PLEC NEWS AND VIEWSarchive.unu.edu/env/plec/pnv/pnv3 · PLEC NEWS AND VIEWS No. 3 – July 1994 A...

The United NationsUniversity

PLEC NEWS AND VIEWSNo. 3 – July 1994

A Newsletter of the United Nations University Project ofCollaborative Research on Population, LandManagement and Environmental Change (PLEC

Edited by Harold BrookfieldScientific Coordinator

Produced in the Department of Anthropology, Division of Societyand Environment, Research School of Pacific and Asian Studies,The Australian National University for the United Nations University

ISSN 1020 0843

The clusters of PLEC

PLEC NEWS AND VIEWS NO. 3, JULY 1994

CONTENTSPage

REPORT ON THE CHIANG MAI MEETINGby the editor 3

THE SOUTH-SOUTH MEETING 8

OTHER NEWS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS 9

PROFILES OF CLUSTER LEADERS 11

NEWS FROM THE CLUSTERS 12Thailand-Yunnan Cluster 12East African Cluster 15

PAPERS AND NOTES 17

Assessing Erosion Quickly and (Hopefully) Cleanlyby Michael Stocking 17

The Agenda and Methods of PLECby Harold Brookfield 22

Selected References for PLECby Muriel Brookfield 30

FIGURESSLEMSA Design Model 19Figure 1: 25

PHOTOGRAPHSPhotographs from Chiang Mai 1-2Some Last-Page Photographs 32

TABLETable 1: Erosion Hazard Ratings for the Upper Mahaweli Catchment 20

P L E C N E W S A N D V I E W SNo.3, JULY 1994

POPULATION, LAND MANAGEMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGE (PLEC)

This issue is devoted principally to the Chiang Mai meeting. Most information from the clustersis held over to the following issue. In addition to a report on the meeting, which follows, the textof the 'keynote' paper by Brookfield is also printed in full in this issue.

The group, and the ladies only, at Mae Rid Pagae on 1 June 1994

2 • PLEC NEWS AND VIEWS, NO.3, JULY 1994

From top left: 1. Pitakwong, Uitto, Gyasi andTumuhairwe talking to Karen farmers; 2. Uitto,Guo, Padoch, Shrestha and Brookfield standagainst a house clad in Macaranga leaves; 3.Looking at wet-rice and swidden fields; 4. AKaren couple weeding a mixed-crop field; 5.Some of us (Stocking, McGrath, Sem andKiome) went to the field in style.

Photographs on this page and on page 1 are byJuha Uitto and Harold Brookfield, or by othersusing their cameras. We are amateur photo-graphers, and apologize for the low quality of thefew printed here. If other members can supplygood and contrasted bromide prints, I will be verypleased to include them (or a selection) in PlecNews and Views 4, which hopefully will appearbefore the end of 1994. (HB)

PLEC NEWS AND VIEWS, NO.3, JULY 1994 • 3

REPORT ON THE CHIANG MAI MEETING BY THE EDITOR

PLEC held its first General Meeting from 30May to 3 June 1994 in the Faculty ofAgriculture at Chiang Mai University,Thailand. Those attending the meeting,plus guests and observers for all or part ofthe time, are listed at the foot of this report.On the first, open day of the meeting, 38people were present. All 22 PLEC memberswho had been invited from outside Thailand,participated, together with potential leadersor members of two possible additionalgroups, and a representative from theformer cluster in Nepal. The full expensesof two members were supported by theUnited Nations Environment Programme.The fares of three others were paid throughtheir attendance at the Steering Committeemeeting on South-South Cooperation onEnvironmentally Sound Socio-EconomicDevelopment in the Humid Tropics,organized by UNESCO in cooperation withUNU and the Third World Academy ofSciences. A short report on that meeting,which immediately preceded the meeting ofPLEC, appears below. This assistance,which offered considerable relief to theproject budget, is gratefully appreciated.

By universal agreement, the meeting wasvery successful in advancing the project.With those present including a majority fromdeveloping countries, we exchanged ideasand information, and came together sociallyduring the conference, in the field, duringevening occasions and, more informally,during several visits to the Chiang Mai 'nightmarket'.

On the Sunday before the meeting began,the Coordinators and the ScientificAdvisory Group met to discuss the known1994-1995 budget and plans for its use, therole of the Scientific Advisors, theinformation available on cluster researchplans, and a number of other issues. It wasdecided that, while the meaning of 'regionalresearch clusters' needed to be clearlydefined, the term 'cluster` was preferred toany alternative. It was also agreed that the

advisors should offer advice, but notdirectives. The intention to review researchproposals before the meeting could not beimplemented in full, as in some cases onlydrafts were available, final papers beingbrought to the meeting by cluster leaders ortheir representatives. The state of theapplications for major funding wasdiscussed, together with fall-back proposals,and the possibility of seeking regionalfunding from European, American andJapanese sources. It was agreed to presentthis information to cluster leaders. Themeeting closed about 3 p.m. By Sundayevening, all those attending the meeting hadarrived.

The First Day

Only the initial session was formal in nature,with welcome addresses by the Dean ofAgriculture at Chiang Mai University, DrPongsak Angkasith, and the Co-Coordinator, Juha Uitto, for UNU. This wasfollowed by the only formal paper presentedat the meeting, by the Scientific Co-Coordinator, Harold Brookfield - an eventslightly marred by the loss that day of alarge part of his voice. Some controversialremarks led, nonetheless, to a livelydiscussion, which is reflected in theamended version of this paper which isprinted below at p.22. The rest of the firstday, until 4 p.m., was spent in short informalpresentations on the cluster areasthemselves, the work done by each groupup to date, and the nature of the centralproblems perceived by each cluster. Theorder of presentation was from west to east,beginning in West Africa and ending inAmazonia. One, two or three members fromeach cluster spoke, and there was livelydebate.

At the end of the afternoon theCoordinators and the Scientific AdvisoryCommittee met with cluster and sub-cluster


leaders. The precarious financial situationand prospects were candidly presented and,by agreement, copies of the most recentproject statement submitted to UNEP weremade for all present. Clusters were urged todevelop fall-back positions for funding oftheir own research, in the event that UNUfunding has to be used almost wholly fornetworking. It was noted that clusters mightmost appropriately approach foundationsand selected bilateral donors.

There was discussion of the need toenhance the training component of PLEC,and to develop a policy in regard to studentfunding. Sources for fellowships todeveloping-country students should beidentified, including the Third WorldAcademy of Sciences, and the UNUTraining and Fellowships Programme.Students linked with PLEC in Universities ofthe North will, however, mostly have to relyon domestic scholarships. Even thesomewhat disquieting financial informationfailed to dampen spirits seriously, and theywere raised again during an excellentreception which followed at the HolidayGarden Hotel, where all participants werestaying.

The Second and Third Days

These two days were devoted to a fieldexcursion, to one of the selected sites of theThailand sub-cluster, the Karen village ofMae Rid Pagae in Mae Hong Son Province,some 170 km from Chiang Mai. Readerswill recall a discussion of this village in itswider context by Kanok and BenjavanRerkasem, in PLEC News and Views no.1,at pages 17-18. Leaving soon after 8 a.m.,we travelled first to the District centre wherethe development programme was describedto us by local officials, then, in a small fleetof 4-wheel drive vehicles, over the hills toMae Rid Pagae, where the village and itsland use were described to us by theheadman and others. Returning to the mainroad we then continued to the small town ofMae Sariang, where we spent the night and

enjoyed an excellent group meal in a localrestaurant.

Being very fortunate with the weather, wewere able to spend most of the next day atMae Rid Pagae. An extended stop in aformerly swidden area now under semi-permanent cultivation, with new wet-ricefields, occupied much of the morning. Localguides gave us a great deal of information.After an excellent lunch provided by thevillage we divided into two groups, somevisiting the village and talking with the Karenpeople, while others returned to a large old-established area of wet rice viewed on theway into the village, crossed this area andentered the secondary bush at the top of aside valley. After the whole group wasreluctantly reassembled, we returned toChiang Mai, arriving just after dark.

Problems of growing population, land-tenure insecurity and also inequality,modernization and commercialization offarming, introduction of craft industry, andthe rapid transformations taking place,dominated what we heard and saw.Commercialization is leading to loss of cropdiversity, but although farming is now semi-permanent, with only short fallows undergrass or Chromolaena spp. in the lowerareas, there are still swiddens in theuplands. However, yields are reported tohave improved in consequence offertilization and use of clean-weeding.Almost all forest is now modifed by humanactivity, and there is quite extensiveextraction of wood and other products fromthe secondary bush close to the fields. Soilsare not highly sensitive to erosion, eventhough many fields are on steep slopes.However, rills were seen between up-and-down-slope rows of the recently-introducedcabbages. There are some contour strips ofvetiver grass, but principally close to theroad where they can be seen by visitingofficials. We were too large a group toconduct any sort of integrated assessment,however, and each specialist saw his or herown view of the village, its lands and itsproblems. The excursion was excellentlyorganized, and the fine weather enabled us


to see a lot of a very beautiful area. Had wecome a week later, when rain spread inlandacross northern mainland Southeast Asiafrom a cyclone in the South China Sea, itmight have been a different story!

The Fourth and Fifth Days

These two days, back in Chiang Mai, weredevoted to the presentation of newproposals by cluster groups, discussion ofthese proposals, and of issues which arosearound them. To take advantage of theexcursion, we began with the Thailand andYunnan cluster, discussion of whichoccupied the whole morning. In theafternoon, we reviewed plans of both Westand East African groups, going on nextmorning to presentations on Papua NewGuinea and Brazilian Amazonia. The laterpresenters had the experience of theirpredecessors to draw on in presentingintegrated plans. Everyone ended with afairly clear idea of what needs to be done.In a set of free exchanges a number ofcritical comments were offered to clustergroups. At one point, Brookfield waspressed to define 'agrodiversity' and,eventually, settled for the one provided inthe project document, which reads:

By this term, we mean the very many waysfarmers have developed to exploit thedynamic natural diversity of the biosphere,with greater or lesser success, and morespecifically the maintenance of both bioticand management diversity withinagroecosystems, responding to naturalecosystem diversity and dynamics.1

On the final afternoon we first heard a

1 Since the meeting a fuller discussion has appearedin print: Harold Brookfield and Christine Padoch,'Appreciating agrodiversity: a look at the dynamics anddiversity of indigenous farming practices', Environment36(5), June 1994:6A 1, 37-45. Complimentary copiesor reprints will reach many (but regrettably riot all)members of PLEC as soon as they are available.

presentation from one of our guests,Professor Elizabeth Thomas-Hope of theCentre for Development and Environment atthe University of the West Indies, on apossible cluster based mainly in Jamaicaand the Dominican Republic. This wasfollowed by Dr Nani Djuangsih of the Centrefor Environmental Studies at PadjajaranUniversity, Bandung, Indonesia, on thepotential for a cluster in Java. Third, we hada presentation from Suganda Shrestha ofNepal on the International Centre forMountain Research and Development(ICIMOD) and its work. There was then abrief concluding discussion in which the factthat this is a research project with an appliedpurpose was again stressed. A stronginvitation to hold the next meeting in Kenyawas extended by members of the EastAfrican cluster. Thanks were then mostwarmly offered to the conference organizersand the meeting closed. Some participantshad to leave that night, but the 17 of usremaining hosted five of our Thai colleaguesat a northern Thai dinner held in abeautifully located restaurant just outsidetown.

