would probably be the most
rational and feasible choice since she is already intricately
involved in the project. However, on a more personal level, I
would almost prefer working with a faculty member in agroforestry
or farming systems since these are areas in which I have had less
formal training. Perhaps we could have dual advisors, such as
Dr. Schmink-and Dr. Hildebrand or Dr. Nair.



END PRODUCT

By the end of the semester, I propose to have produced a paper to
serve as a module laying out the conceptual and theoretical
framework of gender and the user perspective in agriculture and
natural resource management, focussing on issues relevant to
research and development. I would also work with the other team
members to ensure that the theoretical framework is fully and
accurately integratedin the training modules. In addition, I
propose to produce an annotated bibliography of relevant reading
materials.



METHODOLOGY "

This course would be an independent study, but the work would be
carried out in close consultation with the faculty advisor(s) and
other team members. A draft and/or progress report would be
submitted to the advisor(s) every two weeks, or as deemed
necessary. The final paper and other materials would be
submitted by the end of the semester.














Gret-chen Greene)


IPiPSED T~TLS_ "Phi7losophical :Foundaiiti-ons -?f Sustainabr
Agriculture "nd Natuiral Resource Management"



Dr. Jefry Burkhardt Is an currently an Associate Pro -essor in
Ferd and Resour-rcs Econofn.1 cs Departnent having earned his ph.D. in
Phi fl opy wih -ir in o Dr. Burkhardt' .

ar y .=.;;. ...rti.e i"- -Lde technology anrd scity etIhics
st.:ai i 1 y bi tc ol y. e rte ;ntly -.- _a dite. an
i -..-e F Aori--ul: e d H< r tit d, "Hu!m.an Valu;.es and
Sut.tainr:ble A- -culture." He Ja:i srves as director f-cr the
Frrgra- r -or Ethics and Poli-, Studies, in agriculture and Natrcal
F-source Mna, ment at .he University of Florida, Dr. B..rkhardt
Qas red t, uid- -r-5fch-h-. thr.u.;Ih a study ,o, he theoretical.

col r--ol oif the- n;atra-.l .nv i-nnmen .



T,- pr.--ary '-fcus ,-F this course will 1 be t. answer th question,
" r, n, and why did degrad action o-f th.e environm--rent occ:.r in
e co;t o- modiern ester ..hought?" A r-l ated secondary
"ti n is, "Why hav th a vit' o e, spe ly the
inracti ith the natural nvironent beei so neglected In
acadei:;c ,resarc?" The hc:pe in un Iderstandi why and how these
two conditioLn have come about, is to better be able to
.reintrod.c= and re-em--phasi e the t:pics -f women and the
environment into today's theoretical -ramework.s -for agriculture
anld na-tu'ral r'sour- ce mana cement. weekly read ngs and discussions
will dter. r:ine the direction -of -uture readings and discussions
PS.i.- L;] e areas to cover are ,,anage..ent of common property, eco-
fe.ii. ni5 -,. and -.ocial m-.ana-enen- o-F technology. As a starting
point, se will read Th r lij o A e r i by William Berry.



D'r. BLrkh-ardt is aware 3retchen's ulciFatF goal is to work on


r. if paper as ell evaluate the a-ecti veness of
variety o: training activities in emphasizing themes revealed in hee
tlhe c:o!r..- o. tr" he study
wiC.tec~l~~h iie-" aiigaddsusc










LOGISTICAL PLAN

Tropical Managed Ecosystems
Hatch and Swisher (eds.)
I. Deadlines

Call for Papers 1/93-3/94

The call would be aimed primarily at the capsules and case studies,
although principal chapters may also be included where appropriate.
-v* Depending on the meeting we choose for presentation, principal chapters
,~,z- could be used to provide overview that leads into case studies.

SCase studies should not be limited geographically except the tropics.

We could obtain a list of past course lecturers and participants from OTS
as a start for a mailing list for the call.

newsletters
VtOL- 4-)-
OTS

Farming Systems

Contact potential chapter authors 12/93-1/94 -ov'. c Te ,, c"'

We will want to have commitments for the principal chapters of Volume 1.

Also, other "internal" contributors (FL and AUB graduate students and faculty)
could submit an abstract and get started immediately, that is, without waiting for
the call and notification of selection.

Submission of abstract 4/A990

Notification of selection 5/94

Presentation

Depending on meeting selected probably during the fall of '94.

Finished draft 1/95

Review of draft 2/95

final draft to editors 4/95


final manuscript to publisher 6/95


t







galley or draft copy for course use 6/95


in print 9/95

II. Potential meetings

AAAS 12/94
where? o

Farming Systems 10/94
Gainesville-

OTS 3/94 or 3/95
Costa Rica

Should we organize a session at a meeting or meetings? where we have it will affect
those likely to attend in 2 ways. One, the content or discipline of the meeting will attract
some and detract others. Also, the location will mean travel funds for those traveling
the greatest distance or without travel funds. Consequently, we might consider having
more than one to cover interdisciplinary, international authors A meeting coinciding with
OTS annual meeting would get the Costa Rican authors there at littler cost and the US
contributors could come as their university representative there would be no additional
cost or very little. An interdisciplinary meting like AAAS or Farming systems would be
excellent in terms of attracting a diverse group of disciplines, but some travel money for
the international contributors would probably be necessary.

When we have it will be important in terms of lead time to organize, call, select and
present. According to the schedule above summer would probably be the very earliest.
possible and next winter is too late. Fall of '94 is ideal.

We could have an informal workshop in Costa Rica in '94 to get the Cost Rican
contributors organized and started, use a meeting in the fall in the US (Farming
Systems or AAAS) to formalize the process for the US contributors, and we could have
an overview presentation of the book and possibly distribute a final draft at the 1995
OTS annual meeting in Costa Rica.

II. Budget


1. Secretarial support 2,000

2. Publication cost 5,000

3. Travel 5,000

4. TOTAL 12,000

Budget explanation:

1. The need for secretarial support will vary greatly depending on the type of press








selected. If a "camera ready" press were used, the secretarial cost would
increase dramatically, due to the need to develop a manuscript "in house" that
requires little or no additional revision. If a press is selected that uses a "type
set" system, the secretarial effort will diminish, but the publication cost will most
likely rise.

2. Travel funds may be needed to get international contributors to potential meeting
for paper presentation. Need for travel funds could be minimized by organizing
a workshop at the OTS annual meeting and allowing some of the chapter
authors to serve as representatives for their universities at that meeting. No
additional funds related to the book would be needed and attendance at the
meting might be better and include some new faces.

3. Publication cost would include the fee (subvention) that must be provided "up-
front" to the publisher. It might be possible to get a small contribution form each
chapter author that might be able to defray the majority of this expense.

IV.




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