Globalization seeks to eliminate all international barriers to trade, so that commodities can be produced more efficiently. The result is specialization in the production of the commodity that a country or region can produce most cheaply. Locally centered development takes another approach. Its emphasis is on developing local economies with a view to including things that are not valued in the marketplace, such as the interdependence among groups like the Marka and the Boza, illustrated in the Sahel case study. It emphasizes other values in life besides economic efficiency. A foremost value that it seeks to protect is diversity, even though production of a broad diversity of crops (or of crop varieties in the case of the Marka) may reduce local monetary income. Advocates of locally centered development argue that the higher monetary costs of promoting diversity in production are compensated for by other factors: the ecological benefits of diversity, such as reduced pest and disease pressure, and higher production resulting from ecological complementarity; the economic benefits of having a variety of products, so that when one crop fails or has a low market value the producer has alternative crops to provide income; the cultural benefits of having a variety of behavioral approaches to economic and production problems. Localization also improves morale, because community members have a greater influence on the direction of the project.
Recently, many of these concepts have been embedded in what is called "Integrated Natural Resource Management" (INRM), a concept that was advanced by personnel working on development projects from centers that are part of the Consultative Group for International Agricultural Research (CGIAR; CGIAR-
INRM Group 1999). The concept has been applied successfully to a number of development projects worldwide (Hagmann et al. 2003; Sayer and Campbell 2003). The basic strategy to strengthen the adaptive capacity of the integrated natural resource management system at the local level is:
1. Local organizational development, which serves to strengthen the collective capacity of local groups, institutions, and organizations for self-organization, collective action, negotiation of their interests, and conflict management, as well as their articulation and bargaining power vis-à-vis authorities, service providers, and policy makers.
2. To enhance farmers' capacity to adapt and develop new and appropriate innovations by encouraging them to learn through experimentation, building on their own knowledge and practices, and blending them with new ideas in an action learning mode. Usually these are agricultural technologies and practices, but they also address social, organizational, and economical innovations.
3. To enhance collective learning through action and social learning, facilitation of self-reflection, sharing knowledge, and networking.
4. To negotiate the management of natural resources and related services, policies, etc. through stakeholder platforms of communities, service providers, and other key players.
This core strategy is implemented through a variety of concepts, methodologies, and supporting strategies. The INRM process is mainly guided by the vision and values to which the intervening and facilitating agents, as well as the communities, agree and subscribe. These core values are (Hagmann et al. 2003):
• full ownership of the process by the community and control over their own resources;
• self-reliance of local communities;
• self-organization, sharing, and cooperation;
• inclusivity of all stakeholders and groups;
• equal partnership among farmers, researchers, and extension agents, who can all learn from each other and contribute their knowledge and skills;
• equitable and sustainable development through negotiation of interests among these groups and by providing space for the poor and marginalized in collective decision making; and
• natural resource conservation as part of the generation contract.
INRM work began in Zimbabwe in 1988 as part of a collaborative program between the national agricultural extension services (AGRITEX), German de-
velopment cooperation (GTZ), and the Food Security Project of Intermediate Technology of Zimbabwe (ITZ). The program started with a technical research focus on soil and water conservation in the semi-arid areas of southern Zimbabwe, but it gradually integrated more technical and social elements of the rural livelihood systems into the original INRM framework. The ability of rural people to develop and optimally use their own potential, together with the goal of making a real impact at the farmer level, guided the project's evolution (Hagmann et al. 2003). Once success at the farmer level was evidenced through INRM innovations developed jointly with the farmers, with broader adoption of technical and social innovations, the INRM approach was institutionalized within the extension service. Since 1998, the lessons learned in Zimbabwe have been used to expand and further develop the approach in South Africa. Box 7.4 illustrates the INRM approach with an example of projects in land rehabilitation in the Himalayas.
Was this article helpful?