12. Key Activities within Sustainable Development Extension
Ensuring that information and the systems that support its generation and dissemination are responsive to the needs of those involved in decision-making is one of the crucial ingredients in an extension system designed to support sustainable development. If this is the ‘left hand’ of sustainable development extension, then the ‘right hand’ are tools and processes in the extension approach that develop the capacity of players in the information system, and the users of information, to make meaning of it, constructively debate its value and contribute to its development.
These two components are necessary parts of a sustainable development extension model as reflected in the work of Greer and Greer (1996). They propose an interdependency approach to extension, which combines elements of TOT and of adult learning (see Fig. 3). They argue that this model provides for involving stakeholders in defining their needs and setting the goals of the extension programme. The outcomes of this collaborative stakeholder process provides direction for the development of outputs in the form of research, management strategies and other forms of technology. Once the outputs have been achieved the objectives of extension programmes are defined and these are then put out into the wider community, often through the more traditional processes of extension such as pamphlets, talks, field days etc., which then eventually leads to some level of implementation.
Figure 3 The Interdependency Approach to Extension (Greer & Greer 1996)
Two key factors are less well discussed in the literature. First is how to facilitate productive interaction between users, extension agencies and researchers. We discuss this using the integrated systems for knowledge management (ISKM) framework, which describes a process for developing knowledge amongst a wide range of stakeholders. Second, we believe that the implementation phase of Greer & Greer’s (1996) model requires that those who are required to implement change on the ground must have the capacity to take up the technologies or ideas generated by the ISKM process. Communities with good social networks, a high level of trust and therefore good social capital, are more likely to implement change successfully than those without those features.
12.1 Ensuring information systems that are responsive to the needs of end-users
Agencies and researchers are recognising that they must pay more attention to the social and institutional components of research and development initiatives. This is reflected by an increasing amount of space on agency Internet sites promoting ‘partnership’ approaches to natural resource management and other environmental issues.
Flora et al. (2000) identify 12 theoretical approaches to participatory resource management and community development. These comprise:
- Participatory rural appraisal
- Institutional analysis for development framework
- Adaptive management
- Holistic management
- Environmental dispute resolution
- Cooperative ecosystem management
- Integrated system for knowledge management
- Environmental management
- Rapid appraisal of agricultural knowledge systems
- Communicative planning
- Asset mapping
- Community sustainability audit
Collectively these approaches encompass 10 core elements of participation (Flora et al. 2000). These:
- enable diverse perspectives to be brought to bear on problems
- allow for systematic learning that encourage ongoing learning and adaptation
- ensure information has context specificity
- involve group inquiry into problems and possible solutions
- appreciate the need not only for local empowerment of communities, but also the need for inclusion of external development agents
- are outcome, rather than output, focussed
- emphasise monitoring, especially by communities
- encourage multi-stakeholder evaluative processes, and
- develop participatory contracts between all involved.
12.2 Integrated systems for knowledge management (ISKM)
All of the above steps are well illustrated in the ISKM framework (Fig. 4), which promotes participation and self-help in natural resource management projects by providing clear communication pathways to support dialogue and action. ISKM specifically emphasises a number of key steps applicable to developing the knowledge and action needed to change problem situations constructively. The ISKM framework uses familiar cooperative processes, and was designed around basic management actions: identifying the problem and setting a management target; searching for information on how to achieve the target; implementing the best management practice available; evaluating the outcome; and adapting the management if required. To guide people in carrying out these steps effectively when managing environmental problems, the approach provides a framework to:
- encourage the development of appropriate processes for community participation;
- bring people together to share their knowledge (local and science) and jointly develop best-management practices and/or action plans;
- develop a management information system (with potential benefits to all those that did not have the opportunity to be directly involved);
- monitor and evaluate the outcomes of actions; and
- develop feedback loops to maximise the benefits from monitoring and evaluation and hence develop a collaborative-learning/self-improving environment, supported by a continually updated information system.
The ISKM approach comprises two main phases: finding out about complex and dynamic situations; and taking action to improve the situation. Both phases include key actions that are important for an effective system of sustainable development extension.
The following is a break down of both phases of ISKM with proposed action steps for
their achievement.
