Developing Governance Mechanisms for Agricultural Heritage Conservation 1

Developing governance mechanisms for agricultural heritage conservation[1]

By Frank van Schoubroeck[2], Luohui Liang[3], Qingwen Min[4], Arend Jan van Bodegom[5]

Abstract

The paper discusses the development of a methodology for an agricultural heritage conservation project. Such a methodology would allow practitioners in the field to make sense of the proposed “holistic approach” to agricultural heritage conservation. Constructivist learning theory proposes that conditions for actors to learn and change are animation, direction, updating, respectful interaction and a conducive actor configuration. Various proposed methodologies had different merits. The concept of “holistic approach” and “adaptive management” animated actors to come together. A “multi-stakeholder process” approach allowed for updating the concept and respectful interaction. “Farmer-centered” approaches provided for direction. None of these approaches led to actor configurations that were effective enough to initiate and implement a project. In field situations however the authors found that actors spontaneously organized around “urgent issues” such as World Heritage designation and niche marketing. The article concludes that in present circumstances, the most promising methodology is to have lead actors carry out multi-stakeholder processes around issues such as water management, land tenure, land use planning, niche marketing, ecotourism; depending on the local situation. The aim of such a process would be to develop governance mechanisms to enable farmers to continue maintaining and developing their agricultural heritage systems.

1  Institutional development for family agriculture

1.1  Conserving agricultural heritage

In the early 2000s, the Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) initiated a project to adapt and conserve Globally Important Agricultural Heritage Systems (GIAHS). GIAHS are “socio-ecological systems” in which farmers use land and local flora and fauna in intricate, culturally embedded systems to provide food and other services (Bedel, 2004, FAO 2002, Howard, in prep.). Examples include rice terrace systems, mountain and pastoral as well as oasis agricultural systems.

Many such Agricultural Heritage Systems are threatened by farmers adopting (subsidised) green revolution techniques, by replacement of customary institutions by the state, or by impoverishment of the system as cheap food gets imported – leading to people leaving for economic opportunities elsewhere. Land thus gets conversed to alternative uses such as intensive farming, or housing, or is left abandoned, or degraded.

FAO aims to implement the GIAHS project to support conservation of agricultural systems, and designate some GIAHS as “agricultural heritage” – loosely based on UNESCO’s “World Heritage” listing system. Unlike architectonic world heritage or nature reserves, agricultural heritage cannot be conserved in the strict sense of the word. Adaptation to the changing (socio-political) environment is an essential aspect of such systems and rural communities are an essential component (Harrop, 2006). Thus, FAO proposes to safeguard GIAHS through community participation, adapting to changes in the social, political and natural environments. In 2002-2007, GEF was a decisive donor to the project.

1.2  How can practitioners “make sense” of new approaches?

After FAO had initiated the project in pilot sites, Wageningen International (WI) received a grant to “… guide the national and local facilitating staff of pilot projects in structuring multi-stakeholder processes that will enable the direct GIAHS stakeholders to formulate pilot frameworks.” (IAC, 2005, p.4). The authors were requested to conceptualise and test a methodology in existing pilot sites, to develop a “GIAHS methodology” for the project implementation phase from 2007 to 2012 in which FAO will guide existing actors to carry out agricultural heritage conservation. The aim of such methodology would be to bridge the GIAHS concept and realisation of heritage conservation in practice. A good methodology would enable actors to understand, design and implement a GIAHS adaptive conservation project. For the evaluation of possible methodologies, the authors drew on Weick (2000), who argues that practitioners need certain conditions to make sense of innovations. The conditions they propose are: vitalization, direction, updating and respectful interaction. As the GIAHS project is going to be implemented by a conglomerate of organizations, a configuration of organizations (Termeer, 2006) is another condition for the project to be successfully implemented. Table 1 gives an overview and a brief explanation of these conditions.

Table 1. Conditions for actors to make sense of innovations such as GIAHS conservation (derived from Termeer, 2006)

Beer & Nohria, 2000 propose that it does not really matter what innovation methodology is applied, if only it provides the above mentioned conditions for innovation. Most process managers fulfill one or two of the above mentioned conditions; rarely all four of them. In that case, practitioners get confusing messages, and are likely to fall back on old, proven strategies and working routines. In this paper we use the above set of five conditions to evaluate possible methodologies for the discussed FAO project. As we will see, elements of each proposed methodology will be taken to build a “GIAHS methodology” around the elaboration of governance mechanisms for urgent issues.

1.3  Working procedure

The authors were involved as advisors to FAO and/or GIAHS pilot teams, or were a member of such teams, and they built further on FAO’s project achievements. The FAO project proposal to GEF (FAO, 2007) was a continuous source of inspiration and is referred to as the “GIAHS project document” in this study. The study took place in selected pilot sites, i.e., Longxian Village, Qintian County, PR China; Ifugao Rice Terrace system in The Philippines, and Gafsa Oasis, Tunisia – apart from a few others. The authors carried out joint missions and field visits and commented each others field reports. Associated papers were discussed in a global forum on GIAHS in autumn 2006 where all GIAHS country teams participated, including Chile and Peru teams (that were not part of this study). During the entire process of GIAHS methodology development, FAO acted as “process manager” by taking a facilitating and directing role. Figure 1 presents the chronological order in which the work was carried out. This paper aims to present the experiential learning process, to allow for a critical review of the proposed methodology.

