P L E C N E W S A N D V I E W S No. 17 FEBRUARY 2001archive.unu.edu › env › plec › pnv › PNV17 · Exploring Agrodiversity announcement 40. P L E C N E W S A N D V I E W S

P L E C N E W S A N D V I E W SNo. 17 FEBRUARY 2001

PRINCIPAL SCIENTIFIC COORDINATOR’S REPORTPLEC ENTERING ITS FOURTH GEF YEAR 1

Progress, good but uneven 1Demonstration sites in the fourth year 2Data analysis 2

OBITUARYEdward Nsubuga 3

PUBLICATIONSThe PLEC book 3The special issue of a journal 3Prizes for papers published or offered outside PLEC channels 3

FINAL REPORTS 4

MANAGEMENT GROUP MEETING IN MAY 2001 4

THE FUTURE OF PLECFrom Christine Padoch 5New GEF operational areas 6Necessary action 6Symposium on Farm Management of Biodiversity 6

PROMOTIONS 7

NEW ANU TELEPHONE AND FAX NUMBERS 7

ADVANCE NOTICE OF HAROLD BROOKFIELD’S BOOK 7

PLEC ADVISORY GROUP AND ASSOCIATED MEETINGS IN ROME,3 AND 6 NOVEMBER 2000

H. Brookfield, Liang Louhui and L. Jansky8

PAPERS BY PROJECT MEMBERS

PLEC demonstration activities: a review of procedures and experiencesM. Pinedo-Vasquez, E. Gyasi and K. Coffey

12

Agro-biodiversity conservation: preliminary work on in situ conservation and managementof indigenous rice varieties in the interior savanna zone of Ghana

the late C. Anane-Sakyi and Saa Dittoh

31

Activities at the PLEC site at Tumam village, East Sepik Province, Papua New Guinea,August 1999 to October 2000

Bryant Allen and John Sowei

34

Exploring Agrodiversity announcement 40

P L E C N E W S A N D V I E W SNo. 17 FEBRUARY 2001

PRINCIPAL SCIENTIFIC COORDINATOR’S REPORT

PLEC ENTERING ITS FOURTH GEF YEAR

Harold Brookfield

Progress, good but uneven

Global Environmental Facility fundingbecame available to the larger part of PLECon 1 March 1998, and will come to an end on28 February 2002. This issue of PLECNews and Views therefore appears at thevery end of the third year as programmed inthe Project Document. In fact, PLEC begana long time before 1998, and ways ofcontinuing PLEC work through and beyond2002 are already under serious discussion,as reported below. Whatever is to come will,however, be much less centralized than inthe past, and the key role of this periodicalwill not endure—as with the presentcoordination structure, its place will have tobe taken by something else.

Reports on progress during the third GEFyear are not yet due, and (as of lateJanuary) two Clusters have still not reportedon their work up to mid-year in August 2000.In both cases, the Cluster leaders have beensignificantly promoted in their homeorganizations and have found it hard to keepup with their project obligations. In addition,some other reports were late and the suite ofreports that was sought in December 1999still remains incomplete. In general, PLECmembers have found the fairly heavyprogramme of reporting set out in the ProjectDocument to be burdensome, and this has

been particularly so for the leaders.Especially since all are part-time, they findwriting reports takes them away from thereal work of PLEC in the field and, becausereport writing has to be done in their offices,PLEC’s demands can conflict with those oftheir regular jobs. All this notwithstanding,some excellent reports have been received.

Uneven progress is only to be expected ina decentralized project such as PLEC.Clusters recognized as performing well fromthe first year have continued to perform well,but with some unexpected checks inunexpected areas. We have realized howutterly dependent PLEC is on theenthusiasm of a small number of people,and on their ability to continue to give a lot oftime to the project. It is also very dependenton the quality of the institutional bases in theClusters, and the level of interest they takein what we do.

The Mid-term Review proposed that weshould reduce the support given to Clustersthat performed less well than others, andincrease it in others. The reviewer expectedadditional funds to become available, andproposed they be handled competitively. Infact, in the fourth and final year, the totalbudget is less than it has been in the firstthree years, and the problem becomes thebetter use of less, rather than the allocation

2 PLEC NEWS AND VIEWS No. 17 FEBRUARY 2001

of more. There was some over-optimisticexpansion of demonstration sites in the firsttwo years. This has had to be offset byclosing down work in a few sites where therehad been slow progress, or where thedemands of doing good work greatlyexceeded the limited resources available toClusters. Where there has been realsuccess, on the other hand, work is stillbeing expanded into neighbouring or evenremoter communities. Clearly, this requiressome redistribution of resources. Somehard decisions were being taken at the timeof writing this report.

Demonstration sites in the fourth year

A great deal of work has now been done byfarmers and scientists together in a majorityof the demonstration sites, still numbering 21within the GEF countries and 25 in all, evenafter the excisions described above. Limitedwork, at a much lower level, still goes on inthree or four other places. PLEC’s hard-working Demonstration Activities AdvisoryTeam, consisting of Miguel Pinedo-Vasquezand Edwin Gyasi (now both members of theconsolidated STAT), have visited sites inEast Africa, China, Papua New Guinea andThailand during the past 18 months. Theyalso met in Ghana. Together with theircolleague Kevin Coffey, they have writtenthe major paper on demonstration site workthat forms the principal content of this issue.Also included in this issue is a paperdescribing the rather different approachbeing followed in Papua New Guinea.

In October 2000, farmers from allthe Amazonian demonstration sites,including that in Peru, came together toexchange ideas in Iquitos, Peru. Beforethis issue will have appeared, anotherimportant meeting will have taken place inTanzania, a workshop involving farmersand stakeholders on ‘Strategies forinvolvement of stakeholders in agrodiversityconservation’. Decision makers will attendthis workshop, and policy recommendationswill be discussed. Miguel Pinedo-Vasquez is

also attending. Earlier, a successful fieldday was held at the Tumam demonstrationsite in Papua New Guinea, in October 2000,preceded by a workshop and attended alsoby Kanok Rerkasem. Not least worthy ofmention among Cluster initiatives at theirdemonstration sites is the determination ofthe northern Ghana group to sustain thework among women farmers onconservation of indigenous rice varieties atManga-Bawku in the Upper East Division.This had been imperilled by the death of thescientist in charge, Charles Anane-Sakyi, inAugust 2000. A paper on this conservationtopic is printed at page 31.

Data analysis

Kevin Coffey’s Agrodiversity DatabaseManual, somewhat delayed by unanticipatedprinting problems in New York, was finallymade available to all parts of PLEC inOctober 2000. It succinctly describes howdata should be entered into a database, andhow some simple queries can be asked ofthe resulting tabulations in MS-Access. It isalso available for other readers on the PLECwebsite [http://www.unu.edu/env/plec/]. Onemajor use of it that is envisaged for analysisin 2001 is a series of tests of the relationshipbetween management diversity andbiodiversity. Each Cluster has nominated amember to be mainly responsible fordatabase entry and numerical analysis, andall are linked together with Coffey through ane-mail network.

Several Clusters and groups haveidentified additional data analysis tasks,arising out of the recommendations of theMid-term Review, and the electronic debateconducted between August and November.During 2001, with less new field research tobe undertaken, data analysis will become amajor project task. This is being built intothe new 2001 contracts now being prepared.

* * * * * * *

PLEC NEWS AND VIEWS No. 17 FEBRUARY 2001 3

OBITUARY: EDWARD NSUBUGAWe deeply regret to have to announce the deathfrom pneumonia of Mr. Edward Nsubuga, anAgricultural Economist in PLEC-Uganda, on 10thJanuary 2001, at 40 years of age. He was alecturer at Makerere University at the time of hisdeath.

Joy Tumuhairwe writes: ‘He was one of thefirst three Scientists on the Uganda sub-Cluster.Most of you may recall him at the 1998 Mbararageneral meeting. He was generally quiet but acareful planner and writer. Edward was a rib inthe PLEC-Uganda team, on socio-economicaspects. He willingly worked under all conditions(thin or thick, even uncertain). PLEC-Uganda willcertainly have a hard time to find a replacement.Among other things, Edward was in charge ofcapacity building of Bushwere PLEC farmers todo economic analysis of their conservationefforts, in order to help them appreciate thatbiodiversity is not only for ecological but also foreconomic benefits. He had already acquiredfluency in Runyankole-Rukiga (rare for aMuganda man) to comfortably relate and workwith the people. The Bushwere farmers will misshim for this and the entire PLEC-Uganda teamwill miss his lively stories that helped ease thefatigue on the long drives to and the strenuouswalks up and down the steep hills of Mwizi’. Mayhis soul rest in eternal peace’.

PUBLICATIONS

The PLEC bookIn October 2000, Harold Brookfield andMichael Stocking visited IntermediateTechnology Press in London to discuss theproposed PLEC book with the publisher,Helen Marsden. The idea was warmlyaccepted in principle, subject to the opinionof an external referee on a sufficient body ofmaterial. This had to include several of thepapers at least roughly edited into the formin which they will appear, and the draftintroductions to each section by the threeeditors, Brookfield, Padoch and Stocking.Many of the papers will be revised (or in a

few cases reprinted unaltered) from papersthat have already appeared in PLEC Newsand Views, but others are newly written forthis book. As of now, the three introductionshave been drafted, some of the papershave been modified to eliminate repetitionbetween different papers that was present inthe originals, and the proposed final contentof the rest of the book has been determined.All this material has now been sent toLondon before the end of January.Assuming we get the go-ahead, theremaining papers will be assembled andedited (largely by PLEC’s research assistantHelen Parsons in Canberra) in March–June,and hopefully the whole manuscript can besent to London by July. The provisional titleof the book is Understanding, Analysingand Using Agrodiversity. We believe it willhave a good deal to say that is new in thelarger literature.

The special issue of a journalThis has been under discussion for a longtime, and there has been limited progress.Now, Michael Stocking has agreed to takeover control of this initiative. He will soon bein communication with authors of the veryfew papers that were offered in response toearlier requests, and with potential additionalauthors. In this way, the IT Press book andthe special journal issue will come to behandled quite separately, which shouldfacilitate more rapid progress on both.

Prizes for papers published or offeredoutside PLEC channelsAs previously advised, PLEC nowannounces a call for published orunpublished papers written by PLECmembers for a competition Prize. Papersoffered may already have been publishedduring the last few years, or accepted forpublication outside PLEC’s own channels(i.e. not in PLEC News and Views, the 1995special issue of Global EnvironmentalChange, or the forthcoming book onUnderstanding, Analysing and UsingAgrodiversity). Alternatively, they may be


unpublished, but in final form ready forpublication. The prize for the paper deemedbest will be $600 and the authors of tworunner-up papers will receive $200. In thecase of a multiple-authored paper, the prizewill be awarded to the primary author.Distribution of the award among secondaryauthors will be the responsibility of theprimary author.

EligibilityThe first author must be a PLEC member asconfirmed by a leader or sub-Cluster leader.Scientific Coordinators are excluded. Anynumber of co-authors are allowed. Theprimary author must certify that the paper isbased upon original research and that theauthors listed reflect the contributions.

TopicTopics should be based upon PLEC priorityissues including, but not limited to:monitoring or analysis of agrodiversity,demonstration activities, expert farmers,agrodiversity, methodologies for the study ofagrodiversity, etc. The paper must beinterdisciplinary in nature and cannot be atechnical paper limited to a traditionaldiscipline. Inquiries to Christine Padoch, orHarold Brookfield, can be made if in doubtabout appropriate subject matter. Non-finaldrafts will not be accepted.

Due date: 1 July 2001

Send to:Dr Christine PadochInstitute of Economic BotanyNew York Botanical GardenBronxNew York NY 10458-5126USAe-mail: [email protected]

plus a copy toProfessor Harold BrookfieldDepartment of Anthropology, RSPAS,Australian National UniversityCanberra, ACT 0200Australiae-mail: [email protected]

SelectionThe selection committee will consist ofChristine Padoch, Harold Brookfield and twojudges from outside PLEC who are familiarwith the PLEC project.