Figure 4 ISKM – a participatory research framework to facilitate sustainable resource management practices. The two phases interact to create an effective learning environment.
Phase 1 – Finding out about complex and dynamic situations
Entry and contracting
The first phase of the approach involves stakeholders in identifying the problem and its relevant aspects. Both client participants and the researchers enter a learning process, and a community dialogue is facilitated to develop a common understanding of any perceived issue. The establishment of such a dialogue first requires a scoping process to define the nature of the system under consideration, and the needs and opportunities facing the different interest groups involved. This addresses who should be involved, and what can or should be changed. Because this provides an opportunity to involve the interested parties in the research process from the outset, it is more likely to lead to the development of outcomes relevant to community needs.
Action step: Spend more time identifying stakeholders (not just using the same ones) with the help of formal stakeholder-analysis methodologies, and working with them to build a constructive climate for change.
Accessing relevant information and knowledge
The emphasis on problem formulation ensures a focus on the collation and development of relevant information and knowledge. It provides a basis for the design of appropriate processes (e.g., interviews, focus groups, and questionnaires) to find and access the relevant existing data and information from both local and research communities. The problem is often not that we do not have enough information to address an issue, but rather that information and knowledge are fragmented between professional disciplines, economic sectors (public, private), levels of government, agencies, organisations and different end-user groups. Years of experimentation with different management strategies to achieve different goals have provided resource users with much knowledge about their local systems. Unfortunately, this knowledge is not available to the community on a collective basis. Similarly, much of the valuable knowledge scientists have accumulated is held in different databases, filing cabinets, and offices and, not always readily available, even to other scientists or land managers.
Action step: Use both science and local knowledge, and develop an integrated system to provide access to fragmented information sources.
Community dialogue
Given the complexity and different social perceptions of many issues concerning productivity and development of rural land it is important support improved communication among all those involved to build up the useful knowledge needed to develop best-management practices and provide practical decision support. Facilitated-workshop formats can be used to provide a learning environment, within which participants develop a shared understanding of how others see the world and how that shapes the way they act in it (e.g., manage their land, carry out their research, develop policy). These workshops should challenge participants to seek areas of disagreement, and to debate why these might be. This makes it less likely that useful information will be dismissed out of hand, minimises conflict over the value and relevance of information supplied by different sources.
These forums provide participants with immediate access to new ideas, which may help them re-evaluate their current management practices. It also identifies knowledge gaps (see Bosch et al. 1996). Importantly, these activities also provide the community with the opportunity to prioritise their information and technical needs as they work more closely with researchers. The desired outcomes are action plans (for management and monitoring) that provide clear goals, objectives, and guidelines.
Action step: Develop appropriate forums and processes to build a shared understanding. This requires the use of skills in facilitation and conflict management.
Information capture and dissemination
The use of ISKM and similar processes provides participants with a learning environment in which useful knowledge is developed. However, there is a need to capture this knowledge to benefit all those who have not had the opportunity to be directly involved. These forums also provide many of the information resources necessary to develop information/decision support systems (for monitoring, interpretation, and management) that are relevant to the needs of decision makers, and are consequently more likely to gain their acceptance. Not only is there likely to be greater commitment on the part of users to a system they have co-developed, but also a greater understanding of any changes needed to make it work. Here, the Internet is emerging as a new, complex information-management system, which allows people to create, annotate, link together, and share information from a variety of media including text, graphics, images, audio, and video (see Allen et al. 2001a).
Action Step: Develop base supporting information. This should be seen as a community library providing information at different levels to all sectors of the community – empowering people by equal access to information.
Phase 2 – Taking action to improve the situation
One of the strengths of iterative processes, such as ISKM, is that they allow for the substance and context of the required information flows to be updated as more knowledge becomes available and different goals are set. As natural resource end-users (e.g., land managers and policy makers) adopt new strategies and measure the results of their actions (through the linked concepts of monitoring and adaptive management), they will continually develop new information, which can be brought into successive iterations of the process. In a similar way the process can take advantage of a continued flow of new data and information from more formal science research activities.