Together with those cluster leaders orrepresentatives who remained, theCoordinators and SAG met again onSaturday morning, to review the next stepsto be taken. These have all since beenconfirmed by fax. The meeting also stronglyconfirmed the policy that clusters shouldremain groups of individuals, and that thereshould be no institutional contracts, with anyspecific organizations, to conduct researchfor PLEC. This policy is distinct fromagreement that research -support contracts,with the institutions in which principal clustermembers are based, will become necessaryin many cases. There was furtherdiscussion of the search for cluster-specificfunding, and an offer by Michael Stocking tocontact ODA, SIDA and SAREC wasgratefully received.

There was also some discussion of thespecial number of Global EnvironmentalChange. Following several requestsreceived by Brookfield at the meeting an


ultimate extended deadline was offered, andthis has since been confirmed to all authors.Both this and the fourth issue of PLEC Newsand Views will be devoted in large part to themeeting and its outcomes, and thisgeneral report by Brookfield in the presentissue will, hopefully, be followed bycomment from clusters in the next issue.

Some Outcomes of the Meeting

Bringing together of the network was amajor outcome of the meeting, and aunanimous wish was expressed to conductproject networking on a more frequent basisthan has been proposed in the earlierdocuments. Thus it was strongly urged thatthere should be a second, half-way, generalmeeting in two years' time, rather than onlyone further general meeting at the end ofthe project as originally proposed. Also itwas urged that the 'field meetings' proposedbe largely or wholly replaced by aprogramme of individual visits occupying twoor more weeks, by one or two persons,visiting other clusters. The scale of such aprogramme clearly depends on funding, butscientific visits by developing countryparticipants to other clusters could, ifnecessary, very probably also be arrangedon the basis of specific grants to clustersthemselves. They should clearly form part

of any programme of South-Southcooperation.

Second, the point that the central aim ofthe project is the development of aframework for the analysis of sustainability,especially of biodiversity, withinagrodiversity, was well accepted, but withthe recognition that our aim is a frameworkrather than any single methodology. Thelatter would be the antithesis of the diversitywhich we stress. Analysis of sustainabilityraises important questions that have to bedebated more fully within the project.Different views presently obtain, and this isfruitful. They should become an object fordiscussion in the pages of this Newsletter.Cluster objectives concern the specificmanagement problems of their own areas,and their explanation. Interchange ofresults and ideas must be a constant activityof PLEC.

PLEC has therefore now acquired a life ofits own, especially as a South-Southorganization with Northern participation.This will have to be reflected inorganizational changes that will need tocome about as the project matures. Theenthusiasm generated at the meeting clearlycannot survive without more funding thanwe at present enjoy, but this enthusiasmitself should be an important factor ingathering support for the project.

Participants at the Meeting

(Full addresses, fax, telephone and e-mail numbers, where available, can beobtained from Dr J.I. Uitto, Academic Division, United Nations University, 53-70 Jingumae 5-chome, Shibuya-ku, Tokyo 150, Japan. Fax: +81 - 3 - 3499 2828.

E-mail: program%[email protected] orprogram%[email protected]; Telex 61351)

PLEC AS A WHOLE

Dr Juha Uitto, Academic Division, UNU, Tokyo,Japan.

Dr Harold Brookfield, Anthropology, TheAustralian National University, Canberra,Australia

Dr Janet Momsen, Geography, University ofCalifornia, Davis, USA

Dr Christine Padoch, Institute of EconomicBotany, New York Botanical Garden, Bronx,USA

Dr Michael Stocking, Development Studies,University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK


WEST AFRICA

Dr Edwin Gyasi, Geography, University ofGhana, Ghana

Dr Elizabeth Ardayfio-Schandorf, Geography,University of Ghana, Ghana

Dr Lewis Enu-Kwesi, Botany, University ofGhana, Ghana

EAST AFRICA

Dr Romano Kiome, Soil Science, KenyaAgricultural Research Institute, Kenya

Ms Loise Wambuguh, Socio-EconomicResearch, Kenya Agricultural ResearchInstitute, Kenya

Mr Francis Kahembwe, Forest Research,Kampala, Uganda

Ms Joy Tumuhairwe, Soil Science, MakerereUniversity, Uganda

THAILAND

Dr Kanok Rerkasem, Agricultural Systems,Chiang Mai University, Thailand

Dr Benjavan Rerkasem, Agricultural Systems,Chiang Mai University, Thailand

Dr Ramphaiphun Apichatpongchai, AgriculturalSystems, Chiang Mai University, Thailand

Dr Benchapun Shinawatra, Agricultural Systems,Chiang Mai University, Thailand

Dr Chusri Trisonti, Agricultural Systems, ChiangMai University, Thailand

Ms Nithi Thaisantad, Highland Coffee Research,Chiang Mai University, Thailand

Ms Laxmi Worachai, Agricultural Systems,Chiang Mai University, Thailand

Ms Jamree Pitakwong, Sociology andAnthropology, Chiang Mai University, Thailand

Mr Nasit Yimyam, Highland Coffee Research,Chiang Mai University, Thailand

Ms Nanako Nakada, Graduate Student in HumanEcology, University of Tokyo, Japan

YUNNAN, CHINA

Mr Guo Huijun, Ethnobotany, Kunming Instituteof Botany, CAS, Kunming, China

Mr Dao Zhiling, Ethnobotany, Kunming Instituteof Botany, CAS, Kunming, China

Prof. Xu Zaifu, Botany, Xishuangbanna TropicalBotanical Garden, Menglun, Xishuangbanna,China

PAPUA NEW GUINEA

Dr Graham Sem, Biogeography, University ofPapua New Guinea, Port Moresby, PapuaNew Guinea

Dr Geoff Humphreys, Land Management, TheAustralian National University, Canberra,Australia

Prof. Ryutaro Ohtsuka, Human Ecology,University of Tokyo, Japan

Dr Tsukasa Inaoka, Public Health, KumamotoUniversity, Kumamoto, Japan

AMAZONIAN BRAZIL

Dr E. Adilson Serrão, Research Agronomy,Empresa Brasiliera de PesquisaAgropecuária, Belém, Pará, Brazil

Dr David McGrath, Altos Estudos Arnazônicos,Universidade Federal do Pará, Belém, Pará,Brazil

Dr Mario Hiraoka, Geography, Museu Goeldi,Belém, Pará, Brazil and Millersville University,USA

GUESTS AND OBSERVERS

Dr Elizabeth Thomas-Hope, Environment andDevelopment, University of the West Indies,Mona, Kingston, Jamaica

Dr Nani Djuangsih, Institute of Ecology,Padjajaran University, Bandung, Indonesia

Mr Suganda Shrestha, Sustainable MountainAgriculture, International Centre for IntegratedMountain Development, Kathmandu, Nepal

Dr Miguel Clüsener-Godt, Ecological Sciences,UNESCO, Paris, France

Dr Thomas Enters, Policy Development, Centrefor International Forestry Research, Bogor,Indonesia

Dr David Thomas, The Ford Foundation,Bangkok, Thailand


THE SOUTH-SOUTH MEETING

The Steering Committee meeting of the South-South Cooperation Programme forEnvironmentally Sound Socio-Economic Development in the Humid Tropics took placeimmediately before the PLEC meeting, and was of significance to us. In addition to Juha Uittowho was co-organizer with Miguel Clüsener-Godt of UNESCO, it was attended by four othermembers of PLEC, Benjavan Rerkasem as local organizer, Harold Brookfield, Edwin Gyasi andTsukasa Inaoka. Miguel Clüsener-Godt stayed on to attend the PLEC meeting as a participatingobserver.

The Programme has obtained a substantial grant from German sources for work on themanagement of land resources in the buffer zones of, and adjacent to, Biosphere Reserves andother natural reserves not presently within the UNESCO Biosphere Reserve network. Mostdiscussion concerned this project, and its organization. However, some additional topics werealso proposed, one of which was 'Wetland Management Systems (e.g. chinampas, camellones,ridged fields, sawah, várzea)'.

The relationship to PLEC was recognized, and in the record of the meeting the secondparagraph reads:

Given the convergence of interests and complementarity of approaches between the South-SouthCooperation Programme and the UNU collaborative research programme on Population, LandManagement and Environmental Change (PLEC), the two programmes will establish continuous andclose collaboration in exchange of experiences, publications and research results. Coordination ofmeetings will be sought, and organization of joint workshops envisaged.

While much of PLEC research is remote from natural reserve areas, except those mainly-smallareas forming part of community resource-management systems, some of the proposed workdiscussed at the PLEC meeting was quite close to the South-South Programme proposals. Aparticular case in point was the proposal for research on the margins of the Mount Elgon reservein Uganda, described to us by Francis Kahembwe. There were also others. Clearly, we shallbuild on these connexions, which could become very productive.

Also of importance was discussion on training activities, in collaboration with the Third WorldAcademy of Sciences. Possibilities included the exchange of researchers between projectareas. More significantly, some fellowships exist for Third World exchange of postgraduatestudents of environmental resource management, for exchange of expertise, including visitingprofessors and scholars. In the discussion, particular mention was made of internationalenvironmental programmes already offered, or planned, in the Agricultural Systems Programmeat Chiang Mai University, in the Universidade Federal do Pará, Belém, through UNU/INRA atthe University of Ghana. It was agreed that, starting with PLEC News and Views no.4, about apage in each issue will be offered to the UNESCO-based programme, and they will reciprocate intheir own proposed Newsletter. A statement on PLEC will also be offered to an early number ofthe Man-and-the-Biosphere Programme newsletter, INFOMAB.

It was agreed also that members of both projects will be supplied with copies of theNewsletters of each. Those readers wishing to know more immediately about the South-SouthCooperation Programme should write to Dr Miguel Clüsener-Godt, Division of EcologicalSciences (MAB), UNESCO, 11 Rue Miollis, Paris 75015, France.


OTHER NEWS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS

THE SEARCH FOR FUNDING

A good deal has been happening in thisarea during and since the Chiang Maimeeting. While we were in Chiang Mai,UNEP put the revised project documentwhich cluster leaders saw to the Inter-Agency Implementation Committee of theGEF. They endorsed it for furtherconsideration, and forwarded theendorsement to the GEF Council, which metin Washington on 13-15 July 1994. TheCouncil endorsed UNEP's proposal thatPLEC be given Feasibility Study Funding, toprepare a full Project Document forsubmission to the GEF Council at itsmeeting either in January or April 1995. Thefunding is in the sum of US$100 000 and isspecifically for this purpose, includinggeneral and cluster meetings, travel andmeetings by the Coordination group andsome cluster leaders, and work onpreparation of the report.