Announcement of winners will be madebefore the end of October 2001.

THE FINAL REPORTS

In their 2001 contracts, the GEF-PLECClusters are being asked to bring togetherbasic information on their demonstrationsites. They are also required to provideshort histories of the work done in andaround demonstration sites under PLEC,together with an evaluation of what theClusters believe they have achieved. Thenon-GEF Clusters (Thailand, Peru, Mexico,Jamaica) have already been asked to do thesame in the new contracts which theyreceived in September–October. Thesereports, given a size-limit of 5–10,000 words,should be publishable after editing, and willform the core of PLEC’s final output. Thiswill probably be published in book form in2002. We owe this much to UNU and theGEF, and the information provided shouldsatisfy those who wish to know more aboutour demonstration sites. This is furtherdiscussed below in the report on the RomeAdvisory Group meeting in November 2000.

MANAGEMENT GROUP MEETING IN MAY

The Management Group of GEF PLEC willhold its next, and probably final, meeting atArusha in Tanzania in early May 2001. Themeeting will discuss all remaining mattersrequired for the completion of the present1998–2002 GEF-PLEC. The ManagementGroup consists of the Cluster leaders, theRegional Advisers, the members of theScientific and Technical Advisory Team, andthe Coordinators, together with the principalstaff in Tokyo.


THE FUTURE OF PLEC

A major topic for the meeting in Arusha willbe the future of PLEC. Here the electronicforum ‘PLECFUTURES’ which began in July,and now has 24 messages posted on it, isimportant. Unfortunately, a lot of people whoare interested in the future of PLEC,including very many of PLEC’s members, willnot have seen these messages. For a while,I ran the forum myself, but when ChristinePadoch ended a fairly long period in whichshe was away from New York, she resumedcontrol and is now the ‘moderator’ of the list.

From Christine PadochIn her introductory message, in November,she wrote:

I'm sure we were pleased that virtually all theresponses to the initial questions sent out by Haroldthrough the PLEC Future Forum were highly positive.It's clear that PLEC—in some form—should continueafter 2002. The fact that all Clusters as well as theUNU agree that PLEC should continue is gratifying,but this is no time to be content with our pastsuccesses. Any continuation requires us to thinkabout our future and, above all, requires funding,which, as PLEC’s history amply illustrates, can bedifficult to get. The unanimous decision to pushforward calls for both candid reflection on our currentcondition and the development of multiple strategiesfor future efforts.

While PLEC will not terminate in 2002, our currentGEF funding and the project document that binds uswill. Most of us feel that the continuation of PLEC as itis today is not a realistic option. As it has done before,PLEC must modify and redefine itself. We should tryto change without compromising PLEC's corephilosophy. That PLEC is generally on the right trackis confirmed by the very PLEC-like direction of theGEF's new Operational Programs: Agrobiodiversityand Integrated Ecosystem Management.

As some mainstream conservation anddevelopment efforts move in our direction, it is time forus to (a) thoroughly examine our strengths andweaknesses, (b) build upon what we've done, and (c)investigate and pursue funding opportunities.

Our mid-term reviewer suggested a decentralizedPLEC. This does not preclude an internationalstructure for PLEC. In examining our weaknessesperhaps we can admit that some centralizedcomponents were less successful. For instance, thegrouping of multiple countries into one Cluster has led

to difficulties. Perhaps too many directives anddecisions seemed to emanate from the top withoutenough consultation. We did have successes too.Among the more successful aspects of theinternational structure has been the continuousexchange of ideas among PLEC members.Specifically we should be pleased with (a) PN&V andnumerous journal publications, (b) meetings andconferences that brought together PLEC members toshare their experiences, (c) international teams (BAGand DAT) addressing specific issues from diversebackgrounds and experiences, (d) inter-groupworkshops, etc.

We should now strive to maintain what is best inthe international structure, while giving individualClusters the independence they want. Perhaps PLECshould largely be an international facilitative body thataids the individual PLEC projects to find funding,brings together its group of scientists in conferencesand workshops, creates international teams to addresscommon issues, and publishes our findings, but givesClusters greater leeway in exactly what needs to beaccomplished and when. This structure would giveindividual Clusters more room to developmethodologies more specific or appropriate to theirstudy sites, focus on issues within PLEC that moreclosely reflect the researchers' experiences, expandthe PLEC philosophy into new areas, and/or combinePLEC with other projects. A more independentstructure might allow for greater flexibility in procuringfunds. Aside from the PLEC project, groups ofClusters could join together and seek funding forrelated issues. This decentralized composition wouldmake PLEC more adaptable to changing opportunities.Furthermore, this network does not have to be limitedto current PLEC Clusters. To have moreindependence, however, Clusters would also need tofind independent funds.

Another important issue is the direction of anychanges in our current emphasis. Several PLECscientists have suggested a greater stress on capacitybuilding. This might include the development ofmaterials and activities for the training of technicians,extension agents, as well as students, in the PLECapproach. Some PLEC Clusters might want todevelop in this direction, others might want to goanother way. No matter which way we go, eachCluster must be looking for funding. I know that mostof you have already begun this task. Here is anothersuggestion.

An interesting source for many PLEC Clusters maybe the GEF Medium-Sized Project Program. Here isthe web address: http://www.gefweb.org. If you havefurther questions that I or someone else in the PLECfamily could help you with, please post a note to theforum or e-mail me directly.


New GEF operational areasMichael Stocking drew attention to the newGEF operational areas in more detail. Hewrote:

The GEF website now has a 15 November 2000draft of Operational Program 13, which is likely to bethe key OP for any new PLEC. It is posted at thefollowing address:http://www.gefweb.org/Whats_New/whats_new.html

On reading this (much changed from earlierversions) I was very much struck by how PLEC-like therevisions have become and how the GEF EligibleActivities that address the objectives of CBD inagricultural biodiversity give an excellent checklist forthose who may be thinking about any new PLEC.Those in Para 19 on p.6 would seem especiallyrelevant:

(1) integrating agricultural biodiversity conservationand sustainable use objectives in land use and naturalresources use management plans;

(2) identifying and conserving components ofbiological diversity important for sustainable use ofagroecosystems, with regard to the indicative list ofAnnex I of the CBD;

(3) demonstrating and applying techniques tosustainably manage biodiversity important toagriculture, including wild relatives of domesticatedplants, animals and their gene pools;

(4) supporting capacity building efforts that promotethe preservation and maintenance of indigenous andlocal communities knowledge, innovation, andpractices relevant to the conservation and sustainableuse of agrobiological diversity, with their approval andinvolvement;

(5) incorporating components of targeted research(including diversification of crops) important for theconservation and sustainable use of agriculturalbiodiversity in programmatic intervention wheninstrumental for the achievement of GEF biodiversityprogram objectives in specific ecosystems andcountries consistent with national priorities; and

(6) including sustainable use awareness components,when relevant, in program objectives that areconsistent with national priorities.

There are strong trends towards management ofagricultural biodiversity, especially in (2) and (3), andmention of research in (4). In Para 20, soilconservation and restoration of degraded areas isspecifically mentioned in its relation to biodiversity.

There have been subsequent messagesby Christine and Timo Maukonen, discussingboth the content and structure of PLEC.

They provide a good deal more informationon the very PLEC-like new GEF initiatives,and about ways of going about the job ofgenerating funds for the future. Thesemessages are too long to be reproducedhere.

Necessary actionOne issue that has clearly emerged is thatwe are talking about country projects, maybeintegrated into an international network thatUNU is still willing to sponsor: we are nottalking about a new centrally-directed andcentrally-funded project. The real work hasto be done at Cluster level.

I urge all those who have an interest ina debate that is growing, to becomemuch more serious in the coming monthsand to join the list. Write to Christine([email protected]) with a copy to KevinCoffey who knows all about the technologyof electronic lists ([email protected]).

Symposium on Farm Management ofBiodiversity

Since the subject was raised at the Romemeeting (see page 8), a joint symposiumbetween PLEC, IPGRI (International PlantGenetic Resources Institute) and the CBD(Secretariat of the Convention on BiologicalDiversity) is being firmly planned. The topicis ‘Farm Management of Biodiversity’, andthe location and dates are in Montreal,Canada, 8–10 November 2001, to take placeimmediately before a meeting of theSubsidiary Body on Scientific, Technical andTechnological Advice on Biological Diversityto the Convention (SBSTTA), also inMontreal.

There will be a significant delegation,perhaps 10 people, from PLEC. Mostpapers will be invited, but posters can alsobe received. Details will be circulated oncethe Steering Committee is formed and hascommenced its mainly-electronic discussion.The basic idea is to exchange information


and experience on working with farmers whomanage biodiversity, and to develop ideasand recommendations for future work in thisarea. PLEC and IPGRI have been in touchfor some time exchanging ideas andexperiences, and the idea of this meetingwas proposed at the Rome meeting ofPLEC's advisory group. It is now moving tothe stage of forming a steering committee,and securing adequate funds.

The justification of the proposal in an earlydraft document is as follows:Much has been written on loss of managed biodiversityunder threat from commercial and intensifiedproduction, but only limited work has been done onhow farmers manage their resources so as to sustainand enhance them. To develop practices and systemsfor sustaining this managed biodiversity, the Project onPeople, Land Management and EnvironmentalChange (UNU/PLEC) has been developed since 1993by the United Nations University. It involves acollaborative effort between scientists and smallfarmers from across the developing world. In the sameperiod, IPGRI has developed a global project on‘Strengthening the Scientific Basis of in situConservation of Agricultural Biodiversity’, involving asimilar range of collaboration.

There is need to bring together experience and ideason farm management of biodiversity within the twoabove projects of UNU and IPGRI, and projects ofother partners, including for example specialists in thefields of agricultural production , soils and water, andto make an impact on international and nationalbiodiversity programmes and policy.

Suggested themes are:

*What are the principal mechanisms /frameworkswithin which farmers select and manage biodiversity atall levels (the landscape /agroecosystem, species andgenetic diversity)?

*What project practices have been most successful inempowering farmers’ methods for biodiversityconservation, and what obstacles and bottleneckshave been encountered?

*What are key factors that make some biodiversity-richfarming practices profitable and productive in a marketeconomy? Can these practices sustain food security infuture?

*What are the challenges that future efforts to sustainfarmers’ management of biodiversity will have tomeet?

*How should national and international programmesand policies on biodiversity conservation be adaptedto support on-farm management of biodiversity?

PROMOTIONS

PLEC as a whole should congratulate GuoHuijun and Romano Kiome, on theirsubstantial promotions during 2000. SinceFebruary 2000, Guo is Vice-President of theXishuangbanna Tropical Botanical Garden,the largest unit within the Chinese Academyof Science operations in Yunnan. After aperiod as Acting-Director, Kiome becameDirector of the Kenya Agricultural ResearchInstitute in September. KARI is the largestagricultural research institute in sub-SaharanAfrica. One has only to recall what thesetwo men were doing when we first got toknow them, in 1993, to realize how far andhow fast they have risen.

NEW ANU TELEPHONE AND FAXNUMBERS

From the 1st January 2001 the AustralianNational University has new telephone andfax numbers. The PLEC Canberra Officenumbers are now:

Tel: +61 2 6125 4688/4348Fax: +61 2 6125 4688/4896

E-mail addresses remain unchanged.

ADVANCE NOTICE OF PUBLICATION OFHAROLD BROOKFIELD’S BOOK

On page 40 is a black and white copy, justreceived, of the Columbia University Pressflyer for Exploring Agrodiversity. We think itwill interest all of you.

Canberra Office


PLEC ADVISORY GROUP AND ASSOCIATED MEETINGS IN ROME,3 AND 6 NOVEMBER 2000

(revised from a report to UNU dated 15 November by H. Brookfield1, Liang Louhui2 and L. Jansky2)1 PLEC Project, Australian National University, Canberra

2 PLEC Project, United Nations University, Tokyo

The Advisory Group meeting, Friday,3 November

The second Advisory Group meeting washeld at FAO in Rome on 3 November 2000.UNU Vice-Rector Professor Motoyuki Suzukiwas in the Chair. Those who attended arelisted below.