Action step: Develop user-friendly monitoring systems that can be used by land managers, along with the supporting technical, organisational and social processes to institutionalise the system. Develop the skill and capacity of groups to engage in process evaluation and monitoring.
Through each cycle of generation and testing of information different issues will arise in response to community needs, which may be financial, ecological, social, or some combination of these. It is also important to assess how well the process of working together is progressing. Process evaluation is therefore an important component of ISKM.
We note that evaluation is a critical part of constructive learning. A good evaluation process is one that helps individuals and groups reflect on themselves and their goals, and to think about ways that the group process might be improved. The process must be constructive and internally driven. Participants should see it as a useful tool for moving forward rather than as an external assessment process.
12.3 Creating Awareness
There are clear benefits to be had from using a multi-stakeholder process up until this point. Land managers who have been involved in developing the objectives of the programme are likely to be key links in providing ongoing feedback from the implementation process. The involvement of these people is also likely to increase the credibility of the programme with other land managers and to ensure there are fewer difficulties in fitting new recommendations into existing management systems.
While involving different stakeholders in developing information and goals is important, there is still a need to create wider awareness of the information generated by processes such as ISKM. It is here that the techniques associated with the TOT model of extension become useful. A good example can be found in the Internet page ‘Planning an extension programme’ (www.maf.govt.nz/mafnet/publications/agext/princ302.htm) by Greer & Greer (1996) which outlines ways to plan an extension programme for creating awareness in communities.
This web reference details possible techniques for creating awareness on-the-ground, including field days, seminars, workshops, presentations and using media such as newsletters, newspapers, and radio. Each of these requires planning with some thought as to which techniques will be most effective for the particular groups that the programme is aimed at. These require one to integrate the current knowledge of the audience with the new ideas being presented. It is also important to present the message (whatever it may be) in as clear and concise a way as possible. Many tips and suggestions about how to use these different techniques better are provided by Greer & Greer (1996 Ch. 2).
12.4 Creating a favourable social environment
Even well-crafted information may not be used if communities and individuals are not open to thinking about other points of view and about how they might better work and learn with others. For this to happen we must create a favourable social environment, in which stakeholders can use science and other information most constructively. This social environment is characterised by high social capital.
Building this climate remains a significant challenge for agencies and others with the mandate to create awareness on-the-ground. Often, these institutions need to first build the capacity in themselves to support improved participatory processes, both amongst their own staff and among the different on-the-ground stakeholder groups. Collaborative partnerships are alliances that can be used to build this capacity in a community, at the same time as achieving more immediate outcomes on-the-ground. For example, an initiative to improve water quality by riparian planting might involve a Landcare group, local school, community environmental group and agencies (regional councils, Department of Conservation (DOC), etc.). Because these partnerships bring people together from different parts of the wider community, their efforts often have the weight to be successful.
Consequently the role of groups as a catalyst for change in sustainable development is becoming well accepted. Of course, the idea of working through groups to achieve these aims is not new. Most of us, if we wish to learn a new skill or broaden our perspectives on an issue, will seek out some collaborative learning environment such as a club or training programme. Similarly, talking an issue through is a natural process for many people. We gain new insights as we express our own views and we subsequently modify our views as other people provide us with new ways of looking at the issue at hand. Groups can also foster a collective sense of responsibility; we generally try to fit in with groups in which we are involved.
These groups may be formally constituted (e.g., a Landcare group, or agency team), or they may comprise members of a working group that has come together to undertake a one-off task. Such groups will have been formed for a range of reasons, although often the focus is to address an immediate problem or issue (e.g., reduce pest numbers, develop best-practice guidelines, establish a community monitoring scheme).
However, to foster a more collective approach to sustainable development, capable of the transformational change being sought, we must do more than just work together to undertake specific projects. Individuals and groups need to develop the capacity to move beyond the completion of task-bounded activities to actively catalyse change within their immediate membership first, and to spread that culture to others in their respective groups over the longer term.
‘Capacity’, in this sense, refers to the ability to make a difference over time and across different issues. For example, if a community becomes aware of an environmental problem (e.g., bovine Tb, water quality, the imminent loss of an iconic stand of trees) they might work together as a group to manage Tb vectors, plant riparian strips, or fence around the trees. But if that is all that happens, or those efforts fade away, people go back to achieving tasks, not building community capacity. Community capacity building is, therefore, a process where people see working on community issues and shaping an improved future as part of their normal lives.