Figure 1. Course of events developing a governance-mechanisms centered methodology

1.4  A critique of concepts in practical situations

To answer the research question – how can multi-actor practitioners make sense of agricultural heritage conservation? – in Section 2, the authors identify some approaches and modalities that are proposed in the GIAHS project document and widely used in development practice. Based on actual events in the field, the authors evaluate the robustness and applicability of the concepts and approaches in the field context. Scrutinising approaches in reality is at times a tough experience. The authors wish to stress that in describing actual happenings they wish to unveil general patterns in the GIAHS case (and elsewhere). When efforts did not work out as expected, it was neither because actors did not do what they could, nor because the underlying ideas were not sound. It was because methodologies or concepts were applied that did not match this particular environment. At the same time, while developing GIAHS pilot sites, many lessons were learnt, and in Section 3 the most promising aspects of all approaches will be synthesized into a robust project approach. Section 4 summarises the findings in a discussion.

2  Practitioners “make sense” of GIAHS conservation

2.1  Practitioners envision adaptive management of Agro-ecological systems

2.1.1  The project document on “adaptive system management”

The GIAHS project document mentions that systems are traditionally managed through “holistic approaches”: communities manage the system’s physical or biological components (such as rice terraces and varieties), but also the associated socio-cultural processes (such as traditional knowledge, family agriculture, religious beliefs, cultural expressions, social organisation). The project aims to conserve such “holistic management” and to incorporate emerging opportunities such as ecotourism and niche marketing of special products. Table 2 lists a few dimensions by which the project seeks a diverse approach to agricultural heritage conservation. Loosely following the project document, this approach is referred to as “adaptive system management”.

Table 2. Dimensions in which the GIAHS project seeks diversity

2.1.2  Applying GIAHS concept and adaptive management

In China, in 2005, FAO had introduced the GIAHS concept and the Beijing-based GIAHS team had selected a village in Qintian county. The authors visited the village again in summer 2006. Following the local stone carving tradition, the community had constructed a 2.5-m high rice-fish sculpture at the village entrance, witnessing its participation in the FAO-UNDP-GEF GIAHS programme. An intricate water system fed rice fields in which big orange carps were swimming around rice plants. As old houses had been removed to make place for concrete, multi-storey buildings, the village did not look like a traditional Chinese settlement. Agro-chemicals were supplied from a local shop; such chemicals did not affect the rice-fish culture as farmers stated that “…we only use chemicals that do not kill our fish.” The preliminary GIAHS status had triggered a local farming family to start a restaurant serving local dishes. Researchers from provincial and national institutes came to study the system and could have a meal in the restaurant. The county government had provided preliminary GIAHS packing material for fish marketing. As visiting oversees family members were eager to bring local products back from holidays, demand exceeded local village production, so that enterprising farmers sold fish from neighbouring villages as “GIAHS fish”.

The Chinese officials were not very interested in capacity building for GIAHS adaptive management. The county governor: “When we understand the concept, we know how to implement the programme ourselves. (…) Please tell us the criteria for GIAHS designation; we will comply with them so that the village can be listed as GIAHS.” The Chinese GIAHS project implementers, particularly the Local Government, had many practical questions, such as: what kind of boundaries are there to GIAHS designation? What limits to modernization does the GIAHS concept put? Is architecture a part of the GIAHS heritage? The team reported such questions in its mission report. When discussing these issues with the FAO-Rome team, the latter highlighted that the aim of piloting is to develop answers to this kind of questions. The Chinese counterparts however had difficulties to work with such an adaptive management approach, which was illustrated by the local GIAHS workshop. In absence of a discriminating leading principle, many actors presented their on-going core work (fish breeding, agro-ecological research, rural economic development) as the key to GIAHS conservation. The GIAHS project strengthened them in their approach. During this workshop the idea emerged that China needed a network of actors that would manage a national site designation programme with its own heritage sites; next to globally listed sites.

The situation in The Philippines was quite different. The Ifugao Rice Terraces (IRT) has been a candidate “living cultural landscape” World Heritage Site (by UNESCO) in the 1990s and declared a site of national cultural value (by the National Government) in the 1970s. Such recognition had not yet resulted in structural support. When a Japanese infrastructure project supported building of concrete structures in the area, the final UNESCO listing never took place. With this history, Philippine actors were tired of workshops that promised support that never came. Similar to China, the farmers of Ifugao were migrating to urban areas or overseas. They welcomed the adaptive character of the GIAHS designation, and they perceived that donors should support the conservation of the system.

2.1.3  Evaluation of “adaptive system management” by practitioners

To evaluate the “adaptive system management” approach, we will see if it provided the necessary conditions for innovation as described in Section 1.2.

Animation

Does the GIAHS concept create enthusiasm and willingness to experiment? Yes - both in The Philippines and in China, GIAHS conservation gave rise to enthusiasm by a wide variety of actors. The construction of a GIAHS statue by the Chinese and the appreciation of the concept’s flexibility witnessed enthusiasm of both Philippine and Chinese actors.

Direction

“Adaptive system management” allowed for innovations in the Ifugao Rice Terraces, such as constructing concrete canals. On the other hand, the “holistic management” approach did not result in clear geographic and content boundaries (see also Harrop, 2005). What are the boundaries of a GIAHS system? What fish can be labelled as “GIAHS fish” and who decides that? Can concrete, fertilizers, pesticides be applied in GIAHS? Is agro-ecological research a priority for the GIAHS activity? In absence of a clear direction, actors proposed often their own, on-going agenda. The concept invoked many activities in the pilot sites, but did not help prioritising and directing them.