This money will come from UNDP, andthere is a reasonable chance that it will beavailable in early September. Clearly,therefore, the Ghana regional meetingdescribed in the next item will become animportant planning meeting. I shall nowattend this meeting, and will go on to Nairobiafter it. The Coordinators and SAG havealready had an exchange to decide whatcould be done if we received this go-ahead,so we have some idea of how the necessarymeetings can be arranged. A schedule willbe set up as soon as possible. I am,however, awaiting more detail on the natureof the document that we must provide.

There will be a lot of work for allconcerned, especially the Coordinators,SAG, and for cluster leaders. This is our bigchance of major GEF funding, and is wortha lot of effort. All have now been informed.However, I go to Europe (the CzechRepublic, the Netherlands, England) andbriefly USA, on a mixed conference-work-

family affairs-vacation trip from 15 Augustreturning on 15 September, and back in theoffice on 16 September. This has all beenarranged for some time, and cannot bechanged. Hopefully, it will not cause seriousdelay.

At the same time, we have also made apre-proposal for co-funding to the MacArthurFoundation, and a response is awaited.

ENLARGEMENT OF PLEC

An enlargement of the West African clusteris likely to follow the meeting below, whichwill be reported in the next issue.Meanwhile, there have been two furtherdevelopments since the Chiang Maimeeting.

The CaribbeanFollowing the exciting presentation given byElizabeth Thomas-Hope on the finalafternoon, the Coordinators and SAGagreed unanimously that she should beasked to form a sixth cluster, based inJamaica and the Dominican Republic as sheproposed. A preliminary contract has beenoffered, and she plans to form a cluster andan outline programme during the comingfew months. This will give us a secondcluster in the western hemisphere regionand will provide a case area amongdensely-populated island states. Hopefully,there will be some preliminary material forreport in the next issue.

Montane Mainland Southeast AsiaThe Thailand sub-cluster, which has anactive international MSc (AgriculturalSystems) programme, is receiving a growingnumber of students from Vietnam. This hasled them to propose that this cluster,presently operating in northern Thailand andYunnan, extend its work into Vietnam, andprobably form a third sub-cluster in that


country. They have been given the greenlight to go ahead. At the same time theypropose a new name for the whole cluster,shown at the head of this paragraph.

A REGIONAL MEETING IN GHANA,25-27 OCTOBER

Environment, Biodiversity andAgricultural Change in West Africa

In association with UNU/INRA (Institute forNatural Resources in Africa), a meeting willbe held from 25 to 27 October 1994, at theUniversity of Ghana, Legon. The firstobjective is to disseminate and discuss thefindings of the PLEC pilot project of theGhana cluster. Then, more importantly, themeeting will identify possible strategies forextending PLEC research to other agro-ecological zones in West Africa, and ofintegrating farmers' groups and otherenvironmental actors and parties into anextended research programme, in a questfor sustainable systems of managing theenvironment by small farmers underconditions of population and other forms ofpressure. It is hoped to be able to sponsorthe attendance of about 30 participants fromWest Africa (Ghana, Burkina Faso, Nigeria,Côte d'lvoire and Togo), and one memberfrom the East African PLEC cluster.Farmers' representatives from the researchsites, and representatives of Governmentagencies and NG0s will be invited to themeeting. Special funding is being sought forthis purpose.

A MEETING IN AMAZONIA

Diversity, Development, andConservation of the Amazon Floodplain

This is not a PLEC meeting, but aconference that will, however, be attendedby all members of the Amazon cluster. It issponsored by the Conselho Nacional dePesquisas (CNPq) (National ResearchCouncil of Brazil), The New York Botanical

Garden and the Wildlife ConservationSociety. It will be held from 12-15December 1994 in Macapá, Amapá, Brazil.All papers being presented by invitation.Anyone seeking further information shouldwrite to Christine Padoch, IEB, New YorkBotanical Garden, Fax: 1-718 220 1029.

AN ENLARGED SAG MEETING IN JAPANBefore the latest developments arose, JuhaUitto had proposed that the 1995 annualUNU Global Environmental Forum, bedevoted to PLEC, and entitled 'Population,Land Management and EnvironmentalChange'. It will be held in Osaka, Japan, on18 or 19 January 1995. The invitedspeakers include members of SAG, threecluster leaders or joint leaders from theAsian-Pacific region, and myself. There willtherefore be an opportunity for an enlargedSAG meeting to follow it. How this businessmeeting will now be related to the GEFapplication remains to be determined.

NEWS ABOUT PEOPLE

Edwin Gyasi, leader of the Ghana cluster,has been promoted to Associate Professorin the University of Ghana, backdated to1993. Warm congratulations on a well-deserved advance. He returns from NewZealand to Ghana in August, and is visitingCanberra and England on the way.

Geoff Humphreys, of the Papua NewGuinea cluster, has moved from Canberra toa Senior Lectureship in Earth Sciences atMacquarie University, Sydney, Australia,and will also become a member of theMontane Mainland Southeast Asia Clusterwhen there. Recently he attended the 15thWorld Congress of Soil Science in Acapulco,Mexico (also attended by Romano Kiome),where he presented a paper by Brookfieldand himself on 'Evaluating sustainable landmanagement: are we on the right track?'Copies of this paper are being sent to somemembers of the project.

(cont. on p.32)


PROFILES OF CLUSTER LEADERS

Responses to requests for profiles to print in this Newsletter have consisted more of promises thandelivery. Two have been provided, and are printed below. Hopefully, others will provide information bynext time!

Amazonian Cluster

E. Adilson Serrão is Principal Leader of thiscluster. Born in 1941 at Belterra, ParáBrazil, he is a true Amazonian. Aftertraining first in Brazil he received his MScfrom the University of Wisconsin in 1968 andhis PhD from the University of Florida in1976, in both cases in agronomy withconcentration on pasture development. Hehas conducted research in Brazil on pastureand animal production, and agroforestry, forsome 20 years and is presently the Directorof the Centre for Agroforestry Research forthe Eastern Amazon (Centre de PesquisaAgroflorestal da Amazônia Oriental,CPATU), of EMBRAPA (Empresa Brasilierade Pesquisa Agropecuária), in Belém, Pará,Brazil. He has had wide internationalinvolvement in tropical agricultural research,especially in grassland development, andalso as a member of a scientific committeeof the US National Research Council, forsustainable agriculture and environment inthe humid tropics. He is the author or jointauthor of more than 100 publications inPortuguese, Spanish and English, withgrowing concentration on agro-silvo-pastoraldevelopment. His address is: Director ofResearch, CPATU/EMBRAPA, Caixa Postal48, 66000 Belém, Pará Brazil. Fax: +55 91226 9845/9680.

West African Cluster

Edwin Akonno Gyasi, born in Ghana in1943, who is leader of the cluster, studied inGhana and the United States, obtaining hisPhD in geography from the University ofWisconsin. He has taught in the Universityof Ghana, the University of Port Harcourt,Nigeria, and more recently again in the

University of Ghana, Legon, where he hasrecently been appointed AssociateProfessor. His research interests centre onagricultural change, rural development andsustainable environmental use. He hascarried out field work in all the major agro-ecological zones of Ghana, and in thehumid forest of southern Nigeria. He hasbeen involved in the Ghana RuralReconstruction Movement (an NGO) aschairman of its research committee, and ledthe preparation of an agroforestry baselineand evaluation survey report in 1989-90. Hehas undertaken work for the World Bank,Unesco, UN Habitat, and Ghana'sEnvironmental Protection Council. DuringFebruary-August 1994 he has held a VisitingCentennial Fellowship at the University ofCanterbury, New Zealand. He has authoredmore than 30 scientific papers, bookchapters and reports. Address: Departmentof Geography and Resource Development,University of Ghana, Legon, Ghana. Fax:+233 21 775 3061774 338/ 772 621.

The PLEC Special Number of GlobalEnvironmental Change, due for appearancein June 1995, must be completed editoriallyby December. To this end, an extendeddeadline of 8 August was given to authors fordelivery of their Ms. in a form suitable forsending to referees (who have beenchosen, and have agreed to act). At thetime of going to press not all papers havebeen received. While every effort will bemade to accommodate real difficulties,papers not completed by early-August willnot be able to be handled in time.


NEWS FROM THE CLUSTERS

Only two cluster reports, taking the form of planned work over the coming three years, can be printed inthis number. Appropriately, the first chosen is the Thailand/Yunnan cluster which hosted the Chiang Maimeeting. The second is the report of the youngest cluster, in East Africa.

THAILAND-YUNNAN CLUSTER

Sustainable Land Use in the MontaneRegion of Mainland Southeast Asia: theRole of Agrodiversity in Conservation

This is a collaborative research projectinvolving two national interdisciplinaryteams. Joint leaders are Kanok Rerkasem(Agroecology, Chiang Mai University), andGuo Huijun (Botany, Kunming Institute ofBotany).

Currently there are 6 other members ofthe Thailand sub-cluster, representing thedisciplines of ethnobotany, social science,resource economics, plant nutrition and ruralsociology (4 females, 2 males). There are 9other members of the Yunnan sub-cluster,representing the disciplines of botany,forestry, geography, ecology (7 males, 2females). Members are drawn from thefollowing institutions: Chiang Mai Universityand Hilltribe Welfare Division (Thailand);Kunming Institute of Botany, YunnanAcademy of Forestry Science,Xishuangbanna. Botanical Garden, YunnanInstitute of Geography (Yunnan). There isone foreign member, a soil erosionspecialist/ geomorphologist from MacquarieUniversity, Sydney, Australia (G.S.Humphreys). A second foreign membermay be added. Student membersparticipate in the research.

Background

More than 10 million people live in themontane region of mainland Southeast Asiawhich extends from the Yunnan Province ofChina to the Northern Region of Thailand.Ethnic minorities form most of thispopulation, many of which (e.g. Hmong,Yao, Lisu, Lahu, and Akha), have moved

from China to settle in Thailand within thelast century. Villages and communities havesettled on relatively marginal land on slopesat elevations varying from 400 m to 2,000 m.The long history of movement within theregion, close to a thousand years, has givena number of shared characteristics betweenthe groups in Yunnan and NorthernThailand. However, certain significantdifferences have also resulted from majorpolitical and economic changes in China andThailand in the last 50 years.

A list of the similarities would include:1. a number of common ethnic groups;2. some parallel agricultural development,

notably reduction of shifting cultivation,and expansion of the irrigated wetlandrice system;

3. the historical isolation of the area fromtheir respective governments;

4. the marginal nature of mountain resourcefor agricultural production;

5. policy in both countries designed tointegrate the montane region in nationaleconomies and social structures.

Major differences are as follows:1. in Thailand citizenship has been

granted to the mountain population onlysince 1960s. Even now only about halfof them have legal status of citizens,whereas the PRC government has longrecognized the legal status of theminority groups and set up autonomousethnic prefectures and counties;

2. in Yunnan different forms of land useright are recognized by the government.The occupation and land use in themountain of Thailand are actuallyprohibited by law;

3. population growth is now declining inYunnan, but in Thailand high rates ofincrease still prevail;


4. there was a vast difference in political,social and economic changes in the twocountries over the last 50 years, withcritical implications for development inthe montane region.