Opening remarks were made byProfessor Suzuki, Dr Funes and MrMaukonen. Dr Funes remarked that PLECis of great relevance to FAO. A verysupportive statement about the project fromthe Secretariat of the Convention onBiological Diversity was tabled. After furtheropening statements by Liang, Brookfield andStocking, the first part of the discussionfocused on the Mid-term Review and ongeneral matters arising from thepresentations. Among those whocommented, there was surprising unanimityof view that the Mid-term Review wasinappropriately directed, in particular in itsemphasis on a reductionist approach,downgrading of the landscape or ecosystemcontext, and the disciplinary orientation ofthe proposals.

There was a strong view that PLEC’swork is of great international value,especially in serving as a model to otherprojects in its farmer-to-farmer approach,and in its use of a landscape-levelperspective. There was, however,agreement with the mid-term reviewer thatthe focus of the project, very good at theglobal and country levels, needs to be mademore precise at ecosystem and Clusterlevels. The actual nature of the Clusteroutput is insufficiently articulated: what, inparticular, does the farmer get out of it? It isnecessary to identify outputs at each level.

The science and research benefits emergeclearly, but the farmer benefit needs morestress.

It was also emphasized, especially fromICARDA, TSBF and IPGRI, that our sitesshould be seen as benchmark sites, and thatinformation on them needs to be presentedin systematic form, and geo-referenced, sothat they can be used by others andcompared. It was hoped that members ofother projects might use our sites. Thedegree to which this can be done is,however, constrained by considerations ofintellectual property rights. A subsequentclarification, by Brookfield, is appended. Thelandscape (or ecosystem) level emphasizedby PLEC was seen as input of importance inthe general field of agricultural biodiversity.Others are finding themselves pushed in thisdirection.

There was discussion of the role ofscientists in projects such as PLEC, andof the need to change the attitude ofscientists for collaborative work with farmers.Other initiatives, as well as PLEC,have experienced problems in bringingeconomists, social and natural scientiststogether, and a good model is needed.There was also a need to feed into policyand biological strategy plans at national andglobal levels, and to emphasize this aspectstrongly in the final reports and meetings.Although it was argued that PLEC seemsinsufficiently cognizant of the interest nowtaken by developing-country nationalgovernments in biodiversity, it was alsostressed that PLEC should demonstratewhat its collaborating government institutionshave been able to learn from a project whichruns contrary to most national governmentpolices for agricultural development.


This part of the discussion included aconsiderable amount of question andanswer, in which a number of PLECdifficulties were explored andsympathetically discussed. Clearly, many ofthe same problems arise in other networkingprojects. The exclusive focus on smallfarmers was questioned, in the context ofscope for synergy with ministries ofenvironment and agriculture in devising newpolicies and strategies, and in retrainingagricultural extension scientists. Questionswere asked about the degree of focus onhow farmers absorb and manage diversity.We were reminded that, notwithstanding therecent emphasis in discussion of agriculturalbiodiversity on within-species diversity, theintention of the biodiversity programme wasalways inclusive. It was asked howdemonstration sites are to achieve results atnational level.

The second part of the meeting wasconcerned with activities of other projects,and linkages with PLEC, and then with thefuture of PLEC. A detailed statement waspresented by IPGRI, with its 9-countryprogramme on Strengthening the GeneticBasis of the Conservation of PlantResources. The project is tending to moveforward from its initial base in within-speciesdiversity, and is widening its partnerships.Its participatory approach has been a newexperience for IPGRI, as has the multi-disciplinarity of the in situ conservationprogramme.

Bram Huijsman, Managing Director ofETC, talked about ILEIA He was verysupportive of PLEC and offered to provideall Cluster and Group leaders with copies ofthe ILEIA journal LEISA, and the newCOMPAS. Adel El-Beltagy discussedICARDA work on agro-biodiversity, andoffered to bring PLEC into association withthe chair of the FAO InterdepartmentalWorking Group on Agricultural Biodiversity(Dr Mahmud Duwayri), which was doneimmediately after the meeting. Finally,George Brown discussed the Tropical SoilBiological Fertility Project, and its need to

build on PLEC experience. Michael Stockingis one of the directors of this project.

The future of PLEC was the final topic fordiscussion. There was a very strongstatement by Toby Hodgkin (IPGRI) thatthere should be no question but that asecond phase is needed—the appropriatelength for PLEC should be much as isenvisaged for the IPGRI in situ project—8 to10 years. Several others supported thisview. There was also solid insistence thatan international network is necessary, sothat the aim can be a genuine globalproduct. Without a network, there is dangerof loss of experience and learning, andhence of the global benefits of PLEC work.

In order to foster synergy betweenrelevant initiatives, it was proposed that UNUtogether with relevant partners jointlyorganize an international symposium onfarmers’ management of biodiversity, bothagricultural and natural. This was supportedby the Chair and meeting participants andthe item was followed up by an associatedmeeting at IPGRI (see page 10).

This was a very successful meeting forPLEC, which received very substantialsupport, and is clearly felt now to have agreat deal to offer, especially internationallythrough its contributions at the global level.

Meeting with Dr Mahmud Duwayri andMs Linda Collette, Chair and Secretary ofthe Interdepartmental Working Group onAgricultural Biodiversity, FAO,6 November

For PLEC, this meeting was attended byBrookfield, Jansky and Liang. This meetingfirst exchanged information between PLECand the FAO Working Group. M. Duwayrithen proposed that PLEC participate in themeeting of the liaison group on agriculturalbiodiversity organized by CBD incollaboration with FAO to be held on 24–26January 2001 in Rome The topic would beto survey the planned ecosystem approach


to agricultural biodiversity, and review otherrelated issues. The CBD seeks casestudies, and PLEC is asked to supplymaterial (possibly most simply from recentsuitable articles in PLEC News and Views).

Meetings with Dr Toby Hodgkin and MsJessica Watson, in IPGRI, 6 November

For PLEC, the meeting was attended byBrookfield and Liang. The meeting withToby Hodgkin had two main objects. Firstwas to compare experiences and seekIPGRI advice on moving into a secondphase in which country initiatives must be ofprimary importance, and there can be muchless central direction. IPGRI has to deal withmultiple funders, most of whom have nowapproved the second phase. The methodhas been to provide ‘shell documents’ toeach participating country group, which havethen developed their own proposals withinthese shells. The final stage has been aseries of workshops, most of them attendedby the project coordinator, in which detailshave been finalized. There are variations inemphasis between different countryproposals, especially in regard to thebalance between science and development,but the method has ensured that there aresufficient common elements.

Second, and more important, was todiscuss a proposal made during the AdvisoryGroup meeting that PLEC and IPGRI shouldcollaborate in organizing a conference on‘Farm Management of Biodiversity’. Themeeting would need to be planned well inadvance and for this reason Hodgkinproposed that it should be associated withthe anticipated SBSTTA-7 meeting at theCBD in Montreal, Canada, in November2001. UNU would be the principal sponsorof this conference, but it was hoped thatCBD would also be prepared to givesponsorship. The purpose should be tobring together experience and ideas on farmmanagement of biodiversity within the twoprojects, and among others, including forexample agricultural production people, soils

and water people. Once agreementbetween the three parties is reached inprinciple, a steering committee will beformed.

Meetings in FAO on the new LandDegradation Assessment Project (LADA)and WOCAT, 6 November

Stocking, accompanied by Jansky, heldmeetings also in FAO with DominiqueLanteri and Rod Gallacher, on FAO’s newLand Degradation Assessment Project(LADA) and on the World Overview ofConservation Approaches and Technology(WOCAT). D. Lantieri, FAO Environmentand Natural Resources Service, SustainableDevelopment Department is leadingdevelopment of a new Land DegradationAssessment project that is currently at PDF-A stage. Anthony Young, their consultant,has developed a questionnaire and MichaelStocking will record how PLEC databasetechniques can be of assistance. One of themain topics of discussion concerned how tosituate biophysical assessments into a formthat can be taken up in policy. The value ofthe WOCAT database was also discussed.

List of attendees at the Advisory Groupmeeting1

Invited participantsAdel El-Beltagy (ICARDA)George Brown (TSBF)Bram Huijsman (ETC/ILEIA)Jeff McNeely (IUCN)Coosje Hoogendoorn (IPGRI, also

representing ISNAR and CIFOR)Toby Hodgkin (IPGRI, also representing

ISNAR and CIFOR)

1 The small attendance from within FAO, remarked onby several participants, was due to an unfortunate setof circumstances. It became apparent that acommunication failure with UNU during Brookfield’sabsence in October led to only a few of those whom hemet in FAO in September 1999 being informed of themeeting.


Sheila Mwanundu (IFAD)Santiago Funes (FAO Rural Development

Division)David Palmer (FAO Rural Development

Division)Michelle Gauthier for El Hadji M Sene

(FAO Forestry Department)

Participants from UNU, UNEP and PLECMotoyuki SuzukiLibor JanskyLuohui LiangIwao KoboriTimo MaukonenHarold BrookfieldMichael Stocking

Appendix: Clarification by the PrincipalScientific Coordinator on the issue ofmaking available information on PLECdemonstration sites

PLEC Clusters need to assemble andpresent data on the physical and managedcharacteristics of the demonstration siteareas under a clearly defined andcomparable set of headings, together withdata on site populations and theircharacteristics. While this material isavailable for all sites, it is presently notorganized in a systematic way, and aguideline statement (in the form of a set ofheadings and sub-headings) will have to beprepared. The question of biodiversity dataand its presentation is covered in the recentguidelines, which provide for the creation ofsummary tables for wider use.

It has always been envisaged that sitecharacteristics should be conciselypresented in the final reports, for generalinformation. For text, only brief statementsper site are envisaged, with all detailedinformation remaining the property of thosewho collected it, including their collaboratingfarmers.

There may sometimes be reasons not toreveal even the broad location of a PLECdemonstration site, but several papers

presented to PLEC News and Views haveSHOWN these locations by maps attopographical scale (1:50,000 to 1:100,000).Unless there are good reasons for not doingso, this much would be acceptable practicein the final reports and other documents.

The specific locations of field sites,woodlots, housegardens, etc. and ofsampled quadrats (which are required to bephysically marked on the ground to facilitatere-survey) are available to the Clusters only,sometimes with detailed geo-referencedinformation. These have never beenpublished and only rarely have beenspecified in internal reports; PLEC does notrecommend that they be published. In thedatabase guidelines now made availablethere is provision to provide geo-referencedinformation in a confidential field which, likedetailed uses of specific plants, will remainconfidential and not be published or includedin any generally-available database.

Members of other projects wishing towork in PLEC sites will first have to approachthe Clusters concerned, not UNU or anycentral coordination. Cluster leaders may atdiscretion decide to introduce them tocollaborating farmers, and show themspecific locations in company with thefarmers and with the farmers' agreement.The demonstration sites are, by projectpolicy and in reality, the property of thefarmers, and their collaboration must besecured before any of the detailed datacollected together with PLEC scientists canbe accessed.

PAPERS BY PROJECT MEMBERS

PLEC DEMONSTRATION ACTIVITIES: A REVIEW OF PROCEDURES ANDEXPERIENCES

M. Pinedo-Vasquez1, E. Gyasi2 and K. Coffey3

1 Center for Environmental Research and Conservation (CERC), Columbia University, New York2University of Ghana, Legon and Co-ordinating Leader, WAPLEC (West African Cluster of PLEC)

3 Institute of Economic Botany, New York Botanical Garden, New York

The paper that follows is the principal end-document ofPLEC’s Demonstration Activities advisory Team(DAT), which was set up in 1999, and is nowincorporated in the new Scientific and TechnicalAdvisory Team (STAT), together with remainingmembers of the old Biodiversity Advisory Group(BAG). DAT comprised the first two authors of thispaper, Pinedo-Vasquez and Gyasi. Coffey had latterlybecome a consultant to BAG, and is now also amember of STAT. In the transition period heaccompanied the DAT members on their visits toChina and Thailand in July–August 2000 (Eds).