To take our example further, imagine that a Landcare group that has successfully collaborated (say, to control Tb vectors) might decide later that water quality is not good enough in their locality and also work effectively to improve this. By translating what they learned while working to control Tb vectors (e.g., how to work as a group, how to access and use information held by others, how to work with agencies), they could expect to do a good job and improve water quality.
The transformational shift we are talking about is where individuals in different groups (e.g., regional council staff, land managers, DOC, community /environmental groups) will be:
- interested, motivated and keen to understand and protect their natural environment
- thinking as much about shaping an improved future as about immediate problem solving
- have the capacity to access, assimilate and use information
- open to other points of view, reflective, and concerned with managing relationships and building TRUST, and
- keen to work together to achieve a co-ordinated set of sustainable development goals.
Thus, we suggest that one of the main issues for people or agencies seeking to catalyse participatory processes is getting the right interrelationship between achieving ‘task’ benefits (on-the-ground change), and developing effective and sustainable capacity to make the process ongoing. This capacity is related to a number of factors. These include internal factors (e.g., group abilities and skills), and external factors (e.g., support, networking and trust).
12.4.1 Social capital
In the development and organisational learning literature the social networks, norms and trust that facilitate co-operation for mutual benefit are referred to as 'social capital' (e.g., Scholar & Field n.d.; Baker n.d.; Pretty & Frank 2000), and some communities and agencies have more social capital than others.
The literature relating to social capital and development is extensive. However, briefly, we can see social capital as the framework that supports the process of learning through interaction. A key requirement for social capital to be present is the formation of networking paths that are both horizontal and vertical. The quality of the social processes and relationships that social capital supplies – within which learning interactions take place – is especially influential on the quality of the learning outcomes in collaborative approaches.
Taken one step further, this suggests that this social capital plays an important role in influencing change, and sustaining a social and institutional environment that is ready to adapt. Equally, it explains why change is much harder to achieve in some situations than in others. In many cases, stakeholders will lack the culture for participation in multi-stakeholder processes. Thus, building capacity (or social capital) for participation should in many cases be seen as a first step. That capacity cannot just be assumed to be there. Figure 5 indicates the role of social capital and trust within the ISKM system.
Action step: Agencies and other proponents of change must be able to assess participants' capacity to participate, and to develop this, in the first instance, if it is lacking.
Figure 5 ISKM — a participatory research framework to facilitate the identification and introduction of more sustainable resource management practices, and its relationship with social capital.
Capacity building is not just a function in an agricultural context. It is something that needs to be built into all development activities — public health, education, environmental management, etc. Thus each sector will contribute to the development of social capital, which will, in turn, provide a richer social environment for the subsequent efforts of each.
Action step: Agencies must co-ordinate their efforts at building social capital.
12.4.2 Building capacity through groups
In sustainable development extension, groups and teams are one of the main operational units that can be worked with. The concept of groups should be taken in its widest sense as being a group of people who are coming together to achieve something. This could be a community group, or equally an agency team, or a combination of agency and community people. Groups, in this sense, are the operational unit for extension because, with certain exceptions, there are too many individuals to work with, while the community is too big (and has too many perspectives) to work with.
Many groups measure their team performance almost specifically in relation to their ability to deliver on their initial main goal (e.g., controlling Tb vectors). However, this emphasis on the bigger goal tends to obscure the less obvious measures of success that groups achieve along the way both in terms of tasks (smaller on-the-ground activities) and process (their development in managing and improving the way the members work together, and with others).
In particular, we need to remember that it is these latter process issues, including the development of social capital, that are key to the long-term survival of groups, and to the development of the individuals within them. Some groups will become highly effective, growing and diversifying their activities to better support the wider aims of sustainability, while others will either cease after completing a specific task, or struggle on in name only. The following model (Fig. 6) illustrates one way of categorising group process development. Teams at later stages (towards the right of the diagram) are taken to be more resilient and more adaptive — capable of contributing to the innovations desired for social and institutional culture change. Notably, the members of these groups have developed skills in critical reflection, making them better able to observe, monitor and adapt their actions to improve their sustainability and to contribute to resolving complex issues.