Although policy changes have beengreater in China, with first elimination oflandlordism in 1949, then collectivization in1958, followed by progressive introductionof 'responsibility' approaching individual titlebetween 1978 and 1983, and withsubstantial immigration of Han people tocultivate rubber on state farms since the1950s, there have also been major changesin Thailand. In the latter country attemptswere first made to resettle shiftingcultivators, then there has been a series ofprojects designed to substitute new cashcrops and conservationst practices foropium cultivation and swidden. Large areasare claimed by the Royal Forest Departmentwhich has continued sporadic tree plantingon cultivated land.

In China, a series of conservationistregulations has been enacted since theearly 1980s, restricting access to forest, butthere has not been similar insecurity intenure of cultivated land since the end of the1970s. In both countries, however, farmersstill feel considerable insecurity in regard topossible future changes in policy.

Montane agricultural systems in bothcountries have had to adapt and adjust tocope with the rapid pace of commercially-induced changes, during the last 30 years inNorthern Thailand and 15 years in Yunnan.Most communities in both regions are nowwithin reach of road systems (sometimesthrough relocation of villages from hill tovalley sites). Cash cropping, both of annualand tree crops, has increasingly become acentral part of the rural economies, and thistrend continues to accelerate and to affectareas that are still remote.

In both countries there is considerablepressure (and assistance) to enlarge thearea of wet rice in order to reduceswiddening, but in neither country is theresufficient irrigable land to cope with theneeds of the stillgrowing populations. In both

cases, farmers' innovations, deriving fromtraditional as well as modern knowledge,have been instrumental in change.

A first round of collaborative study hasshown that the use of traditional knowledge,especially in agroforestry, is more prevalent,and more significant in adaptation, inYunnan than in Northern Thailand. InNorthern Thailand, although farmers andcommunities have long depended on theforest for a significant part of their livelihood,this appears to be on the basis of simpleextraction. There is little evidence of anelement of management, either by individualfarmers or communally. In the Yunnanvillages, on the other hand a range ofagroforestry types, including cultivationwithin forest and the planting of trees inswidden fields, is a particularly markedcharacteristic, and the greater part of thesepractices is indigenous rather thanintroduced.

There has been great reduction in theforest area in both regions, and efforts arenow being made to preserve what remains.However, much if not most of the remainingforest is worked over extractively. InThailand, continued immigration, and morerapid population growth, put greaterpressure on the forest resource. Evidenceof land degradation is very variable fromarea to area within both countries, withsevere erosion evident on some hill areas ofnorthern Thailand, but not others.

While degradation of land and biota isoften assumed to be taking placeeverywhere in the hills, there is a seriousneed for research which will identify where itis actually serious, and where remainingbiodiversity continues rapidly to be eroded.There is also urgent need to examine thosesystems which are successful in controllingdegradation, and distinguish them from still-continuing practices which promotedestruction of resources.

Provisionally, we hypothesize thatstability of population, and security of landtenure are principal factors which leadfarmers to adopt conservationist practices,


particularly agroforestry . However, the roleof information transmission is also important,and this calls for detailed investigation.

Research Aims and Plans

In this proposed study, we aim to1. study in detail the resource use pattern

of six highland villages, three in eachcountry;

2. develop guidelines for evaluatingmountain land use sustainability, and touse these to

3. evaluate sustainability and unsus-tainability of each pattern of resourceuse;

4. identify conditions conducive toresource conservation and/or exploit-ation by individual farmers andcommunities.

On the basis of extensive previous work,and after reconnaissance, three villageshave been selected in each country (thename of the village ethnic group is in italicsafter each village name):

Northern Thailand

Tissa, (Karen, rotational shifting agriculture,little commercialization)

Mae Rid Pagae, (Karen, commercialized,heavy land use but limited evidence ofdegradation; both old-established andrecent wet rice; innovativemanagement)

Mae Salap, (Akha, heavily commercialized,evidence of severe degradation)

Yunnan

Baka, (Jinuo, limited land in a mountainousregion; a declared forest reserveimmediately adjacent limits; possibilitiesof expansion)

Mansuoxin, (Dai, highly developed homegardens, and old-established wet rice)

Manmuo, (Akha, access to remainingprimary forest, and substantialcommercialization but still poor)

In addition to the focus on these six villages,the hierarchical structure and organization ofthe agroecosystem into which each villagefits will be analyzed to acertain that allcrucial ecological, social and economicprocesses have been covered.

The methodology will be based principallyon an agroecosystem perspective. Inevaluating land use systems we will attemptto cover all of their agronomic, social,economic and ecological processes. Explicitrecognition will be made of the hierachicalstructure and organization of theagroecosystem at levels of field, farm,community, watershed, county, province,country and region, to allow an analysis thatis sufficiently 'adaptive' to follow functionalrelationships to any level that is necessary.

Explicit recognition of the dynamic natureof agroecosystems will be pursued byattempting to determine changes over time,including long term trends from the past, aswell as evaluating prospects for the future.

For data gathering we will use RapidAppraisal, long-term field survey (especiallywith student participation), farmer interview,group discussions with communityrepresentatives, plant identification, actualfield assessments including any chemicalanalyses. Research method will alsoinclude consultations with farmers,community representatives, local fieldworkers of government agencies as well asnon-government agencies, and variouspeople who influence public policy.

Expected outputs include:1. patterns of resource use by mountain

farmers will be described in a detail notpreviously attempted;

2. conditions for resource conservationbehaviour by individual farmers andcommunitites will be identified;

3. a set of field tested criteria andguidelines for evaluating mountain landuse sustainability will be developed.

Kanok Rerkasem and Guo Huijun


EAST AFRICAN CLUSTER

Development of Sustainable Agriculturein Diverse and Dynamic Socio-economic,

Demographic and BiophysicalEnvironments of East Africa

CORE MEMBERS: R.M. Kiome (KenyaAgricultural Research Institute) [ClusterLeader], A.O. Ayiemba (University ofNairobi), D.N. Mungai (University of Nairobi),L. Wambuguh (Kenya Agricultural ResearchInstitute), F. Kaihura (Agricultural ResearchInstitute, Milingano, Tanzania), F.Kahembwe (Forest Research Institute,Nakawa, Uganda), J. Tumuhairwe(Makerere University, Uganda), M. Stocking(University of East Anglia, U.K.) [Advisorymember].

BackgroundThe East Africa region is characterized byhigh population growth rates and mobilitycaused by conflicts, famines and differentialeconomic opportunities. It also hasextremely diverse biophysical and farmingsystems as well as human environment.The region has climates that range from thehumid tropical forests with annual rainfalls ofmore than 2000 mm to ecological desertswith less than 250 mm; some of the besttropical soils (nitisols) alongside the worst(solonetz); extremely intensive small-scalefarming close to extensive pastoral systems;strongly differentiated adoption of soil andwater management technologies; and so on.Generally the region has a predominantlyagrarian society in a set of complex anddiverse agro-ecosystems.

Demographic change and associatedfactors have for a long time suggestedsevere environmental degradation and lossof biodiversity, including agrodiversity. Eversince early colonial times, predictions ofsevere population pressure causing erosionand consequent declines in productivity andfamines have regularly been made. Thisimplies that the land use systems, the basisof welfare, are unsustainable under theseconditions. Yet from as early as the 1920sand 1930s adaptation and change have

been noted in small-scale agriculture. Somerecent studies have underlined the ability ofcommunities and whole societies to adapt inthe face of environmental change andpopulation pressure while at the same timeincreasing crop production and takingenvironmental protection measures. Othershave shown that soil and watermanagement technologies are capable ofnot only maintaining, but also restoring, theproductivity of the land.

Research Plan

The East Africa cluster will address theapparent paradox that environmentalprotection and sustainable land use systemscan be achieved despite (or even becauseof) large demographic changes. It willexamine a number of indicators of changeprimarily at the household, farm and districtlevel. By comparing the situation in severaldistricts, and different agro-ecologicalzones, the research cluster hopes to definein the East Africa context:(i) a set of production pressures that

induce lasting changes in land use;(ii) important demographic variables that

can be linked to both sustainability andunsustain ability;

(iii) the diversity of adaptations, introducedand indigenous farming systems('agrodiversity'), with trigger points andcausative factors; and

(iv) a number of recommendations tomeasure sustainability and to promotesustainable development.

The East African cluster researchpostulates that sustainable agriculture hasrich agrodiversity and is achievable indifferent agro-ecological environmentsunder diverse population dynamics andeconomies.

The main objectives of the cluster are toexamine a number of environmental andland qualities and land management againstthe production pressures and responses inorder to analyse their linkages and identityconditions of sustainability or unsustainabilityand possible remedial interventions.


This will be done through specific casestudies focused on priority issues related tothe main theme of the development ofsustainable land use systems underdifferent demographic, economic andecological conditions.

The most important factors the cluster willendeavour to analyze in the diverse agro-environmental zones (AEZs) are:(a) land quality and biophysical factors

(soils, soil and water management(SWM) technologies, productivity/-output, intensification capability, micro-climate).

(b) land use factors (crop diversity/-changes, kinds of land uses).

(c) demographic factors (population growthrates, birth/death rates, migrationhousehold population dynamics).

(d) production pressure factors (markets,policies, institutions).

Sub-projects and the Whole ProjectThe project will be undertaken throughrelevant disciplinary sub-projects with anendeavour to blend these into aninterdisciplinary approach. These casestudies/subprojects, will be conducted inselected agro-ecological zones in differentregions of East Africa (Kenya, Uganda andTanzania) and focus on priority researchissues in each specific pilot study area butencompassing the overall EAPLEC researchtheme. In all three countries the specificstudies will endeavour to sample a range ofagro-ecological zones, identified to differ inland use intensification and management,population dynamics and productionpressures. These differing attributes will bestudies in carefully selected transects.

In Kenya the research theme Population,Land Management and SustainableAgriculture in different agroecosystems ofKiambu, Embu and Laikipia Districts, willcomprise four specific studies on:(i) climatic variability and agricultural

production;(ii) land quality and management options;(iii) inter-relationships between demo-

graphic characteristics and land use;and

(iv) production pressure and responses athousehold level.

All the four topical studies will be conductedin an interdisciplinary manner with fullinteraction of the principal investigators ineach topic.

In Tanzania, studies will focus on farmingsystem response and adaption toconservation development projectapproaches in mountain areas of northernTanzania. This study will also be conductedby a team comprising at least three differingbut topically relevant disciplines.

In Uganda, studies will focus on:(i) the influence of demography, govern-

ment policy on land use andbiodiversity and the response of thelocal community around Mt. Elgon; and

(ii) an analysis of the environmental andsocial factors of adoption and non-adoption of soil and water conservationtechnologies and sustainable agriculturein western Uganda.

GeneralThe East African Cluster is co-ordinated bythe cluster leader in Nairobi. Frequentmeetings, conferences and visits among thecore cluster members will form part of themulti-disciplinary approach to research. Thecluster currently comprises 7 core memberswith four members in Kenya, two in Ugandaand one in Tanzania. These core membersare of a varied disciplinary mix including soilscience, climatology, demography, forestryand socio-economics. The core membersare responsible for the organization ofinterdisciplinary teams to conduct researchin their specific regions. The cluster hasgone through an exercise of researchproject scoping to identify the key researchissues and begin development of a commonmethodology for research. It will now focuson fine-tuning of research methodology,workplans and implementation of theformulated research activities.