Farmers in a community located in northernThailand complained to a team of PLECscientists that prices of the crops—cabbageand lychee—that had been widely promotedas a substitute for opium poppy cultivation,fluctuated greatly and rarely yielded them agood profit. One villager stood out. Hedisclosed that he did not suffer sucheconomic ups and downs. When marketprices for these two ubiquitous crops werelow, he turned to his other crops: peanuts,ginger, bananas and others. Or he fed thecabbage and lychees to his pigs, chickensand ducks and then sold or ate them. Thisfarmer’s strategy was different from that ofmany of his neighbours. It was, however,similar in principle, although not in specifics,to strategies of successful smallholdersaround the globe. He mixed his marketcrops with a diversity of other species andvarieties of annuals, semi-annuals andperennials. The farmer managed a highlyheterogeneous landscape that also allowedhim to plant or manage a plethora of wild,semi-domesticated and domesticated cropsat the edges of his landholdings. When lesssuccessful farmers from the village were

asked their opinions of why this particularvillager was doing well, they answered that‘he knows more than we do about making aliving by farming.’ This farmer exemplifiesPLEC’s ‘expert farmer’, a smallholder whosuccessfully solves production problems byusing biodiversity. Box 1 gives productiondetails for a female expert farmer inAmazonia. Such expert farmers are thekeystone of the PLEC programme and themost fundamental resource in PLEC’sdemonstration activities.

Introduction

The PLEC-facilitated demonstration activityis ideally a farmer-driven group with theconservation of agrodiversity and theimprovement of farmer livelihoods asoutputs. The optimum activity achieves bothconservation and development objectives.This is clearly no easy task. A particularactivity may require the participation ofgovernment agents, NGOs, scientists,researchers, technicians, extensionists andfarmers. Bringing together such an eclecticgroup of participants necessarily resultsin complex, sometimes contentiousinteractions. The complexity is heightenedbecause the various actors assumeunfamiliar roles during demonstrationactivities. Expert farmers, rather thanscientists or extension agents, supply andtransfer the technical knowledge. PLECmembers facilitate, monitor, observe andrecord this process. The other participants,


Box 1 Expert farmer’s diversity and incomePLEC expert farmers are chosen to teach their own agrodiverse and profitable management techniques. One ofPLEC’s great expert farmers has developed an innovative strategy to deal with market changes. She has created andperfected complex agrodiversity systems and techniques to increase crop diversity and other related biodiversity onher landholdings.

��

��

��

��

��

��

Rank abundance in agricultural fields

0.001

0.01

0.1

1

1 6 11 16 21 26 31 36 41 46 51 56 61

Rank

Rel

ativ

e ab

unda

nce

log Expert Farmer H' = 3.45

��Village Avg. H' = 2.51

As shown in the rank abundance graph and calculation of Shannon’s Index (H’),she maintains over twice as manyspecies in her agriculture field than her neighbours. The expert farmer has profited from this diversification. From1993–1999, she had an average net income over five times the legal minimum wage in Brazil. The wide range ofproducts that she produces in her fields prepares her for fluctuating markets and allows her to maintain a high income.Recently, the income of most residents of the village has become more dependent on timber and other forestproducts. Despite these trends her main source of income is derived from the sale of agricultural products, as shownin the pie chart. Her expertise in profiting from agro-biodiversity is a valuable source of knowledge to be shared. Shehas become one of the key experts in PLEC’s approach of farmers teaching farmers.

��

��

��

��

Expert farmer's income distribution

38%

28%

19%

10%5%

Agriculture�� Agroforestry��

Forest��

Domestic animals�� Other sources

ranging from policy makers to farmers, learnfrom the expert farmer in the hope that thenew techniques or experiences will benefittheir own work: sometimes this develops intoa two-way process. The knowledge gained

from farmer-instructors is used by farmers toenhance their production, by projectdirectors to advance their goals ofimplementing development with biodiversity


conservation, and by PLEC scientists tofurther develop our methods.

The integration of conservation anddevelopment objectives within a singleproject is not unique to PLEC (Brush 2000;Agrawal 1997). In countries where PLECClusters are operating there already tend tobe many integrated conservation anddevelopment projects. A review of recentprojects in the fields of conservation anddevelopment reveals that although the twoideas are often linked, they are rarely trulyintegrated. In most projects the union ofconservation and development seldom goesbeyond the title of the project and refers, atbest, to the fact that a project includesseparate conservation and developmentcomponents. This pseudo-hybrid type ofproject actually offers trade-offs rather thanintegration. In return for following theconservation agendas of projects, localpeople are offered some activities meant topromote economic development or povertyreduction.

The PLEC approach differs from thiscurrently widespread model. The PLECframework is exceptional because it not onlyintegrates the conservation of agro-biodiversity with activities aimed at raisingrural incomes and capacity building, but itdoes so in a single activity. The goal is aunity, not a trade-off. PLEC uses the resultsof its site assessments to identify theinstances where conservation anddevelopment are concurrently integrated andpractised by smallholders. PLECresearchers and technicians rely on expertfarmers to identify and understandproduction technologies that are biodiversityrich, economically profitable andenvironmentally friendly.

Conservation and development initiativeshave employed a plethora of approaches fordeveloping and transferring selectedpractices among smallholders (Phillips 1994;Feder and Rosenzweig 1987). A commonstrategy has centred upon the developmentof ‘improved’ methods at universities orexperimental stations. Extension agents

then teach farmers the new methods. Theineffectiveness of this method, however, hasencouraged attempts to reverse the directionof the transfer to make it more ‘bottom-up,’‘farmer-based,’ and ‘in situ.’ Projects haveenlisted community leaders to help in thistransfer, effectively delegating to them therole of extension agents (Bebbington 1994).The results have been mixed. Someprojects have shown that farmer leaders areeffective and efficient teachers. Otherprojects have been hindered by the fact that

• farmer leaders often lack experience andmay be the least successful farmers inthe community,

• their techniques may not be replicable bythe less fortunate in the community, or

• the technologies that they are promotingwere designed in research stations andare poorly adapted to local conditions(Agrawal 1997).

Another variation on the design ofsmallholders learning from their leaders haspromoted community groups, organized bygender or specialization (e.g. bananaproducers), to teach new technologies tocommunity members (Uphoff 1994). Whilethese experiences often helped communitygroups gain power, they resulted in few realadvances in the use of improved andappropriate technologies among smallfarmers (Phillips 1994). Experts havedifferent opinions on why this group-centredapproach has failed. The suitability of thetechniques promoted is questionable. Fewresearch station-designed models helpfarmers in marginal areas deal with thecomplex limitations they encounter.Questionable techniques hinder the successof such projects regardless of who transfersthe knowledge. Failure to adequatelyappreciate differences in knowledge amongmembers of groups has also beensuggested as a reason for lack of success(Scoones and Thompson 1994).

PLEC builds upon knowledge gained fromthese past approaches, but is unique in itsattempt to understand and use the variation


among households, and to facilitate thedissemination of successful variants. Theteachers are not extension agents,community leaders, or cooperative farmers,but rather expert farmers, who themselveshave developed technologies and otherknowledge to respond successfully tochanges in natural and social landscapes.

Expert farmers’ technologies

Acknowledging expert farmers’ technologiesconstitutes the core of the PLECdemonstration approach. PLEC’s approachdoes not try to categorize conservationpractices, production systems andtechniques into indigenous and non-indigenous categories. Neither do PLECdemonstration activities exclude tech-nologies or products developed outside thecommunities and adapted by smallholders tolocal conditions. Smallholder technologiesare promoted regardless of their origin. Thiscreates a space for the identification andselection of expert farmers from among thebest agriculturalists, agroforesters, forestmanagers and conservationists. Throughthe identification and support of theseexpert farmers, PLEC promotes thedissemination of practices—no matter whattheir provenance—that resolve problemsproduced by changes in the market,government policies, and/or the naturalenvironment.

PLEC demonstration activities show thatwhen expert farmers are acknowledged,their technologies and experiences arevalued and quickly assimilated by the otherfarmers. For example, in West Africa expertfarmers are recognized as instructorsin formal gatherings, organized byPLEC members, of farmers’ associations,scientists, extension agents, and policymakers. In Ghana, expert farmers havetaken the lead in the discussions regardingnew policies, community needs, andagricultural research. Many PLEC Clusters,including those in Amazonia, China, andGhana show that even gender-based

prejudices can be overcome. Several oftheir most active and respected experts arewomen farmers.

The PLEC demonstration advisory team(DAT) had opportunities to visit most PLECdemonstration sites, observe their activities,and talk to farmers, scientists, and officials.This paper is based on our experiences andobservations over the last two years. Weprovide a framework to elucidate the stepsused by PLEC members to plan and carryout demonstration activities. We list thekinds of information that are needed foridentifying and selecting expert farmers andtechnologies that they will then promotethrough demonstration activities. We reviewsome of the results of demonstrationactivities and highlight the problems anddifficulties that we encountered as well assome of the encouraging results. We alsolist some specific concerns expressed byCluster participants about the economicviability and ecological sustainability of theproduction and management techniques thatPLEC farmer-instructors are disseminating.

Assessment and analysis in organizingdemonstration activities

In order to make more readilyunderstandable the multiple steps and actorsthat lead to a successful set ofdemonstration activities, we developed aflowchart (Figure 1). The chart shows howPLEC demonstration activities are based onknowledge gained through research into thefarmers' natural and social environments.We hope that the flowchart will stimulatefurther modification and adaptation of theprocess to fit better the many realitiesencountered in PLEC sites and beyond. Itprovides ideas based upon a diversity ofactivities and approaches that can beexpanded upon (Guo et al. 2000; Kaihura,Ndondi and Kemikimba 2000; Abdulai et al.1999; Padoch and Pinedo-Vasquez 1999). Itshould be viewed neither as a straitjacketnor followed as strictly as a cooking recipe.There are many ways to achieve the goals


Interdisciplinary PLEC team

Farmer based site assessment

Inventory ofagro-biodiversity and

other forms ofbiodiversity

Inventoryingagrodiversity andother production andmanagementtechnologies

Identification of particularlandholdings with

agroecosystems rich indiversity

Identification of limitingfactors

Identification of exceptionalfarmers, techniques and

technology

Selection of expert farmers anddemonstration sites

Development effortsConservation efforts

PLEC Demonstration Approach

Baselineconservation

initiatives in PLECsites

Baseline developmentinitiatives in PLEC

sites

Governmentenvironmental

policy and NGOs

Extension agents,policy makers, and

NGOs

Demonstration activitiesbringing communities,

extension agents, policymakers, and/or scientists

based upon PLEC’s farmer-teaching-farmer model, and

creating a favourableinterface for integration of

knowledge, ideas, andagendas of participants

Figure 1 Flowchart showing how PLEC demonstration activities integrateconservation and development

Documenting responsesto socio-economicchanges over time

Documentingresponses to

environmentalchanges over time


of PLEC demonstration activities. Thisflowchart is offered to provide guidance onsome of the essential components forplanning, executing and monitoringdemonstration activities.

Assembling an assessment team

The simultaneity of both conservation anddevelopment is central to the PLECdemonstration concept. To achieve thisharmonization, PLEC Clusters begin theirwork with rigorous, multidisciplinaryassessments of the variation amonghouseholds that make up the communities attheir demonstration sites. Each group mustbring together an assessment team. Themake-up of such teams in PLEC has variedconsiderably. They differ in the number ofindividuals involved, the time they can spendin the field, their backgrounds and thespecialized knowledge they bring to the task.All Clusters include experienced researchersand exceptional farmers in their assessmentteams. In some cases, the teams alsoinclude respected extension agents, localauthorities, and religious leaders. Theinclusion of external individuals must bedone without compromising the basic goalsof the assessment.