As Pretty & Frank (2000) explain, this model of group stages is essentially progressive, indicating that one stage can lead to another. Progression, though, is not taken as inevitable, with outcomes at any point leading to the group moving on, going back to a previous phase, or staying in one place. These authors go on to define each group in terms of a number of identifying characteristics.
Action Step: Agencies need staff to manage dependent and independent groups and to co-ordinate a number of different sector and interest groups. Thus staff must have the skills to undertake leadership and facilitation functions.
Figure 6 Stages in group maturity (adapted from Pretty & Frank 2000).
The dependent phase is primarily when individuals agree to form a group, often in response to a crisis or prompting (from management or an external agency). They can see benefits in working as a group, but are likely to spend much of their time looking back at what has happened, rather than forward. Individuals are still likely to be looking for external solutions (albeit new ones) so dependency remains high, particularly on external consultants and resources. They are task focussed, measuring success by 'getting the job done'.
The second phase sees growing independence, combined with a realisation of new emerging capabilities. Members are increasingly willing to invest their time in the group itself as trust grows, although the focus is still on task rather than process. At this stage groups are likely to develop links with internal and outside groups. This is a stronger and more resilient group stage, but is still likely to break down once members feel they have achieved their original aims.
The final phase illustrates a turning point for groups or teams, where they are much more aware of the value of the group itself and its capabilities to problem-solve. Individually, members will be characterised by the development of capacities which expect change, are more dynamic, and capable of developing responses to help shape a desired future. Individuals, in this sense, can be seen to have changed and are taking a different approach to looking at, and addressing, perceived problems. This change is represented in Figure 6 by the shaded threshold area. Groups in this phase will not only focus on task issues, but will place an equal emphasis on process. They will continually look to ways of strengthening themselves as a team, and critically evaluate their own abilities. Groups in this phase will be capable of promoting the spread of appropriate technologies and ideas to other groups, and of initiating new groups themselves. They will be increasingly linked to a range of external alliances.
12.4.3 Measuring success in collaborative ventures
The immediate focus of many sustainable development programmes is on the performance monitoring of particular projects and activities, but in the bigger scheme of things, there is another equally, or even more important issue. This is improving the ability or the capacity of individuals, groups and organisations in sustainable development to develop their own culture of self-assessment and to establish their own approach to thinking strategically about how to bring about the full range of desired changes that they seek.
Building the capacity for groups to mature depends on participant ownership and commitment, more than any other activity. Participatory and formative evaluation exercises strengthen the ability of groups and group-members for ongoing self-assessment and correction. By engaging in such exercises groups will be able to progress from dependency to interdependency. The monitoring and evaluation component of sustainable development programmes, therefore, needs to be equally about building capacity, diagnosing constraints and opportunities, and trying to make programmes grow and expand, as it is about measuring and describing on-the-ground progress against pre-set targets.
Action step: Help groups undertake multi-stakeholder and formative evaluations. Develop processes to co-ordinate lessons learned across different projects and groups.
As collaborative learning approaches are scaled up to regional levels, they will bring different challenges for evaluation. Most evaluation efforts tend to involve looking at individual groups or projects. However, in a large-scale action there is a need to learn from loosely coupled activities that occur in multiple locations, i.e., across case studies (Ledford & Mohrmann 1993). In this situation, good evaluation is also needed to generate useful feedback to guide implementation. Managers need feedback from evaluation to assess progress, assist with planning, and to refine ongoing operations.
In this way much can be learnt about fundamental and cross-cutting questions concerning the best way to model programmes, or to examine more closely the role that 'social capital' and 'capacity-building' can play in achieving sustainable development. This information, in turn, can be fed back to shape future policy and research agendas.
Contact for Enquiries
Rural Affairs Coordinator
Sector Performance Policy
MAF Policy
Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry
PO Box 2526
Wellington
NEW ZEALAND
Phone: +64 4 894 0675
Fax: +64 4 4 894 0745
Contact this person