R.M. Kiome


PAPERS AND NOTES

ASSESSING EROSION QUICKLY AND (HOPEFULLY) CLEANLY

Michael StockingScientific Advisor to PLEC

School of Development Studies, University of East Anglia

Our Scientific Coordinator, HaroldBrookfield, suggested to me that I shouldshare with readers of PLEC News andViews some experiences I have had overthe years in (1) erosion modelling on alimited budget and (2) trying to makerealistic estimates of the danger of erosionunder field conditions that are available tothe field-worker. Most of us work in areaswhere there are no long-term experimentson erosion rates, where field data on thefactors that cause erosion are extremelyscanty, where we can only dream aboutsophisticated computer modelling of erosiondynamics, but where we know that current'off-the-shelf' erosion models such as theAmericans' 'Universal' Soil Loss Equationwill likely give us spurious results. What dowe do? Is there any alternative to highlyselective and possibly biased observationsof rills in farmers/fields and bare eroded-looking patches on steep lands? Can wedevelop any field-friendly approximations ofthe hazard of erosion that will give us anidea of the order of magnitude of theprocesses and the likely changes that mayresult from a change in land use such asnatural forest to shifting cultivation? I thinkwe can.

This article combines some ten years'experience of developing a relatively simpleerosion model for conditions in SouthernRhodesia (now Zimbabwe) with a recentconsultancy assignment I did for Britain'sOverseas Development Administration in thehill lands of Sri Lanka where the ForestryDepartment needed to know what were thelikely implications of converting degradedand sometimes abandoned tea estates to

pine plantations andlor other land uses. Theforesters had neither the time nor inclinationto go into lengthy experiments. Many ofthem just wanted to assume that pineswould be good for the environment and goright ahead and plant them; others urgedcaution, citing examples where they knewthat tree plantations had caused problems.It was a classic case of wanting definitiveanswers today to a potential problem of landdegradation; failure to provide anappropriate response; and in the vacuum ofknowledge, pressing on with thedevelopment regardless of consequences.Maybe there is a simple methodology wecan develop for our own circumstances - arapid appraisal procedure for soil resources.

Rapid Field Assessment of Erosion

Although the primary purpose of this shortarticle is to address erosion hazard, manyfield-workers ask for guidance on rapid fieldassessments of actual (contemporary)erosion rates. Direct field observation andsimple monitoring devices are available.Details will have to await a future PLECNews and Views (if there is demand for theinformation!).

One can gain semi-quantitativeassessments of net soil loss from• tree root exposure;• height of soil pedestals under small

stones;• pedestals below bunch grasses;• stem exposure on some annual crops

(tobacco, for example, has a well-defined mark on its stem for the soil


level when it started to grow);• soil height differences above and below

a barrier (wall, bund, grass strip, largetree etc.).

In addition look for the layer of stones leftbehind after erosion. By comparing thedepth of these stones with the approximatepercentage of stones in the body of the soil,you can gain an idea of the amount of soilthat needed to be removed to obtain thatdepth of stones. It is a simple and effectivetechnique on arable lands when you knowwhen the soil was last ploughed.

I have dwelt on sheet erosion purposelybecause it is by far the commonest, it is themost difficult to observe, yet it is potentiallythe most serious in its impact on cropproductivity. Rills and gullies are easy to see– hence they tend to get far too muchattention.

A good recent guide to field techniques isthat produced by FAO in their Soils Bulletinseries and written by Norman Hudson(1993) – but beware he still has far morespace devoted to erosion plots, sedimentsamplers, radio-active tracers and the like,which for many of us are techniques wecannot use while under pressure for quickresults.

Erosion Modelling on a LimitedBudget

For many researchers the answer to notbeing able to measure erosion is to model itinstead; that is, construct a theoretical set ofrelationships between the factors in erosionand erosion rate. So, when you want topredict erosion rates, you just have to put inthe correct factor values and out pops aneat answer of erosion in tonnes perhectare per year. An appealing idea but notso simple to develop, I am sorry to say.

My colleague Henry Elwell and I spentmany years trying to develop an appropriateand usable model for tropical conditions. Inthe most easily accessible paper on it(Elwell and Stocking 1982) we argued thecase. To use an empirical model such as

the USLE would have needed a hugenumber of experimental plots: severalreplicates for each major crop, eachreproduced for a number of slopesteepnesses, different major soils andclimatic zones. Each field plot back in 1982would have cost us US$1000 to install andinstrument and then at least $100 per yearfor maintenance and collection of samplesover a minimum 10-year period ofmonitoring. But we had only $8000 per yearbudget. A different approach to modellingwould be needed.

To cut a long story short we developedSLEMSA, the Soil Loss Estimation Model forSouthern Africa (Figure 1). The soil erosionprocess in the model is divided into fourphysical systems: climate, soil, crop andtopography. Within each system the majordominant factors controlling variations in soilloss in the erosive sub-tropical environmentof Zimbabwe were identified. These controlvariables should be rational and easy tomeasure or simple to gain from existing datasources. Rationality, we argued, wasparticularly important because it leads tological explanations and the possibility ofextrapolation to other sites with even lessdata, provided we knew the majorinteractions which affected erosion rates.For example, the seasonal energy (E) offersa rational explanation of sheet erosion as awork process, leading to the idea ofmodelling the role of crop cover as theinterception of E by a growing crop over aseason (i%). Further details and workedexamples of the use of SLEMSA can beobtained by writing to me.

SLEMSA, however, purported to provideabsolute figures of soil loss in tonnes perhectare per year. At the time of developingthe model, I thought that was a good ideaand worth doing. Now, I am not so sure.

The data base for SLEMSA is fielderosion plots. In our case the size was 10metres long by 3 metres wide - about aslarge as we could manage in catching therun-off and sediment of erosive storms.These were bounded plots: i.e., they hadboundaries across which, especially at the


Figure 1: SLEMSA Design Model

upper end, no soil or water could pass. Theythus represented artificial conditions. On areal slope there would be continualmovement down the slope consisting of soilloss and soil deposition. I now believe thatmany of our field plots grossly overestimateactual erosion on a slope. Hence, any modelderived from the data would also tend togive us misleadingly high rates of soil loss.

Be that as it may (and I cannot prove mycontention here without going into theliterature in detail), our real need in the fieldis to:• be able to say that one land use is

more hazardous than another;• give a scale of magnitude of how much

greater; say, ten times greater;• assess the hazard for any possible

combination of circumstances;• estimate the impact of erosion on soil

quality and hence on crop yields.In other words, even it soil loss models

which give absolute figures are accurate(they are not!), we really do not need thatinformation for land use planning purposes.With the exception of the last of the bulletedpoints above, we can get all the informationwe need from a simple erosion hazardassessment.

Erosion Hazard AssessmentErosion hazard is not an estimate of actualerosion; rather, it is the potential erosion thatmay happen on a site according to the valueof a number of simplified erosion factors,usually topography, soil type, climate andvegetation. These are the very same factorsthat are used in the SLEMSA erosion model(abbreviated to EHR in Table 1)


Table 1: Erosion Hazard Ratings for the Upper Mahaweli Catchment

Land use L.U. code EHRA. TEA

A 1 Vegetatively-propagated VPA.1.1 80+% cover VP VP1 1A.1.2 60-80% cover VP VP2 2A. 1.3 40-60% cover VP VP3 4A. 1.4 less than 40% cover VP VP4 32

A.2 SeedlingA.2.1 80+ % cover seedling T1 1A.2.2 60-80% cover seedling T2 2A.2.3 40-60% cover seedling T3 4A.2.4 less than 40% cover seedling T4 32

A.3 New plantings - average over 6 yrs NP 12- first year NP1 30

A.4 Diversified tea DTA.4.1 Newly-diversified, based on T4 DT4 28A.4.2 diversified; good cover DT2 2

B. PERENNIAL CROPSB.1 Kandyan Forest Gardens Gar 0.1B.2 Minor export crops MEC 2B.3 Other plantation perennials 1

- if with smallholder upland annual crops 30C. ANNUAL CROPS

C.1 Paddy P 0C.2 Chena - one year in 5 cultivation Ch 6C.3 Upland annual (rainfed crops) UAC

- in a cultivation year 40- in a weed fallow year 2

C.4 Vegetables VegC.4.1 on slope; no conservation Veg4 40C.4.2 with drains at angle to contour Veg3 20C.4.3 on bench terraces Veg1 0.2

C.5 Tobacco TobC.5.1 on uplands Tob4 40C.5.2 on paddylands Tobl 0

D. PLANTATIONS (all with good year-round ground cover- see multiplier factor if poor ground cover)

D.1 Eucalyptus PLE 1.5D.2 Pine PL12 2D.3 Other species PLO 1.5

- site preparation & establishment year for D1-3 30E. VEGETATION

E.1 Natural woodland (open) OWL 0.1E.2 Natural woodland (dense) DWL 0E.3 Scrub Sc 1E.4 Grassland Grl

E.4.1 dense; good cover Grl1 1E.4.2 poor; <40% cover Grl4 10


Therefore, in the Sri Lankan exampleintroduced at the beginning of this article,the opportunity was taken to adopt themodel to give approximate Erosion HazardRatings (EHRs) of the major land uses.Because I was anxious not to ascribeabsolute values of soil loss, lest they bemisconstrued for reality, EHRs weredesigned to give a 'rating magnitude' so thatit was possible to compare upland annualrainfed crops, say, with a good cover of teabushes. The standard EHR (EHR=1) wastaken to be vegetatively-propagated tea withmore than 80 per cent cover.

EHRs were calculated according to theSLEMSA design curves with particularemphasis on the crop cover curve which isthe single most sensitive variable affectingerosion rate (Table 1). Standard soil andslope conditions were taken for Sri Lanka'shill lands. On other sites, a simple sub-division into major typical land units could beused and the EHRs structured accordingly.

Field experience and guesswork will stillbe needed. The model serves only to putthe variables into a formal framework to givewhat are semi-quantitative estimates ofrelative hazard of erosion. Again, if readersof PLEC News and Views wish to receivethe full account of how EHRs wereestimated in Table 1, I can copy part of mySri Lankan report for them.

Conclusion

Rapid Rural Appraisal (RRA) andParticipatory Rural Appraisal (PRA) are verymuch in vogue today, and generally for

socioeconomic studies we are relatively wellserved as to suggestions for techniques tocarry out in the field. However, for changesin the quality of the environment and thedynamics of natural resource processes,there are a dearth of suggestions. Part ofthe problem is that most field-workers seethe challenge as technical and scientific,requiring specialist knowledge andexpertise. Some variables obviously doneed the employment of specialists: e.g. soilnutrient analysis. But, using a keen eye,field observation and a little inventivemodelling, along with the acceptance ofrelative rather than absolute measures,much can be gained as to environmentalchanges that are thought to be induced byland use.

Why not give it a try? Erosion hazardassessments provide a quick and relativelyclean estimate of what might be currentlyhappening in your field site and what mayhappen under any number of scenarios youmay invent. It's fun, and I would like to hearfrom you if you do try it.