An important issue which should be takeninto account during the assessment, is thedifferent types and degrees of outsideintervention in the form of conservation anddevelopment efforts that have been, or arecurrently taking place in the community. Toinclude persons closely identified withconservation or development efforts that usean approach incompatible with PLEC's,might severely prejudice the assessmentteams’ outputs. Care taken in assemblingteams is always important, and will berewarded not only in good research results,but later when the demonstration activitiestake over as the central element of theCluster's work.

Local farmers play a special role asmembers of the assessment team. Theirknowledge of the community, local

production technologies, resources, andlandscapes is invaluable to a perceptive andreliable inventory process. The ties that thePLEC team can forge with selected farmerswhile doing assessments can also beimportant for the success of laterdemonstration work.

Farmer-based site assessment

Farmers, especially expert farmers, are atthe core of all PLEC demonstration activities(Brookfield and Stocking 1999; Padoch andPinedo-Vasquez 1999; Pinedo-Vasquez1996). To identify those farmers andtechnologies that might contribute mosttowards the improvement of the community'sdevelopment and biodiversity conservation,and to identify the needs, trends andpriorities of communities, all PLEC Clusterscarry out detailed and multi-focused siteassessments. The multiple objectives andspecific methods for carrying out theassessments have been covered in severalother PLEC publications (Zarin, Guo andEnu-Kwesi 1999; Brookfield, Stocking andBrookfield 1999). Here we will add only afew pertinent observations.

Many of the outputs of the assessmentssupply the data and create the foundationsnecessary for the successful planning andimplementation of demonstration activities.PLEC's agro-biodiversity inventories, forinstance, provide a picture of the existingvariation in the level and type of biodiversityin different households’ holdings. Identifyingthose that maintain large quantities of rareand/or unusual species and varieties is amajor step in choosing a demonstrationactivity or farmer demonstrator who canfurther the complex conservation anddevelopment process.

Biodiversity data are complemented withinformation on the performance ofhouseholds as social and economic units.PLEC Clusters use the household as theirprimary unit of measurement and of analysiswhenever it is appropriate. In rural areasthroughout the world, decisions on how,


where, when, and what to produce areusually made at the household level ratherthan the community level (Guo et al. 2000;Kaihura, Ndondi and Kemikimba 2000;Agrawal 1997). These household surveysreveal differences between households in alarge number of crucial economic and socialvariables. Knowledge of both the meansand ranges in income, labour availability,ownership of capital goods, and othervariables, help demonstration teams identifyparticularly successful, flexible, and resilientfarmer households. Research on variationsin the types of fields managed, the cropsproduced, and the technologies employed bythe households is necessary to ascertainthose technologies that are good candidatesfor inclusion in the list of activities to bedemonstrated.

Site assessments take into account abroad range of information that can also helpdemonstration teams understand processesof change and the actors that participate inthese changes. A variety of ethnoscientificmethods can be employed, including thereconstruction of landscape histories andinterviewing of knowledgeable villagers. Theresults of this research have not only helpedPLEC scientists understand trends in localbiodiversity management, but have alsohelped identify particularly dynamic,resourceful, and resilient components of thevillage. These inventories provide anunderstanding of which of the innovativetechnologies that farmers are developingmight be especially important in helping theirneighbours cope with looming problems, orto take advantage of likely opportunities.Such technologies are then chosenfor demonstration activities. Historicalinformation on change and households’responses to change in a broad range ofenvironmental, social, and economic factorsbecomes a most important component of thesite assessment for demonstration activityplanning.

The PLEC demonstration model assumesthat existing biodiversity and socio-economicconditions reflect the conservation practices

and technological knowledge of households.Based on these assumptions, the modelintegrates methods and techniques fordocumenting conservation practices. Thebody of information generated during farm-based site assessments provides a clearpicture of the problems faced by households,and of the diversity of approaches adoptedto deal with environmental and socio-economic changes (Figure 1). The thirdstep in the PLEC demonstration modelfocuses on the identification of successfulhouseholds and of landholdings rich in agro-biodiversity, as well as technologies thatproduce and maintain biodiversity.

Carrying out assessments for successfuldemonstration

After reviewing the experiences of PLECClusters in carrying out household and fieldassessments that could then feed intosuccessful demonstration planning, a fewcommon difficulties are worth mentioning.PLEC teams that were too limited or narrowin their expertise did not manage to achievethe broad-based results necessary forsuccessful PLEC demonstrations. Forinstance, teams whose members weremostly botanists tended to concentrate onidentifying and recording lists of species andvarieties present on farmers’ lands, butcollected limited information on theproduction systems or conservationpractices that gave rise to this biodiversity.Those teams that were composed largely ofsoil scientists focused on important trends inerosion and land degradation but left thebiological diversity, especially of cultivatedvarieties, as well as management diversity,under-reported. Additional visits to the areawere then required. A well-balanced inter-disciplinary team with clearly defined goalswill ensure that assessments provideinsights from both agro-biodiversity andagrodiversity, as well as landscape andhousehold surveys.

Another common limitation in theidentification, documentation and selectionof farmer-developed technologies, stems


from a mechanical or perfunctory use ofcategories and concepts. Some of the termscommonly used to define how farmersorganize their crops, such as monocropping,polycropping or intercropping actually reveallittle that is useful about the diversity of thefarming system, nor how it adapts to change.Greater insights into responses to changecan be achieved by dismantling the generalcategories and recording the technicaldiversity used at several stages: clearing,hoeing, ploughing, planting, weeding,protecting, harvesting, or fallowing fields. Anunthinking reliance on common terms anddefinitions of cropping systems can lead tomisinterpretation of both existing diversityand directions of change.

Integrating outputs

The products of the site assessment providemany of the components necessary to planand organize demonstration activities basedon the PLEC approach (Figure 1).Conclusions drawn from agro-biodiversityinventories, socio-economic surveys, andagrodiversity studies supply theinterdisciplinary framework upon whichactivities can be planned. Among theimportant variables that need to bedetermined from the assessments are:1) the crucial economic, political and

environmental changes that affect land-use practices and household incomesamong local smallholders;

2) the problems that result from thesechanges, and how local smallholders dealwith them;

3) the farmers who are most innovative andsuccessful in dealing with these problems;

4) the technological diversity and specificmanagement technologies developed bysuccessful farmers, and

5) the levels of agro-biodiversity and otherforms of biological diversity resulting fromthe application of these technologies(Figure 1).

The identification of exceptional farmers,techniques, and landholdings does not

guarantee that an assessment team haslocated either the most appropriate expertfarmer, or the technique that is bestdemonstrated. The landholding chosen forthe demonstration activity will not alwaysprove to be the best in the long term. Siteassessment analysis for prospectivedemonstration activities should examine thehouseholds within the community verycarefully to allow PLEC scientists andtechnicians to discover instances wheresuccessful conservation and developmenteffectively merge. PLEC methodology isdesigned to uncover variation within acommunity, and identify individuals or groupsof economically successful farmers whoemploy innovative techniques to create ormaintain high levels of biodiversity in theirlandholdings. From among these individualsor groups, members of demonstration teamscan select the expert farmers, who then canbe invited to show and teach thesepromising technologies to their neighbours inthe course of PLEC demonstration activities.

Using information on managementvariation for demonstration activities

Translating the results of research or fieldassessments into a successful programmeof demonstration activities is not an easytask. Information collected by many PLECClusters has, nonetheless, identified manycases that readily show how concentratingon variation and change among villagers canyield a rich store of expert individuals andexpert practices that are appropriate fordissemination. A brief example from PLEC’sWest Africa Cluster is instructive.

Approximately two decades ago, bushfires during an ‘El Niño’ year severelydamaged cacao and other fruit speciesplanted in the fields of small Ghanaianfarmers. This event took place in aneconomic landscape where cacao wasalready a failing crop: the price of its beanswas low, and most Ghanaian farmers werealready experiencing a rapid transition froma boom to a bust period in the cacao


economy. In the early 1990s PLECscientists began assessments of selectedGhanaian villages. They found that amajority of farmers had switched from cacaoproduction to a corn and cassava rotation.Some farmers, on the other hand, hadresponded by planting a greater diversity ofcrops. Others had added animal products,including chickens and even snails to theiroutput. This variation in managementactivities and concomitant diversity ineconomic success formed the basis fordetermining what effective demonstrationactivities might be. Researchers sought todetermine what specific techniques weredeveloped in response to a range ofeconomic and environmental changes, andwhich of these appeared to have becomeboth profitable and biodiversity based.Answering these questions helped membersof the Ghana Cluster find appropriateproduction systems and techniques forincorporation in their demonstrationactivities.

Identifying and documenting variation inthe ways smallholders respond to changessuch as those outlined above, provides arepertoire of technologies and practices thatcan be used for demonstration purposes.Familiarity with and evaluation of thesepractices is then necessary to determinewhich technologies or practices are helpingfarmers deal successfully with change, whilealso conserving the diversity of species,varieties, environments, and managementtypes. An experience from the China Clusterprovides another example.

Smallholders in China are participating instate-sanctioned reforestation programmes.These programmes promote the planting oftwo fast growing species, but a fewinnovative farmers have added nativespecies to the mix. The addition of thesespecies was initially observed as peculiarbecause the rotation time for harvestingthese species is three times greater thanthat of those recommended by stateforesters. Through field work, PLECmembers found that farmers planting the

local species do not need to wait until theend of the rotation of the local trees to reapbenefits. The native species create habitatsfor insects and herbaceous vegetation thatfavour the growth of mushrooms, wildvegetables and even the raising of chickens.In contrast, areas reforested with only thespecies recommended by foresters arevery low in insects and do not providevaried habitats. The incorporation of thetechniques used by the Chinese farmers inreforesting their land with native species isan excellent candidate for promotion throughdemonstration activities. It also illustratesthe PLEC focus on farmer-developedpractices as not backward-looking, and notlimited to ‘traditional’ practices. The expertfarmers are dynamic and forward-looking.

PLEC demonstration activities: someexperiences, suggestions, and cautions

Over the past two years several articlesabout demonstration activities, expertfarmers, and demonstration sites haveappeared in PLEC News and Views (Guo etal. 2000; Brookfield and Stocking 1999;Padoch and Pinedo-Vasquez 1999). Manyof these articles have stressed that there isconsiderable room for variation in PLECdemonstration activities. Building upon acommon theme, each PLEC Clusterhas developed distinct and evolvinginterpretations of what constitutes anappropriate demonstration activity for aparticular situation (Brookfield and Stocking1999; Padoch and Pinedo-Vasquez 1999;Brush 2000).

Perhaps the greatest challenge has beento resist the tendency for demonstrationactivities to become standard developmentand conservation initiatives. For instance,extension agents in several sites wherePLEC teams have been working aregradually incorporating expert farmers’technologies into their training programmes.But there is still a penchant fordemonstrating ‘modern’ or ‘improved’techniques developed by agronomists and


other scientifically trained experts and tohave the scientist or extensionist instruct thefarmers. Concerted and constant effortsmust be made to ensure that PLEC activitiesdo not merely copy more traditionalextension and training models. Thefamiliarity of many project participants withtraditional roles, and the resulting tendencyto reassume familiar roles threatens the coreconcepts of PLEC demonstration. Based onPLEC experiences, the most effective way toconfront and overcome these biases is forresearchers and technicians to increase thetime they spend in the field learning fromfarmers.

Identifying expert farmersExpert farmers can not be identified withoutscientists having a great deal of fieldexperience interacting with members of thesmallholder societies. Other writers active inthis area, including Fairhead (1993), havealso pointed out that in smallholdercommunities, promoting exchange ofproduction technologies should begin byidentifying who knows what. Among theseveral characteristics that make PLECdemonstration activities different fromstandard extension programmes, is that thisfirst step is emphasized. PLEC scientiststake much care in identifying expert farmersby first asking who knows what.

