Search

To purchase or authenticate to the full-text of this article, please visit this link: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1477-8947.2007.00154.x Byline: Lindsay C. Stringer (1), Mark S. Reed (2), Andrew J. Dougill (2), Mary K. Seely (3), Martin Rokitzki (4) Keywords: UNCCD; Participation; Land degradation; Swaziland; Botswana; Namibia; Africa Abstract: Abstract The United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD) emphasizes the need for public participation in land degradation assessment and rehabilitation. While participatory approaches are supported by a growing body of research and practice, meaningfully involving the people affected by land degradation is far from straightforward. This paper investigates the challenge of using the UNCCD as a guide to influence community participation in policy-making and practice at national and local levels by analyzing experiences from three southern African countries. We show that the UNCCD represents a useful normative framework for addressing degradation problems, but that the participatory ethos is difficult to enact at the national level. Whilst there is increasing evidence that combining local and scientific knowledge using participatory mechanisms can deliver the benefits that the Convention strives to achieve, communication between researchers and practitioners, and those involved in implementing the UNCCD at the national level needs to be strengthened. Broad lessons and best practices in incorporating participatory practices into policy development are elucidated. Our case studies show that a range of mixed-method, interdisciplinary approaches can enable policy-makers and practitioners to meaningfully engage those who are affected by land degradation in its definition, assessment and rehabilitation. Author Affiliation: (1)Development Policy and Management, School of Environment and Development, University of Manchester, UK (2)School of the Environment, University of Leeds, UK (3)The Desert Research Foundation of Namibia, Windhoek, Namibia (4)Agricultural Development, Programme Management Department, Eastern and Southern Africa Division, Rome, Italy Article note: Lindsay Stringer is with the Institute for Development Policy and Management, School of Environment and Development, University of Manchester, UK. E-mail: Lindsay.stringer@manchester.ac.uk, Mark Reed and Andrew Dougill are with the Sustainability Research Institute, School of the Environment, University of Leeds, UK., Mary Seely is with The Desert Research Foundation of Namibia, Windhoek, Namibia., Martin Rokitzki is with the International Fund for Agricultural Development, Programme Management Department, Eastern and Southern Africa Division, Rome, Italy.

To link to full-text access for this article, visit this link: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2005.04.009 Byline: Evan D.G. Fraser (a), Andrew J. Dougill (a), Warren E. Mabee (b), Mark Reed (a), Patrick McAlpine (c) Abstract: The modern environmental management literature stresses the need for community involvement to identify indicators to monitor progress towards sustainable development and environmental management goals. The purpose of this paper is to assess the impact of participatory processes on sustainability indicator identification and environmental management in three disparate case studies. The first is a process of developing partnerships between First Nations communities, environmental groups, and forestry companies to resolve conflicts over forest management in Western Canada. The second describes a situation in Botswana where local pastoral communities worked with development researchers to reduce desertification. The third case study details an on-going government led process of developing sustainability indicators in Guernsey, UK, that was designed to monitor the environmental, social, and economic impacts of changes in the economy. The comparative assessment between case studies allows us to draw three primary conclusions. (1) The identification and collection of sustainability indicators not only provide valuable databases for making management decisions, but the process of engaging people to select indicators also provides an opportunity for community empowerment that conventional development approaches have failed to provide. (2) Multi-stakeholder processes must formally feed into decision-making forums or they risk being viewed as irrelevant by policy-makers and stakeholders. (3) Since ecological boundaries rarely meet up with political jurisdictions, it is necessary to be flexible when choosing the scale at which monitoring and decision-making occurs. This requires an awareness of major environmental pathways that run through landscapes to understand how seemingly remote areas may be connected in ways that are not immediately apparent. Author Affiliation: (a) School of Earth and Environment, Sustainability Research Institute, University of Leeds, Leeds LS2 9JT, UK (b) Faculty of Forestry, University of British Columbia, BC, Canada (c) States of Guernsey, Channel Islands, UK Article History: Received 20 September 2004; Revised 31 March 2005; Accepted 8 April 2005

Effective knowledge sharing and community engagement can be major enablers in the pursuit of socially relevant benefits from ecological restoration and rehabilitation. Focusing on two ecological restoration and rehabilitation practitioner organizations and their workers, this paper evaluates perceptions of the extent to which short‐term knowledge exchange contributes to social goals in ecological restoration and rehabilitation in South Africa through (1) stakeholder engagement and awareness of community well‐being, and (2) knowledge enrichment. Data collected through impact questionnaires, participatory site visits, practical work exchange, focus group discussions, and a workshop are analyzed using thematic analysis framed by the International Principles and Standards for the Practice of Ecological Restoration #1 and #2. We explore participants' perceptions of knowledge exchange benefits and discuss implications for future collaboration in establishing long‐term knowledge exchange. Findings show that knowledge exchange is perceived to result in enhanced teamwork engagement, and strengthened knowledge on restoration techniques through mutual learning, inspiration, and a strengthened sense of community. Findings suggest that sustained knowledge exchange and engagement activities between different practitioner organizations is key to realize and transform short‐term perceived benefits into long‐term applied socioecological impacts across landscapes in dryland Africa. There is a need to progress from short‐term, horizontal learning, to long‐term (horizontal and vertical) knowledge exchange, to inform restoration project design and implementation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Complexity of African agrarian systems necessitates that agricultural research and development transition to agricultural innovation system [AIS] approaches. While AIS perspectives are embraced across sub-Saharan Africa, engagement of stakeholders in agricultural research and development processes as espoused in AIS paradigm remains limited. This paper aims to analyze key stakeholders in the AIS in Malawi using the case of Conservation Agriculture [CA]. We analyze roles, organizational capacity and collaboration of stakeholders in Malawi's CA innovation system. Although Government has the most extensive role, NGOs dominate the national CA agenda, while smallholder farmers remain passive recipients of CA interventions. Many CA promoters lack technical and financial capacity, and pursue limited collaboration, which diminish prospects of inclusive stakeholder engagement. While insufficient resources lead to inadequate technical support to smallholders, the limited collaboration hinders integration of programmes, multiple sources of innovation and knowledge required to foster social learning and sustainability of CA. Our findings indicate a need to: (1) strengthen understanding of AIS approaches among CA innovation system stakeholders; (2) build stronger partnerships in CA research and development by strengthening stakeholder platforms and social processes; (3) strengthen collaboration advisory mechanisms to facilitate knowledge-sharing, resource mobilization and joint programme implementation with strengthened feedback loops. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]