References

Elwell, H.A. and M.A. Stocking (1982) Developinga simple yet practical method of soil lossestimation, Tropical Agriculture 59: 43-48.

Hudson, NW (1993) Field measurement of soilerosion and runoff, FAO Soils Bulletin 68,Rome, 139pp.

Stocking, M.A. (1993) Soil erosion in the upperMahaweli Catchment, Sri Lanka.Development Studies Discussion Paper 226(also report to ODA, Bangkok).


THE AGENDA AND METHODS OFPLEC

Harold Brookfield (Scientific Coordinator ofPLEC)

The Background of this Paper

This paper is a modified version of akeynote paper delivered at the Chiang Maiconference. The UNU Programme ofCollaborative Research on Population, LandManagement and Environmental Change(PLEC) has evolved and changed overseveral stages since its inception as aproject in 1992. The most recent publishedstatement is that prepared by the ScientificAdvisory Group (J. Momsen, C. Padoch andM. Stocking) and Brookfield in SanFrancisco at New Year, 1994, andpresented in PLEC News and Views no.2, inFebruary 1994. In this it was stated (interalia) that:

PLEC seeks to examine and disaggregatethe processes of adaptation of indigenousresource management and land usethrough a series of field-based researchprojects in key agro-ecological zones oftropical and sub-tropical environ-ments ... Effective management systemsdo not have to be invented only by modernscience. They exist, and have beencontinuously developed by the world'sfarmers.

These ideas were further elaborated in ashort document about the project preparedfor a small workshop on PLEC, sponsoredand convened by the GEF Unit of UNEP, inWashington in March 1994. In thatdocument, emphasis was placed on therole of diverse small-farming agroeco-systems in conservation of the structuraland trophic as well as species biodiversitythat is central to biophysical sustainability.In the light of advice received at thatworkshop, some significant changes havebeen made in the stated aims and agenda ofthe project. The present paper draws ona recent revision to present a more clearlydirected agenda than in earlier projectpresentations, and thereby to raise a

number of issues for discussion within PLEC.

Redefining the Agenda

However the objectives are phrased, thecore of the project lies in:(1) the analysis of diverse small-farmer

agroecosystems adapting toenvironmental dynamics and topressures of change;

(2) discovering and assessing methods andconditions which are conducive tobiophysical sustainability in suchsystems;

(3) explaining why some farmerssuccessfully conserve, while others donot;

(4) in this latter process, taking account of agrowing body of evidence showing theabsence of any simple relationshipbetween population growth anddegradation.

A distinction is now made between theglobal objectives of the project, which areprimarily methodological, and the objectiveswithin each region, which embraceexplanation of the actual dynamic situationencountered. Globally, we are concernedwith generating a methodological frame-work for the analysis of sustainability, andespecially of a sustainability that embracesbiodiversity conservation. This is well inaccordance with our initial and continuingargument that diversity of and withinagroecosystems, which is what we term'agrodiversity', has a major role in creatingthe conditions of sustainability. Biophysicalsustainability involves two main elements:(a) management of soil and water; (b)maintenance of structural and trophic aswell as genetic biodiversity. However,conservationist management can only beachieved under socio-economic conditionsthat permit and encourage good


management, and are themselvessustainable. Both biodiversity conservation,especially in farmed areas, and sustain-ability, are more fundamentally societalproblems than they are technical.Moreover, they are societal problems thatfocus on the resource manager, the farmer.Our purpose is to develop and demonstratea replicable method whereby theseconsiderations can be put into anoperational form.

Our regional research groups, which weterm 'clusters', will realistically retain greaterautonomy in research design under thisframework than under earlier proposals toseek comparability between the actual area-specific findings of research. This is not tosay that there will be no comparability, but itis to say that three to five years is too shorta period in which to analyse it in asystematic way. Although all our researchareas are characterized by significantagrodiversity, they are very unlike in otherrespects. Each has its distinctiveenvironment, society, polity and history.There are common forces, increasinglytrans-national, that affect all, but they do notoperate everywhere in the same way. In sofar as we find that they do operate in parallelways, this will be interesting, but we cannotassume that this will be the case in the basicresearch design.

Some Corollaries

There is a number of corollaries which followfrom this re-statement of objectives, andwhich indicate the type of methodology thatmust be employed, with differences whichaccord with the varied biophysical conditionsof each research area, its population and itshistory.

• The need for relevance andsimplicity Although the project hasscientific value in its own right, and thenetwork of scientists that it will create islikely to have enduring value, ours arepractical goals which demand the

achievement of demonstrable results withinlimited time. Moreover, they must becommunicated in places where they willhave effect, including the cooperatingfarmers and regional authorities themselvesas well as national and internationalresearchers and policy makers. In order todo this we need to evolve elements ofcommon methodology so far as is possibleand, without ignoring complexity among theinteractions that we study, seek 'quick andnot too dirty' methods and indicators. Theseshould be governing considerations in ourplanning.

• Moving between scales of resolutionThere must be similarity in the scale anddepth of resolution of research in differentareas. We would, I think, mostly agree thatwork must focus on specific areas ratherthan wide regions, and especially onagroecosystems defined at the level of acommunity or a small region occupied andused by a modest number of farmers whocan be associated with the research. This isthe only level at which farmers' decision-making and innovation can be understoodand at which the effects of human activity onbiodiversity and the land can be measured.Such work must, however, be put in contextfor we are describing agrodiversity,sustainability and the conservation ofbiodiversity, and their causes within regions,not only at sites. This demands that thehierarchical sequence from site, throughagroecosystem, to region and nation, mustbe incorporated into our methods. Figure 1,adapted from an illustration used in earlierpresentations, suggests there is a centralarea of 'agroecosystem and agrariansociety', within which the farm and field areunits that manage the biophysical system.This 'central' system can itself be viewed atseveral scales, from village to region, andthe biophysical environment changes inscale as we do so. However, managementtakes place under societal conditions whichin modem times are in large measuredetermined from the state and the worldeconomy, and which at all times have been


determined by a regional political economy.A simplified listing of elements to be takeninto account is presented, though by nomeans complete. So also are some of themain paths via which stresses impinge onthe system, and the two outstandingsources of largely unpredictable externalvariability.

• Trends and changes through timeWe deal with dynamic management ofdynamic environments, and the conditionschange greatly through time. Earlier, wedescribed the time frame of the project as'near-contemporary', but everyone hasdisregarded this limitation and now is thetime to reject it. On the contrary, the morewe can learn about the past, the better wecan understand the present and project thefuture. We are not going to observe much inthe way of innovation and adaptation over aperiod of only three or four years, and maynot see too much in the way of change insocietal conditions over so short a time.Interpretation and prognostication on thebasis only of contemporary observationscan very readily be erroneous, as manystudies have demonstrated. Detailedinvestigation over time has, in several areas,demonstrated that supposed unilineartrends toward environmental degradationunder human pressure are simply wrong.Yet, in most of the areas that we study,reliable information on conditions in eventhe quite recent past is scanty, and iteverywhere deteriorates in quality as we gobackward in time. This cannot beovercome, but if we are to understandadaptation to changing conditions we needto penetrate as far back into the past as wecan, using all possible sources.1

1 The splendid modern tools of remote sensingand even air photography, together with reliablepopulation and production numbers, take us backonly a limited way in providing a hard-data basefor the softer data that come from other sources.However, an excellent example of what can be donethrough historical reconstruction inelucidating environmental history comes fromwork on the forest-savanna interface in Guinea,

• Farmers's knowledge and Its valueClosely related to the above corollaries isthe need to work with the farmers, tounderstand the problems of managementand adaptation as they see them, and topay close attention to their understanding ofboth natural and societal conditions withinwhich their decision-making takes place.Although the limits of folk memory and'ethnohistory' need to be fully appreciated,and memories of change are inevitablyselective, the farmers and older members oftheir families are an important source ofinformation concerning change, bothagricultural and environmental, in the recentpast. Their scientific understanding of theirown environments, and knowledge of thebiota which it contains, or formerlycontained, need to be treated as majorsources of information. They, moreover, arethe people who feel the direct and localimpact of changes in national (andinternational) policy, however much or littlethey appreciate the reasons. The value ofthis data source is rather clearlydemonstrated in the preliminary report of theGhanaian group, summarized in the secondissue of PLEC News and Views (Gyasi et al.1994).

Considerations of Methodology: BasicElements

Figure 1 is also useful in defining someparts of our methodological task. The natureof the farming system changes theweighting given to different elementsthroughout the diagram. A farm producingmainly for the subsistence of its own peopleis far less affected by the wider system thanis a mainly commercial farm, and thepressures on it coming from that wider

West Africa, where common supposition of adeteriorating trend is overturned by use ofsources that, inter alia, include air photographypreviously misinterpreted (Fairhead and Leach,forthcoming).


Figure 1

system are different in nature. Even withinthe biophysical environment, there are majordifferences between the weighting ofelements in areas respectively of high orlow, or secure or variable, rainfall. All this isself-evident, but it underscores the need formethods that will enable us to achieveresults around the central project questions,and to move fairly readily between scales.Scale and societal considerations changethe weight given to different elements. Thecritical aspects of land tenure, rights ofaccess to environmental resources, class,gender and age, migration and off-farmopportunities, are all important at the level ofagrarian society and its resourcemanagement.

Also prominent in Figure 1 is the place ofbiodiversity. Although the quantitiesattached to each element are essentiallyproducts of the farming system, they alsorelate closely to the natural biophysicalsystem, which in large measure determines

what is possible. Coupled with themanagement of land and biota varying insensitivity to interference, and in resilience orrecovery capacity after interference,biodiversity is central in maintainingbiophysical sustainability, especially throughits consequences for soil fauna and flora.Poor management of the land andbiodiversity lead to degradation, which inturn imposes environmental stresses on themanagement system, requiring adaptationsthat may or may not take place. This centralquestion can then only be answered byreference to the management capacity ofthe farm households, within agrarian societyas a whole, in turn greatly influenced by theforces emanating from the higher levels ofregional, state and global economy andpolity. What really happens is a constantreshaping of local strategies in the contextof opportunities, pressures andenvironmental dynamics, with externalforces in continuous interaction with local


systems, structures, abilities and percep-tions of reality. This basic and simplifiedstructure thus helps isolate what we need toanalyse and explain.

Methods for the Field

Not only do members of different disciplineshave their own sets of methods, butdistinctive ranges of field methods are calledfor in contrasted environments. The fieldstudy of agrodiversity, its environmentalconsequences and societal correlates, is notan area that would gain from uniformity inapproach. The diversity of methodologicalexperience brought into PLEC is a strengthin this connexion. None the less, we canlearn from one another, and the lessons ofgreatest general value concern simplemethods that can be widely applied, andwhich are sparing in their use of data.