The process of identification of expertfarmers has proven to be a long andcomplex one. In many cases village expertson successful and biodiversity-rich systemsof management have had unfortunateexperiences with scientists, extensionistsand development projects and are not eagerto cooperate with PLEC scientists. Thosewho have in the past been singled out andpraised as ‘progressive’ farmers andtherefore recruited for multiple projects arenow not the ones that are called upon toteach. The new mode of working may proveconfusing to many villagers. Experience inPeru, Brazil and elsewhere, also shows thattrue expert farmers are frequently unwillingto share their knowledge with any or all of

their farmer neighbours. The PLECapproach has been careful to consult closelywith farmers and allow them to choose whichtechnologies and which part of theirtechnologies they want to impart to all orsome of their neighbours. The PLEC groupsuggests which technologies might be ofinterest, the expert farmer decides which ofthose she or he would like to demonstrate.

Dissemination of knowledgePLEC’s focus on demonstration is based onthe principle that farmers are alwaysteaching and learning from other farmers.One of the most important products of thismutual exchange of knowledge insmallholder societies is indeed theagrodiversity and agro-biodiversity that wefind in landholdings. PLEC recognizes theimportance of smallholder technologies andaims to promote them at the local, regionaland national level by directing demonstrationactivities toward different social groups livingin the communities and relevant regions.Not only do the techniques disseminateddiffer, so too do the modes of dissemination.In PLEC demonstration activities villagersusually learn from and exchangeexperiences with farmer-demonstrators byworking together in fields managed by theexpert farmers. Only rarely do they sitin classrooms and are never taught bytechnicians to reproduce technologiesdeveloped and tested in experimental fields.Villagers who participate in demonstrationactivities are always free to try, changeor reject the technologies that aredemonstrated by the expert farmers.

As part of demonstration activities PLECrecommends ‘working expeditions,’ where allparticipants initially visit the fields, fallows,house gardens, orchards and forests ownedby the farmer-instructors. These visits helpexpert farmers to be recognized andrespected by the other members of thecommunity, particularly community leaders.A common strategy used by PLEC membersis to act as a bridge between expert farmersand the participants in demonstration


activities. After a period of local activity, thelevel of peoples’ acceptance and recognitionof farmer-experts usually increases.

The camu-camu exampleAn example from the Peruvian Amazon

illustrates how PLEC methodology actuallyturned around the extension activities of amore traditional agricultural developmentproject. The promotion of the cultivation of avery nutritious fruit that grows naturally in thearea, camu-camu (Myrciaria dubia HBK) isan ongoing project of the Peruviangovernment's Ministry of Agriculture (Pinedo-Vasquez and Pinedo-Panduro 1998). Theagricultural development project was builtupon the assumption that this product, whichwas traditionally extracted from the wild,needed to be cultivated: after doingresearch, the project recommended thatcamu-camu be interplanted with otherspecies in farmers’ agroforestry fields.

A PLEC assessment of local agriculturalsystems showed that local farmers alreadyplant the fruit, not in one but in eight distinctways. Most farmers plant camu-camu inclusters to take advantage of areas whererain water tends to accumulate. Theagronomists, on the other hand, hadrecommended that the plants be scatteredthroughout all areas of agroforestry fields.Cluster planting is one of the most commontechniques used in agroforestry systems byPeruvian farmers for the production of camu-camu; it is known as the vuelito agroforestrysystem.

The vuelito system allows farmers notonly to interplant camu-camu with otheragroforestry species, but also to plant beans,water melon and other annual crops withintheir agroforestry fields. Because the vuelitosystem creates species-rich agroforestryfields and increases the economic value ofthe plots, PLEC-Peru incorporated thissystem in its demonstration agenda, aimingits sessions particularly at the governmentproject's technicians. When techniciansworking on the project participated in thedemonstration activities, expert farmers

explained camu-camu planting methods andattributes of the vuelito system. As a resultof these demonstration activities, the vuelitoagroforestry system is currently beingpromoted by technicians working in thecamu-camu development project.

Integration of demonstration teams anddelegation of responsibilitiesAlthough the success of demonstrationactivities depends largely on identifying andselecting appropriate expert farmers, thecomposition of the entire team and theattitude of each member towardsfarmers are also important determinants ofsuccess. Based on PLEC experiences ademonstration team can integrateexperienced field researchers, techniciansand, more importantly, expert farmers. Inseveral cases PLEC demonstration teamshave also included extension agents. WherePLEC demonstration teams have beenespecially successful, we find that PLECmembers had developed strong relationshipswith farmers. In the few instances whereteam members did not see the need forestablishing relationships of mutual respect,demonstration activities appear to have hadgreatly diminished impacts on the resourceuse of the community.

The integration of expert farmers intoPLEC teams and the delegation of particularresponsibilities to each member facilitateboth the implementation of demonstrationactivities and the establishment ofdemonstration sites. The main role of expertfarmers in demonstration activities is toexplain and demonstrate their productionand management techniques. It is the jobof researchers, technicians and othermembers of a demonstration team tofacilitate meetings and activities, makeappropriate suggestions, encourage farmerdemonstrators when difficulties areencountered, and monitor how farmers are


Table 1 Some activities to be included in demonstration activities, the topics to be discussed ordemonstrated, the role of each group of participants and some expected outputs

Participants PLEC team Expert farmer Farmerparticipants

Extensionistsand technicians Policy makers

Setting up themeeting

Suggests:(a) possiblegathering type foractivity,(b) scope ofparticipation,(c) possibleinvitees

Responsible forselecting:(a) type ofgathering,(b) scope ofparticipation,(c) list of invitees

Receive invitationupon expertfarmer’s approval



Topics to becovered

Presentsuggestions fortopics the expertfarmer will coverthat reflect PLECobjectives

Chooses topicshe/she feelscomfortablesharing withparticipants

Can contributeideas for pertinenttopics

Peripheral role intopic selectionprocess

Peripheral role intopic selectionprocess

Role duringactivity

Provide logisticsupport, facilitateinteraction, anddocumentdemonstrationactivities

Training farmersby sharingknowledge andexperience

Learn newtechniques andtechnologies,participate inworking groups,and/or shareexperiences

Documenting andacquiring farmer’sapproaches tosolve problems

Documenting andacquiring farmer’sapproaches tosolve problems

Output Definingmonitoringsystems andrecordingresponses tofarmerinteractions

Earns respect forexpertise;monetary orresourcecompensation;learns frominteraction withparticipants

Incorporating ortesting newlyacquiredknowledge in ownsystem

Incorporating ortesting newlyacquiredknowledge fromexpert farmers inextensionactivities

Incorporating ortesting newlyacquiredknowledge fromexperts in policydiscussions

adapting or rejecting the techniques learnedin demonstration activities. This is one ofthe reasons why members of ademonstration team need to be in the field atthe occasion of each demonstration activity.

Results of the demonstration activitiesneed to be evaluated constantly and theseevaluations fed back into further planning.PLEC teams may assist by proposingsuitable and productive members of a team.They can define roles and provide someinsights into what results might be expectedfrom demonstration activities. We haveconstructed a table to serve as a guide to

the possible or desirable role of teammembers, expert farmers, participantfarmers, extension agents and policy makersin demonstration activities (Table 1). Wealso suggest some outputs of the activitiesthat might be expected from the successfulperformance of all participants indemonstrations (Table 1). The main goal inpresenting the table is to help others whomight be interested in building theirdemonstration activities in a manner similarto that followed by PLEC Clusters.

All the components of Table 1 can beexpanded, reorganized or modified. The


matrix that is presented is meant to serveonly as a guideline. It is evident that severalongoing PLEC groups have felt free tochange these specifications. For instance,in Amazonia, PLEC-Brazil is includingstudents as a new group of participants indemonstration activities. At the estuarinesite of Mazagao Velho, the young sons anddaughters of local smallholders who arestudying at a community-run ‘family school’(Escola da Familia) began participatingactively in demonstration activities over thelast two years. Using the guidelines, otherPLEC groups have also rearranged, addedand modified many of the activities, roles,and meeting types suggested in Table 1.

Establishing sites and conductingdemonstration activities

A critical component in planning andexecuting demonstration activities is theestablishment of demonstration sites. Basedon a broad range of field experiences, theideal demonstration sites are those that wereset up in the landholdings of selected experthouseholds, but only after establishing arelationship of trust with the householders.Several benefits are gained by initiating apartnership with expert farmers. When thisis achieved, members of the fielddemonstration teams can consult with thefarmers on the best location to demonstratea particular production or managementsystem or technique. Team members canalso ask the expert farmer how manydemonstration activities can be carried out,at what intervals, how many people may visittheir landholdings, and other relevantquestions.

Our experience and observations indicatethat the varied needs, schedules, andpreferences of the expert and participantfarmers, need to be taken most seriouslyinto account throughout the process ofplanning and executing demonstrationactivities. In addition, it is recommendedthat Cluster members consider theagricultural calendar when planningdemonstration activities.

Use of local gatherings

There are several forms of local gatheringsthat we have seen used very successfully todemonstrate particular production systemsand conservation practices. Below wediscuss a few kinds of gatherings that can bea basis for selecting, planning, executingand monitoring demonstration activities.

1) Family reunions involving familymembersThe expert farmer organizes this kind ofdemonstration activity. Members ofdemonstration teams are encouraged to helpthe farmer organize family reunions and tonote the exchange of knowledge betweenthe expert farmer and members of his family.An exchange of seeds, seedlings andother forms of germplasm is expected.In Amazonia a woman expert farmer excelsat organizing family reunions anddemonstrating her techniques to herrelatives, friends and others. Familyreunions work very well in this case becauseshe is the most respected member of thehousehold and is highly regarded for heragricultural expertise. Family membersconsult her on what and when to plant,receive planting materials, get advice onindividual problems, and learn specifictechniques. Relatives come from severalcommunities located in the region and, uponreturning to their communities, furtherdisseminate new ideas and plantingmaterials. Their participation in familyreunions has greatly helped to promote theproduction systems and techniques of theexpert farmer beyond her community.

2) Gatherings of friends and neighboursselected by the expert farmersBased on PLEC experiences, organizedreunions of friends and neighbours selectedby the expert farmers has proved to be oneof the most efficient ways to facilitate theexchange of knowledge between expertfarmers and other farmers from thecommunity. The role of members ofdemonstration teams is to urge farmers tohold such gatherings and to note what is


discussed among the participants duringdemonstration sessions and visits to thefields, fallows, and house gardens of theexpert farmer. An example from Amazoniaillustrates how to organize demonstrationactivities for these groups. One of the expertfarmers is the pastor of the communityevangelical church. Every two or threemonths, he receives members of his churchand other friends at his house. During thesegatherings, the expert farmer takes thegroup to the demonstration sites establishedin his forests and fallows where he explainsmanagement techniques. A member ofthe PLEC-Amazonia demonstration teamrecords the participants' questions and theanswers of the expert farmer.

3) Working groupsResults of PLEC demonstration activitiesshow that working groups present the mostdirect method for expert farmer-to-farmerexchange of knowledge. The informality andsocial ambience in working groups duringparticular labour operations facilitates thetransfer of production techniques among theparticipants. The groups are organized bythe expert farmers, and participants usuallyperform some kind of labour for the farmer.After work the expert farmer provides foodfor them. While or after eating the expertfarmer explains his or her productionand management techniques. PLECrecommends that the exchange ofknowledge be documented through directobservation of the working group in the fieldsand while the participants are exchangingcomments. A member of the team can alsomake a list of questions and answers duringthe discussion between the expert farmersand the participant farmers.

4) Organized training/field visit eventsThis type of demonstration activity usessimilar methods to the ones used byextension agencies during their trainingcourses. Organization of the activity isunder the responsibility of the demonstrationteam and conducted by the expert farmers.Based on PLEC experiences, members of

demonstration teams should make and usevisual aids such as photos, sketches, andposters, to help the expert farmer explainproduction or management techniques. Insome cases the organization of thesedemonstration activities can be coordinatedwith people working in development orconservation programmes. The participationof members from other institutions can alsobe helpful.

An example of the use of some of thesedemonstration types in PLEC's AmazoniaCluster is found in Box 2. It is recommendedto members of demonstration teams thatthey provide as much support as possible tothe participant farmers. For example, PLEC-Ghana and PLEC-Tanzania often providetransport to the demonstration activities. Inthe case of Ghana, team members evenprovide transport for small farmers fromother countries in West Africa to visit thedemonstration sites established in thelandholdings of the expert farmers. Teammembers organize materials, such as photosof activities, displays of many varietiesof a specific crop, and maps ofmicroenvironments. A tutorial visit to thefield led by the expert farmer is also includedin the activity.

Special circumstances and specialconsiderations

One of the achievements of the researchcomponents of PLEC from the past years isa strengthened realization that manysmallholder systems are essentially differentfrom the ‘scientific’ or ‘modern’ systems thathave been embraced by agronomists andpromoted by agricultural planners throughoutthe world. Many of the smallholdertechnologies that PLEC groups aredemonstrating are long-term multi-stagemanagement systems where fields tend notto go through distinct stages of cropping andfallow, but where management changes yearby year, and the exact forms of managementtend to be spatially and temporally variableand highly contingent.


Box 2 Organizing demonstration activitiesBy working closely with the community and observing gatherings where farmers exchange ideas, the PLEC AmazoniaCluster identified several specific approaches to demonstration activities. Initially, the team planned to conductdemonstration activities as part of encontros, which are community or inter-community meetings where theconservation of fish and other resources is discussed. Some of the expert farmers were more comfortable sharingtheir ideas in smaller, less formal groups. Our experts suggested that demonstration activities be conducted using twoother forms of social gatherings. The first, called miutirao, are shared labour groups organized by members ofhouseholds to help each other with activities like making fields, planting and other production or managementactivities. The second type are visitas, which are typically gatherings of families or close friends. In all three eventsexpert farmers are the leading figures and are the ones who invite participants to visit demonstration sites.

Demonstration Number of Total Average number

activities activities participants of participants Encontros 10 424 42Miutiraos 54 1206 22Visitas 34 576 17

Examples of such systems include thevery diverse swidden-agroforestry productiontypes central to PLEC-Amazonia'sdemonstrations at its Macapá sites, as wellas many of the agroforestry systems inPLEC-China sites. Demonstrating suchproduction systems is a complex undertakingsince at different stages of these multi-phasesystems, the variation in managementintensity, management techniques, and theresulting production is extreme. Giving ademonstration of only one stage in theproduction of, for instance, fast-growingtimbers in the Amazon floodplain, may notadequately characterize or describe thesystem. Taking all participants to viewexamples of all stages of the process maybe impractical. This problem tends to ariseonly when technicians, scientists, or policy-makers are included in the demonstrationgroups, since local farmers already largelyunderstand the multi-stage processes.Expert-farmer demonstrators may, however,need to be reminded that all members oftheir audiences are not equally conversantwith some of the long-term complexities ofthe systems.

Another important issue to keep in mind isthe value of ‘minor’, ‘peripheral’ or ‘edge’production types and the need to includethese systems in demonstration activities.Although spatially insignificant theseagricultural systems can be locally therichest in biodiversity, including agriculturallyand nutritionally important plants andanimals. Such systems may include edgesof swidden fields or bunds between irrigatedrice fields, as in northern Thailand, and theagave-dominated ‘fences’ between uplandfields in Mexico or China. Some variants ofsuch systems were also noted at PLEC sitesin Tanzania and Kenya. The economic andecological importance of these systemsmakes them prime candidates fordemonstration activities. In most casesthese edge-cropping systems have beenoverlooked because, besides being small inarea, these systems have rarely beensignificant sources of income. Featuringsuch systems in demonstration activitiesmay be difficult; their composition is usuallyhighly variable, their management apparentlyhaphazard. Nonetheless, they should get


the recognition they deserve and not beoverlooked.

The economic significance of seeminglyunimportant ‘edge’ systems may increasegreatly at times of environmental stress,such as flood, drought or pest attack.These offer another special situation oropportunity for demonstration activities.After catastrophic floods along the upperAmazon River in Peru destroyed a largeproportion of smallholder production, thePLEC team surveyed the fields and cropsthat had survived and began speaking withknowledgeable farmers. Some of themanagement systems, crops, and varietiesthat had survived became objects ofdemonstration activities instituted as soon aspossible. PLEC team members have tocontinue to monitor changes and remainflexible in their determination of what is mostprofitably included in demonstrationactivities.

Monitoring the results of demonstrationactivities

To further test and develop the PLECdemonstration model, careful monitoring ofdemonstration activities and the responsesof participants is necessary, plus a follow-upon performance after training sessions anddemonstration site visits. PLEC membershave developed systems to record results foreach of the four types of gatheringsdescribed. The kind of quantitativeinformation to be reported whendemonstration activities are conductedinclude:

• number of training sessions and visits todemonstration sites per demonstrationactivity;

• total participants per demonstrationactivity;

• the average number of people thatparticipate in all demonstration activities.

Monitoring what happens afterdemonstration activities is most critical forunderstanding how farmers and other

participants are adapting or rejecting thetechnologies demonstrated by the expertfarmers. The number of people thatparticipate in training sessions and visits todemonstration sites cannot be taken as ameasure of the success of thedemonstration activity. Information on thenumber of farmers that are adapting,rejecting or assimilating the technologies isneeded. A great deal of time in the field isnecessary for the post-demonstration period.PLEC has several examples that show howfarmers modify the production systems andtechniques that they learn from the expertfarmers. Results from demonstrationactivities conducted by PLEC-Amazoniashow that the majority of farmers do notcopy the expert’s techniques but ratherdiversify them (Box 3).

Monitoring teams must be composed ofthe most experienced researchers who havethe highly important field experience, as wellas local residents who understand the goalsof demonstration activities. The compositionof the team may vary in number andspecialization. PLEC’s teams are composedof researchers, field assistants, union andreligious farmer leaders and extensionists.In some cases, as in Peru, the team selectsrural teachers to monitor the results ofdemonstration activities. Expert farmersshould not be part of the monitoring team.PLEC experience shows that some expertfarmers do not appreciate the variationsmade by the participant farmers on thetechnologies that the expert farmers teachduring demonstration activities.

Although expert farmers cannot be membersof monitoring teams, the participation ofother farmers is critical. Experiencedmembers and motivated farmers willing toparticipate are very valuable resources fororganizing a team that can document theways in which farmers assimilate, transformor reject demonstrated technologies. As ameans of comparison, the methodsdemonstrated by the expert farmers must becarefully documented and thoroughlyunderstood by monitoring team members.


Box 3 Post-activity monitoringMany farmers who participated in PLEC Amazonia’s demonstration activities in 1999 have begun testing thetechniques that they learned from the expert farmers and observed in demonstration sites. We found thatsmallholders are not copying the agrodiversity and other production and management techniques from the expertfarmers. Instead they combine these ideas with their own and create new and original techniques. Farmers tend toincorporate learned production and management technologies only after a long process of experimentation. We foundthat the trial and error approach employed by farmers to test technologies and crops is increasing the diversity oftechnologies used through the modification of demonstrated techniques and systems. The table below summarizesthe results of post-activity monitoring in Brazil. Researchers from the Brazilian Cluster monitored the incorporation offour techniques presented during demonstration activities into the participants cropping systems.

Demonstratedtechniques Objective Recommended

techniques Main adaptations

1) açai – banana

2) fruteiras – banana

3) madeira – banana

1) Agroforestrybananaencapoeiradasystem

Managing Mokodisease in bananas

Sororoca – pariri – banana

4) combinations of the above with banana

1) use of logs rather than fences

2) placing palm leaves around the highestsections of the field

3) accumulation of soils around tree trunks

2) Building up soilsabove tide level

Production ofcassava and othercrops less tolerantto tidal flooding

Keep sediments andorganic matter from erodingduring high tides(lançantes) using fences

4) accumulation of wood residues fromsaw mills

1) thinning – planting

2) removal of vines – broadcasting seeds

3) thinning – broadcasting seeds

3) Enriching fallows Production of fruitsand timber

Thinning and removal ofvines

4) combining all the above

1) gaps – broadcasting seed

2) removal of vines – transplantingseedlings along trails

3) gap formation – managing of seeddispersal during high tide

4) Managing forests Production of fruits,timber andmedicinals

Removal of vines andformation of gaps (clareras)

4) combinations of the above techniques

Field assistantsField assistants play an integral role inmonitoring the results of demonstrationactivities. Some PLEC Clusters haverecruited young farmers for the monitoringteam as field assistants. The AmazonianCluster selected and trained two young fieldassistants to follow farmers that participatedin demonstration activities. The assistants

document the adaptation, assimilation orrejection of technologies learned from theexpert farmer. These two field assistantshave became invaluable members of themonitoring team. Because field assistantsneed to spend most of their time in the field,they are usually selected from the villages orregions where PLEC operates. Some PLEC


Clusters rely on students as field assistantsfor monitoring. PLEC experiences show thatthe sons or daughters of farmers often makeexcellent field assistants.

PLEC recommends a training period forall field assistants. Training includessessions with expert farmers and othermembers of the demonstration teams. Fieldassistants are required to spend a great dealof time with the expert farmers, and tobecome familiar with all the productiontechnologies demonstrated. In addition, theyneed to be trained to perform in-fieldobservations during visits to the landholdingsof the participants. It should be made clearthat the role of field assistants is not tosupervise the participant farmer, but ratherto observe adaptation, assimilation orrejection of demonstrated activities.

Farmers and religious leaders can also behelpful components of the team. Forinstance, in Peru the pastor of anevangelical church is very active in reportinghow farmers incorporate productiontechnologies and conservation practices.Community and union leaders of IpixunaMiranda in Brazil are not only documentingthe responses of local farmers todemonstration activities, but they are alsoreporting how farmers in other regionsincorporate the technologies. Periodicmeetings with union and religious leadersare necessary to evaluate performances andimprove monitoring and documentingtechniques.

The monitoring of demonstration activitiesshould include documentation of interactionsbetween the expert farmer and theparticipants. Information on how thetechnologies demonstrated are accepted orrejected at the time and later by the differentactors is more critical than recording thenumber of participants in demonstrationactivities. As is known by mostCluster members, superficial notions of‘participation’ do not reveal the socio-politicalcomplexity of settings where expert farmersinteract with other farmers, technicians andother rural agents. Visits to the participants’

landholdings should be included as part ofthe monitoring process. It is the number ofhouseholds that are assimilating thetechnologies that ultimately count towardssuccess.

Conclusion

PLEC demonstration activities are evolving.The diversity of approaches and strategiesemployed by PLEC members for conductingdemonstration activities, while following the‘farmers-teaching-farmers’ approach, areindicative of the developing process. In theshort period that PLEC participants havebeen engaged in demonstration activities,the experience has produced valuableinformation supporting the PLEC tenet thatpoor and marginalized small farmers areholders of great knowledge, as well asdevelopers of efficient, effective, andingenious ways of managing the world’sbiodiversity.

As members of the DemonstrationAdvisory Team (DAT) we argue that in theprocess of technological exchange amongsmall farmers, demonstration activities canbe an effective medium with expert farmersas the teachers. PLEC experiences alsoshow that people working in conservationand development programmes will find that,by letting farmers be their teachers, fieldexperiences will become more interestingand challenging. Finally, we are convincedthat PLEC-type demonstration activities area process for progress. Experts can greatlyhelp governmental and non-governmentalinstitutions in their difficult tasks of findingdevelopment and conservation initiatives thatcan reduce poverty and alleviate criticalenvironmental problems.

References

Abdulai, A.S., E.A. Gyasi, S.K. Kutogbe, with P.K.Adraki, F. Asante, M.A. Asumah, B.Z. Gandaa,B.D. Ofori and A.S. Sumani

1999 Mapping of settlements in an evolvingPLEC demonstration site in northern


Ghana: an example in collaborative andparticipatory work. PLEC News andViews 14:19–24.

Agrawal, A.1997 Community in conservation: beyond

enchantment and disenchantment.Gainesville, Florida: Conservation &Development Forum.

Bebbington, A.J.1994 Farmers' federations and food systems:

organizations for enhancing rurallivelihoods. In I. Scoones and J.Thompson (eds) Beyond farmer first:rural practice, people's knowledge,agricultural research and extensionpractice, pp. 220–224. London:Intermediate Technological Publications.