This applies whether we are looking atthe land and its cover, at farming systems,at the social relations of production, orinquiring into the changing pool of farmers'knowledge on which management is based.In teasing out the real essentials of anagricultural system and its problems, manyof us would argue from our experience thatthis is a job that demands research spreadover years. But we do not have such time,and the necessary full baseline historicalinformation that might substitute is rarelyavailable. The classic long period ofintensive field research in anthropology andsome related disciplines is a feasiblealternative for our students, and this is onereason why PLEC clusters should makeearly efforts to involve and train students.Long-period field-work is, however, anoption rarely open for the rest of us. Wetherefore need to take account of the short-cut methods of Rapid Rural Appraisal thathave evolved since the late 1970s and,within the Southeast Asian region, havebeen the subject of one important meeting(Khon Kaen University 1987). I am notsuggesting that we simply take as given thehandbook methods of RRA and PRA

(Chambers 1992) that are widely available inthe literature, but a good deal of our workwill have to be accomplished during thelimited periods which principal researchersare able to spend in the field, and ourmethods must, adaptively, reflect thislimitation.

Our membership provides us with anumber of examples of quick ways in whichto undertake large jobs. For example, ourAustralian-Papua New Guinea group hasdeveloped a methodology for theclassification of land-use (or agriculture)systems over large areas that was ondisplay in poster form at Chiang Mai, and willbe written up in a forthcoming number ofPLEC News and Views. In view of the needto 'scale down' the findings of detailed localresearch to regional level, this has particularsignificance. While specific to a certain,though wide, range of agroecosystems, itcontains elements that can be appliedthroughout several of our research areas.

In mainland Southeast Asia, our Thaicolleagues and their collaborators in theSoutheast Asian Universities'Agroecosystem Network (SUAN), havedeveloped the agroecosystem method ofConway (1985, 1987), together with RRA,and applied it in a range of situations and toa number of specific problems. While othersin other parts of the world also write ofagroecosystems, they do not use the sameapproach. Our colleagues who aremembers of SUAN will, again in thenewsletter as well as in the special numberof Global Environmental Change, discussthe utility of the Conway/SUAN approachesfor our benefit.

There are also specific techniques onwhich we can draw. This number of PLECNews and Views carries a discussion byStocking of a simple method for soil lossestimation developed in southern Africa byElwell and Stocking (1982), and morerecently applied by him in Sri Lanka. Forthe analysis of biodiversity, there is probablyno real substitute for the classic methods ofbotanical inventory, including quadratsampling supplemented by transects,


though if the sampling is good this can bequite rapid. Transect method is important,and the next number of PLEC News andViews will contain a paper by Lewis Enu-Kwesi and two of his colleagues on thecollaborative transect methods that wereused in the pioneer survey in Ghana.

It is relevant that, drawing on old-fashioned methods for micro-regionalanalysis of landscapes, especially in land-resource surveys, landscape ecologistshave developed the useful generalizingconcept which they call the 'ecotope', beingthe smallest uniform 'building blocks' of totallandscape, including both biosphere andgeosphere elements. This concept isapplicable both to natural and createdlandscape elements, such as a floodplain-segment, a distinctive plant habitat, awoodland or a group of fields sharing acommon set of ecological characteristics.1Most of us will probably prefer to think andwrite in terms of 'land-use units', morerelevant for our purposes, but we shouldnote the contribution of the landscapeecologists in defining such units. It is therepetition in combination of such essentiallysimilar complexes across a singleagroecosystem, and its neighbouringwilderness, that distinguishes such a systemfrom others. Within agroecosystems, thesecomplexes provide units from whichsamples may be drawn for more detailedanalysis of species content, earth-surfaceprocess, and management sustainability.Moreover, there are useful proxy indicatorsof trophic biodiversity that can be applied at 1 Naveh and Lieberman 1990:76-84. A range ofterms has been suggested to describe theseecologically-uniform vegetation complexes in aliterature extending back to the 1950s. The term'ecotope' has the advantage of neutrality betweennatural and human-use complexes, and ofencompassing a wider range of elements thansuch terms as 'land unit' or 'land use'. At thesame time, h describes a specific minimalelement in landscape, whereas the wider term.ecosystem' is applicable over a range of scales.Agroecosystems may therefore contain several'ecotopes'.

the level of such complexes. One, forexample, is the abundance and diversity ofbirds at their commonest feeding time inearly morning and late afternoon. Anintriguing use of this method, from anunpublished doctoral thesis, was brought tothe attention of the Chiang Mai meeting(Nuberg 1994).

The question of sustainability is morecomplex. Unless we can date a systemeffectively, as Humphreys (1994) did inPLEC News and Views no. 2, it is difficult inthe extreme to be certain that what weobserve is sustainable. Our problem isenhanced by the fact that an agroecosystemcontains a range of methods, some of whichmay be sustainable while others are not, andthe sustainability of the whole depends onpossibilities for substitution. Attemptingto combine too much in a single indicator, acurrent 'Framework for the Evaluation ofSustainable Land Management', based onthe FAO Land Evaluation, experiencesenormous problems in determining a timeperiod for 'sustainability' (Dumanski andSmyth 1993).2 Commenting on thisapproach, Humphreys and I conclude in aforthcoming paper that what is more readilyobservable is the absence of clear evidenceof biophysical unsustainability. If this muchcan be established, then the possibilityexists that a system may be sustainablewhile remaining in its present form. On theother hand, we must recognize that collapsemay be just around the corner.

The question of how to determinesustainability is a critical one for PLEC. AtChiang Mai, most participants urged that asystem must be sustainable economicallyand socially, as well as biophysically, if it isto have continued life. Without disagreeingwith this view, I there advanced a view

2 The system requires determination ofindicators in four domains, physical, biological,social and economic, to produce a singleindicator of sustainability. For this reason, about25 years is regarded as the limit of prediction;and the dividing line between 'sustainable' and'unsustainable' is placed as low as five years.


which I reiterate here that biophysical andsocioeconomic sustainability are interrelatedbut separate questions. The latter is anecessary condition for achievement of theformer, and the former is necessary if thelatter is itself to be sustained. However, thenature, time-scale and reversibility of theprocesses involved are so different, thatthey need to be approached in tandem butin different ways. We had a lively discussionon this topic in Chiang Mai, and the questionis certainly far from closed.

At this stage, I offer the principle that,while detailed and long-term scientificanalysis must remain the essential basis forsound conclusions, we also need to seekout useful indicator methods that are sparingin their data requirements, and to try themout. In this way we are much more likely tocontribute to a replicable and adoptablemethodology for the study of agroecosystembiodiversity and sustainability in developingcountries.

Method for Explanation

The complexity of the forces bearing on landmanagement, and the task of explainingwhy conservationist practices are adoptedor are not adopted, is daunting. Taken inconjunction with the biosphysical diversity ofthe areas we are studying, it has beenrightly argued that controlled comparisonsacross regions are unattainable within thetime span available to us. None the less,there are similarities in these forceseverywhere in the world, and theyeverywhere range in scale of operation fromthe global to the local scales. A commonmethodology for analysis can therefore beproposed, different though the subsequentdetails of explanation may be.

One such methodology was proposed byBlaikie and Brookfield (1987:27-48), andtermed the 'chain of explanation'. It waselaborated by demonstration in explanationof the ecological problems of Nepal. The'chain of explanation' was further developedby Blaikie (1989), but in a purely

contemporary context without the historicaldimension prominent in the original casestudy. The following summarizes theoriginal presentation

the approach follows a chain ofexplanation. It starts with the landmanagers and their direct relations with theland (crop rotations, fuelwood use,stocking densities, capital investments andso on). The next link concerns theirrelations with each other, other land users,and groups in the wider society who affectthem in any way, which in turn determinesland management. The state and theworld economy constitute the last links ofthe chain (Blaikie and Brookfield 1987:27).

If, as in that book, the explicandum wasdegradation at the farm level, the pointsalong the chain each provide an hypothesisor – in the case of population pressureoutstandingly – a group of hypotheses.3From among these, some are clearlypotentially more powerful than others, but allcan be treated as multiple workinghypotheses, each of which may hold somepart of the truth. Moreover, causes interact.From the point of view of PLEC, interactionswithin the agroecosystem and agrariansociety are part of adaptation, and theprincipal disturbing forces are external, thatis from the right hand side of Figure 1.

Thus the major threats to agrodiversity inthe Amazon floodplain seem to come fromcommercial forces and national policy.4 InEast Africa, population growth andcommercialization may have differentialeffects depending on location and localresponse, but seem to be the principalcontemporary forces. In Thailand, we haveseen that commercialization has led toreduction of crop biodiversity. Dealing with 3 See the partial review of hypotheses offeringexplanation of land management questionsoffered in PLEC News and Views No.l. Theprincipal conflict lies between 'NeoMalthusian'and 'Boserup-type' explanations, but a range ofbehavioural explanations is also important.4 Serrão 1994.


these self-evident leading hypotheses, it isprobably a more cost-effective strategy toreverse the Blaikie-Brookfield chain, and firstdetermine - through time - the powerfulexternal forces. These then provide multipleworking hypotheses for the analysis of local-level adaptation. In this way, too, we mighteven reach some useful comparativeconclusions of more than local domain.

Conclusion

These are among the considerations thatrequire discussion in PLEC. There is morethat could and should be said, but this isalready a longish paper. I concludetherefore with one central consideration.PLEC is at work in a field where our taskentails the questioning of conventionalwisdom about environment, population anddevelopment - not excluding questioning ofour own conventional wisdom. In ourpresent form, at least, we have to operatewithin a limited time frame, and obtainresults that will be of service in the countriesin which we work, and in the widerbiodiversity and agricultural developmentcommunities, within that time. In order toachieve these we must design our work,within PLEC, parsimoniously. This does notmean 'cutting corners', but it does meanfinding clear paths, comparable across theproject, toward common goals.

References

Blaikie, P. (1989) Explanation and policy in landdegradation and rehabilitation for developingcountries, Land Degradation andRehabilitation 1: 23-37.

Blaikie, P. and H. Brookfield, with contributionsby others (1987) Land Degradation andSociety, London and New York, Methuen.

Chambers, R. (1992) Rural Appraisal. Rapid,Relaxed and Participatory IDS DiscussionPaper 311, Brighton, England, Institute ofDevelopment Studies at the University ofSussex.

Conway, G.R. (1985) Agroecosystem analysis,Agricultural Administration 20: 31-55.

Conway, G.R. (1987) The properties ofagroecosystems, Agricultural Systems 24: 95-117.

Dumanski, J. and A.J. Smyth (1993) The issuesand challenges of sustainable landmanagement. Paper delivered at theInternational Workshop on Sustainable LandManagement for the 21st Century,Lethbridge, Alberta, Canada, 21-25 June1993, (Mimeo).

Elwell, H.A. and M.A. Stocking (1982) Developinga simple yet practical method for soil-lossestimation, Tropical Agriculture 59: 43-48.

Fairhead, J. and M. Leach (forthcoming)Enriching landscapes: social history and themanagement of transition ecology in Guinea'sforest-savanna mosaic, (Africa 1995).

Gyasi, E.A., G.T. Agyepong, E. Ardayfio-Schandorf, L. Enu-Kwesi, J.S. Nabilia and E.Owusi-Bennoah, with the assistance of S.K.Kufogbe and technical advice by G. Benneh(1994) Environmental Endanger-ment in theForest-Savanna Zone of Southern Ghana,Legon, University of Ghana, Department ofGeography and Resource Management(Mimeo) [Summarized in PLEC News andViews 2: 10-14].

Humphreys, G.S. (1994) Deciphering land usehistory from hillslopes: an example from NewGuinea, PLEC News and Views 2: 21-25.

Khon Kaen University, 1987. Proceedings of the1985 International Conference on RapidRural Appraisal, Khon Kaen, Thailand; RuralSystems Research and Farming SystemsResearch Projects.

Naveh, Z. and A.S. Lieberman (1990) LandscapeEcology.. Theory and Application, New York,Springer Verlag.

Nuberg, I.K. (1994) Appropriate Interventions forRehabilitating Degraded Tropical Uplands,unpublished PhD Thesis in EnvironmentalPlanning, University of Melbourne,Melbourne, Australia.

Serrão, E.A. (1994) The Amazon floodplain: thenext major frontier for food production, PLECNews and Views 2: 25-26.


SELECTED REFERENCES FOR PLEC

There have been several requests for lists of useful references from the literature to be includedin these newsletters. A selection of references will appear in most issues from now on. Thepresent list concentrates mainly on African titles excluding those already cited in PLEC Newsand Views Nos. 1 and 2. Suggestions from members of material for inclusion in subsequent listswould be welcome.

Muriel Brookfield Fax: 616 249 4896 email: mbrook @coombs.anu.edu.au

Allan, W. (1965) The African Husbandman,Edinburgh, Oliver and Boyd.

Amanor, K.S. (1994) Ecological knowledge andthe regional economy: environmentalmanagement in the Asesewa district ofGhana, Development and Change 25 (l): 41.

Benneh, G. (1973) Small-scale farming systemsin Ghana, Africa 43: 131-146.

Benneh, G. et al. (1990) Land Degradation inGhana, London, Commonwealth Secretariatand Legon, Department of Geography andResource Development, University of Ghana.

Berry, S. (1984) The food crisis and agrarianchange in Africa: a review essay, AfricanStudies Review 27 (2): 59-112.

Bratton, M. (1987) Drought, food and the socialorganization of small farmers in Zimbabwe, inM.H. Glantz (ed.), Drought and Hunger inAfrica, New York, Praeger Publishers.

Brokensha, D.W., D.M. Warren, and 0. Werner(eds) (1980) Indigenous Knowledge Systemsand Development, Lanham, MD, UniversityPress of America, Inc. [Influential collection]

Brokensha, D.W. and P.D. Little (eds) (1988)Anthropology of Development and Change inEast Africa, Boulder, Westview Press. [Casestudies]

Campbell, D.J., L.M. Zinyama and T. Matiza(1989) Strategies for coping with food deficitsin rural Zimbabwe, Geographical Journal ofZimbabwe 20:15-41.

Chambers, R., A. Pacey and L.A. Thrupp (eds)(1989) Farmer First: Farmer Innovation andAgricultural Research, London, IntermediateTechnology Publications. [Important, includesAfrican examples]

Chavangi, N.A. (1992) Household based treeplanting activities for fuelwood supply in ruralKenya, in D.R.F. Taylor and F. Mackenzie(eds), Development from Within: Survival inRural Africa, London, Routledge.

Clark, D.E. and S.A. Brandt (eds) (1984) FromHunters to Farmers: the Causes and

Consequences of Food Production in Africa,Berkeley, University of California Press. [Pre-historians' view of development of Africanagriculture]

Cleave, J. H. (1974) African Farmers: Labour Usein the Development of SmallholderAgriculture, New York, Praeger Publishers.[50 surveys of smallholder farmers]

Cleaver, K.M. and G.A. Schreiber (1992) ThePopulation, Agriculture and EnvironmentNexus in Sub-Saharan Africa, Washington,World Bank, Agriculture Division, WesternAfrican Department.

Collinson, M.P. (1982) Farming SystemsResearch in Eastern Africa: the Experience ofCIMMYT and Some National AgriculturalResearch Services, 1976-81, InternationalDevelopment Paper no. 3, East Lansing,Department of Agricultural Economics,Michigan State University. [Basis of muchmodern FSR]

Dei, G.J.S. (1988) Crisis and adaptation in aGhanaian forest community, AnthropologicalQuarterly 61(2): 63-72.

De Schlippe, P. (1956) Shifting Cultivation inAfrica: the Zande System of Agriculture,London, Routledge and Kegan Paul. [Apioneer study]

Fairhead, J. and M. Leach (forthcoming)Enriching landscapes: social history and themanagement of transition ecology in Guinea'sforest-savanna mosaic, to appear in Africa,1995. [Overturns conventional wisdom]

Feldstein, H.S., D.E. Rochelau and L.E. Buck(1989) Kenya: agroforestry extension andresearch: a case study from Siaya District, inH.S. Feldstein and S.V. Poats (eds), WorkingTogether: Gender Analysis in Agriculture,West Hartford, Kumarian Press.

Fleuret, P. (1988) Farmers, cooperatives, anddevelopment assistance in Uganda: ananthropological perspective, in D.W.Brokensha and P. D. Little (eds),


Anthropology of Development and Change in EastAfrica, Boulder, Westview Press.

Franzel, S. and E.W. Crawford (1987) Comparingformal and informal survey techniques forFarming Systems Research: a case studyfrom Kenya, Agricultural Administration andExtension 27(l): 13-33.

Green, R.H. (1989) Degradation of RuralDevelopment: development of ruraldegradation - change and peasants in sub-Saharan Africa, IDS Discussion Paper no.265, Sussex, IDS.

Gyasi, E.A. (1991) Communal land tenure andthe spread of agroforestry in Ghana'sMampong Valley, Ecology and Farming 2:16-17.

Haswell, M. and D. Hunt (eds) (1991) RuralHouseholds in Emerging Societies:Technology and Change in Sub-SaharanAfrica, Oxford, Berg. [issues and casestudies]

Heyer, J., P. Roberts and G. Williams (eds)(1981) Rural Development in Tropical Africa,London, The Macmillan Press Ltd. [Casestudies].

Hill, P. (1963) The Migrant Cocoa-Farmers ofSouthern Ghana: A Study in RuralCapitalism, London, Cambridge UniversityPress. [Classic study]

Hill, P. (1972) Rural Hausa: a Village and aSetting, London, Cambridge University Press.[Another classic P. Hill: on indigenouseconomy]

Huss-Ashmore, R. and S.H. Katz (eds) (1989)African Food Systems in Crisis. Part One:Microperspectives, New York, Gordon andBreach Science Publishers. [Adaptivestrategies]

Moock, J.L. (ed.) (1986) Understanding Africa'sRural Households and Farming Systems,Boulder, Westview Press. [Useful.. generaland case studies]

Nindi, B.C. (1988) Issues in agricultural change:case study from Ismani, lringa Region,Tanzania, in D.W. Brokensha and P.D. Little(eds), Anthropology of Development andChange in East Africa, Boulder, WestviewPress.

O'Keefe, L. and M. Howes (1979) A selectannotated bibliography: indigenous technicalknowledge in development, IDS Bulletin10(2): 51-58.

Ondiege, P.O. (1992) Local coping strategies inMachakos District, Kenya, in D.R.F. Taylor

and F. Mackenzie (eds), Development fromWithin: Survival in Rural Africa, London,Routledge.

Richards, P. (1983) Ecological change and thepolitics of African land use, African StudiesReview 26(2): 1-72.

Richards, P. (1985) Indigenous AgriculturalRevolution: Ecology and Food Production inWest Africa, London, Hutchison. [Influentialand readable]

Riddell, B. (1992) The ever-changing land:adaptation and tenure in Africa, CanadianJournal of African Studies 26(2): 337-341.

Suda, C. (1989) Differential participation of menand women in production and reproduction inKakamega District: implications for equity,Journal of Developing Societies 5: 234-244.

Taylor, D.R.F. and F. Mackenzie (1992)Development from Within: Survival in RuralAfrica, London, Routledge. [Case studies]

Tiffen, M. and M. Mortimore (1992) Environment,population growth and productivity in Kenya:a case study of Machakos District,Development Policy Review 10: 359-387.

Tiffen, M., M. Mortimore and F.N. Gichuki (1993)More People, Less Erosion. Chichester, UK,Wiley. [Expands previous paper]

Turner, B.L.II, G. Hyden and R. Kates (eds)(1993) Population Growth and AgriculturalChange in Africa, Gainesville, UniversityPress of Florida. [Population growth =agricultural intensification? Valuable casestudies in E. Africa and Nigeria]

Watts, M. (1983) Silent Violence: Food, Famineand Peasantry in Northern Nigeria, Berkeley,University of California Press. [687pp.]

World Bank (1981) Accelerated Development inSub-Saharan Africa: an Agenda for Action,Washington, D.C., World Bank. [The BergReport]

Zinyama, L.M., T. Matiza and D.J. Campbell(1990) The use of wild foods during periods offood shortage in rural Zimbabwe, Ecology ofFood and Nutrition 24: 251-265.

OTHER NEWS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS(continued from page 10)

A Chinese student in the Msc (AgriculturalSystems) programme at Chiang Mai


University, Ms Cai Kui, will participate in thework of the cluster, working in one or more ofthe Xishuangbanna villages in Yunnan asher thesis topic.

Items of news about other members will bewelcome, for inclusion in the next number ofPLEC News and Views.

Some lastpage photographs:-from top left clockwise : 1. Stocking and Momsen; 2. Ohtsuka and Nakada; 3. One of our

Karen hosts at Mae Rid Pagae

ABOUT THIS NEWSLETTER

PLEC NEWS AND VIEWS is the main means of general communication within PLEC, and atthe same time a principal means of telling others about PLEC. It will appear about twice a year(but not at exact intervals) through the life of the project. The first issue, published in July1993, presented basic information about the project that will not appear again. This volumediffers slightly from the standard format.

Editor

PLEC NEWS AND VIEWS is published for the United Nations University by the Department ofAnthropology, Division of Society and Environment, Research School of Pacific and AsianStudies, The Australian National University. Production work has been undertaken by Ria vande Zandt and Margaret Tyrie. Artwork is by Margaret Tyrie and Keith Mitchell.

Copyright: Permission to copy any material in this Newsletter will be given, provided that fullreference to the author, title, volume title, and place and date of publication are given.Abstracting does not require permission. Enquiries should be addressed to the Editor,Professor Harold Brookfield, Department of Anthropology, Division of Society and Environment,Research School of Pacific and Asian Studies (RSPAS), The Australian National University,Canberra, ACT 0200, Australia. Fax: (+61-6) 2494896. E-mail: [email protected]

PLEC NEWS AND VIEWS

• Published about twice yearly• Editor: Professor Harold Brookfield• Address: Department of Anthropology, Division

of Society and Environment, RSPAS,The Australian National University, Canberra,ACT 0200, Australia

• Phone: +61 (0)6 2494348• Fax: +61 (0)6 2494896• e-mail: [email protected]

PLEC NEWS AND VIEWSarchive.unu.edu/env/plec/pnv/pnv3 · PLEC NEWS AND VIEWS No. 3 – July 1994 A...

Documents

Transcript of PLEC NEWS AND VIEWSarchive.unu.edu/env/plec/pnv/pnv3 · PLEC NEWS AND VIEWS No. 3 – July 1994 A...