Brookfield, H. and M. Stocking1999 Agrodiversity: definition, description and

design. Global Environmental Change:Human and Policy Dimensions 9: 77–80.

Brookfield, H., M. Stocking and M. Brookfield1999 Guidelines on agrodiversity assessment

in demonstration areas. PLEC Newsand Views 13: 17–31.

Brush, S.2000 The Mid-term Review: the review report.

PLEC News and Views 16:3–7.Fairhead, J.

1993 Representing knowledge: the ‘newfarmer’ in research. In Pottier, J. (ed.)Practising development: social scienceperspectives. London: Routledge.

Feder, G. and G.T. O'Mara1981 Farm size and the adoption of green

revolution technology. EconomicDevelopment and Cultural Change30:59–76.

Feder, A.D. and M.R. Rosenzweig1987 Does agricultural extension pay? The

training and visit system in NorthwestIndia. American Journal of AgriculturalEconomics 42: 677–686.

Guo, H., Padoch, C., Fu Yongneng, Dao Zhilingand K. Coffey

2000 Household agro-biodiversity assess-ment (HH-ABA). PLEC News andViews 16:28–33.

Kaihura, F.B.S., P. Ndondi and E. Kemikimba2000 Agrodiversity assessment in diverse and

dynamic small–scale farms in Arumeru,Arusha. PLEC News and Views 16:14–27.

Padoch, C. and M. Pinedo-Vasquez1999 Demonstrating PLEC: a diversity of

approaches. PLEC News and Views 13:32–34.

Phillips, J.M.1994 Farmer education and farmer efficiency:

a meta analysis. Economic Develop-ment and Cultural Change 43:149–165.

Pinedo-Vasquez, M.1996 Local experts and local leaders: lessons

from Amazonia. PLEC News and Views6:30–32.

Pinedo-Vasquez, M. and M. Pinedo-Panduro1998 From forests to fields: incorporating

smallholder knowledge in the camu-camu programme in Peru. PLEC Newsand Views 10:17–26.

Scoones, I. and J. Thompson1994 Knowledge, power and agriculture:

towards a theoretical understanding. InI. Scoones and J. Thompson (eds)Beyond farmer first: rural practice,people's knowledge, agriculturalresearch and extension practice, pp.16–32. London: IntermediateTechnological Publications.

Uphoff, N.1994 Local organization for supporting

people-based agricultural research andextension: lessons from Gal Oya, SriLanka. In I. Scoones and J. Thompson(eds) Beyond farmer first: rural practice,people's knowledge, agriculturalresearch and extension practice, pp.231–220. London: IntermediateTechnological Publications.

Zarin, D.J., Guo Huijun and L. Enu-Kwesi1999 Methods for the assessment of plant

species diversity in complex agriculturallandscapes: guidelines for datacollection and analysis from the PLECBiodiversity Advisory Group (BAG).PLEC News and Views 13: 3–16.


AGRO–BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION: PRELIMINARY WORK ON IN SITUCONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT OF INDIGENOUS RICE VARIETIES IN THE

INTERIOR SAVANNA ZONE OF GHANA

The late C. Anane-Sakyi1 and Saa Dittoh2

1 formerly Savanna Agricultural Research Institute, Manga-Bawku, Ghana2 University for Development Studies, Tamale, Ghana

Charles Anane-Sakyi died in 2000, with his workincomplete. This paper is an early report by himselfand Saa Dittoh. A longer paper was prepared byAnane-Sakyi, and his Ghanaian colleagues intend torevise and update it for journal publication. Thespecific work at Gonre that Charles Anane-Sakyi wasdoing has now been taken over by Dr Paul Tanzubil ofthe Savanna Research Station at Bawku.

IntroductionPlant genetic diversity is a key ingredient forsustainable agricultural development for thesimple reason that it is what ensures that wemove nearer the natural situation. Tropicaland subtropical Africa is the centre ofdiversity for a range of crops such as Africanrice (Oryza glaberrima). African subsistencefarmers have traditionally relied on diversityto ensure the stability of their foodproduction systems. Wild resources havecontinued to be important for food andlivelihood security of the rural poor, includingwomen and children, especially in times ofstress such as drought, and changing landand water availability or ecological change.The rural poor generally have less access toland, labour and capital and thus need to relymore on the wild diversity available. Theyhave developed diverse land races andcropping practices adapted to local climate,social and cultural situations (M’Mukindia1994). Unfortunately, when traditional plantmaterials get replaced by ‘high tech’ ones,genetic resources are rapidly destroyed.Genetic erosion which is really an economicloss is already hitting small farmers in Africa.There is no doubt that proper conservationof the genetic resources could helpdevelopment (Norton 1994).

This paper reports the initial stages ofwork by the PLEC Northern Ghana Group toconserve indigenous rice varieties (IRV) atthe farm level. The idea to start thisconservation arose from what the authorslearned from the women farmers of Gonre.While men farmers had forgotten even thenames of indigenous rice varieties, thewomen of Gonre could name up to 12indigenous varieties in 1995. Many of themactually continued to cultivate them when themen replaced them with high yielding ricevarieties. It is hoped that as more andmore indigenous varieties are discovered,conserved and characterized, certainimportant traits of the varieties will beidentified and developed. There is no doubtthat conservation will lead to sustainablerice production systems including theimprovement and maintenance of soil fertilityand eventual increase in income for bothwomen and men farmers.

Materials and methods

The conservation activity is ongoing atGonre, one of the three sub-demonstrationsites where PLEC work is undertaken in theBawku area. Gonre falls within the naturalSudan savanna. It is about five kilometresfrom the Manga Research Station. The areahas a large valley bottom for the cultivationof rice. Rural women and men farmers arepartners in this participatory action research.About 80 percent of the farmers are women,and a large share of information about theIRV is held by them. The research isparticularly unique because rural women in


this part of the country have always beenignored in research and extension work.

In our preliminary work in 1998 and 1999,a participatory technology development(PTD) approach was used. The criticalingredient of that approach is amultidisciplinary research team. Our teamconsisted of an agricultural engineer, anagricultural economist, an agronomist–soilscientist and an extension officer. Anotheringredient of PTD is the use of PRA tools.Using PRA methods, the team soughtinformation about IRV being grown in thevalley bottom in the Gonre community.Interviews and discussions were held at thefarmers convenience (on the farms, in theirhomes) and in a relaxed atmosphere. Teammembers also walked with the farmers intheir fields asking for comments and probingfor explanations about these IRV. The PTDmethodology emphasizes the important rolethe farmers play. Farmers and researchersoperated as colleagues. Indeed, farmerstake the driver’s seat in the researchprocess, and this was further developed in2000.

This approach aroused enthusiasm,interest and active participation of the ruralfarmers who provided information freely andrevealed pertinent issues which could havebeen overlooked by the team.

During the last cropping season much ofthe time was spent in observing farmersactivities and trying to characterize thedifferent varieties. On-farm trials to comparethe rice characteristic were undertaken withonly 2 IRV and 2 improved varieties. Thetwo IRV, Asamolgu and Asakira, wereselected for initial evaluation by eighteenfarmers for comparison with some improvedrice varieties in the system (IR-24 and GR-18). The plot size was 5m by 5m. The ricewas dibbled at 20cm by 20cm and fertilizedwith mineral fertilizer at a rate of 60–40–40kg NPK per ha. Basal application was 15–15–15 and later top-dressed with sulphate ofammonia at tillering stage of the rice. Yieldand other vital data were collected.

Results and discussionThe farmers identified ten IRV grown bythem over the years. They gave someproperties of these varieties which makethem superior to some modern varieties(Table 1). The following qualities werementioned by the farmers:

1) short cooking time;2) IRV do not go bad when cooked and left

overnight;3) few ingredients are needed for

preparation. Can be cooked with onlysalt and pepper and will still taste better;

4) they are better for making traditionaldishes e.g. Waakye (cooked rice andbeans together), rice balls etc.;

5) IRV are good for weaning babies;6) in the field, IRV do not shatter when

harvesting is delayed;7) IRV perform better and give higher yields

than improved varieties under low inputtechnology, especially without mineralfertilization;

8) IRV give higher yields under adverseconditions, e.g. during drought, pest anddisease incidence;

9) animals prefer the stover of the IRV tothat of the improved varieties;

10) IRV are easily processed by the womenunder local conditions.

Table 1 Some properties of the indigenousrice varieties (IRV)

IRV MATURITY(Days)

YIELDPOTENTIAL

(t/ha)

AsakiraAsamolguNagamui

SantieAgonsana

PeterAbungaAgona

AgongulaMr. Moore

909090909090

115–120115–120115–120115–120

2.5–3.02.5–3.02.5–3.02.5–3.02.5–3.02.5–3.03.0–3.53.0–3.53.0–3.53.0–3.5


This participatory approach to researchhas clearly indicated the scientific ingenuitythat farmers have. Gonre farmers havenames for all the IRV. They have namesthat describe either their origin or theirpeculiar characteristics. For example, someof the IRV have been named after farmerswho first introduced them into thecommunity. Among them are varieties suchas Peter and Mr. Moore. The names ofsome tell us the origin of the rice. Varietiessuch as Agona originated from a town calledAgona in the Ashanti region. Sometimes thesize of the grain was used to name thevariety. For instance, Agongula means shortgrain rice of Agona. All this tells us that thefarmers have a lot of information about theIRV they are growing.

From the on-farm trials it was found thatonly one of the improved varieties, IR–24,significantly out-yielded the IRV-Asakira(Table 2). There was no significant yielddifference between GR–18, Asamolgu, andAsakira. Asamolgu even out-yielded GR–18.This showed that the IRV can also give highyields under improved technology such asthe use of mineral fertilizer.

Table 2 Yield of rice on farmers’ fields

TREATMENT GRAIN YIELD (THA-1)

IR–24

GR–18

Asamolgu

Asakira

3.20

2.50

2.90

2.50

LSD at 5%

C.V (%)

0.67

25.0

N = 15 and 18 farmers for the trials in 1998and 1999 respectively.

Conclusion

The two IRV Asamolgu and Asakira havehigh yield potential and compare well withimproved varieties. They also have unique

properties that make them preferred by thewomen farmers. We therefore havecontinued to work with the women farmersand the community as a whole to promotethe sustainable production of these IRV.This recommendation does not imply thatonly indigenous rice varieties should bepromoted but that there is a need to give thefarmer wider choices.

Acknowledgement

The authors are grateful to WAPLEC forfunding this study. The field assistance bythe technical staff of Soil Research Instituteof Manga headed by Mr. Geoffrey Affi-Punguah is highly appreciated.

References

Anishetty, N.M.1994 Conservation and sustainable use of

plant genetic resource: FAOprogramme. In A. Putter (ed.)Safeguarding the genetic basis ofAfrica’s traditional crops. Proceedingsof a CTA/IPGRI/ICARI/UNEP seminar,5–9 October 1992, Nairobi, Kenya, pp.49–55. Rome: International PlantGenetic Resources Institute.

M’Mukindia, K.L.1994 Official opening address. In A. Putter

(ed.) Safeguarding the genetic basis ofAfrica’s traditional crops. Proceedingsof a CTA/IPGRI/ICARI/UNEP seminar,5–9 October 1992, Nairobi, Kenya, pp.13–14. Rome: International PlantGenetic Resources Institute.

Norton, H. I.1994 Address on behalf of the Food

and Agriculture Organization of theUnited Nations. In A. Putter (ed.)Safeguarding the genetic basis ofAfrica’s traditional crops. Proceedingsof a CTA/IPGRI/ICARI/UNEP seminar,5–9 October 1992, Nairobi, Kenya, pp.9–10. Rome: International Plant GeneticResources Institute.

Documents

P L E C N E W S A N D V I E W S No. 17 FEBRUARY 2001archive.unu.edu › env › plec › pnv › PNV17 · Exploring Agrodiversity announcement 40. P L E C N E W S A N D V I E W S