Section two

Agro-ecosystems, natural resources management and human health related research in East Africa: Case studies

Agro-ecosystem health: Principles and methods used in high-potential tropical agro-ecosystem

1. Department of Public Health, University of Nairobi, Nairobi, Kenya

2. International Livestock Research Institute, Nairobi, Kenya

3. Department of Population Medicine, University of Guelph, Guelph, Canada

4. Pest Control Products Board, Nairobi, Kenya

5. Department of Agricultural Economics, University of Nairobi, Nairobi, Kenya

6. Department of Agricultural Engineering, University of Nairobi, Nairobi, Kenya

7. Institute of African Studies, University of Nairobi, Nairobi, Kenya

Abstract

The paper briefly describes the application of agro-ecosystem health framework for characterisation of an agro-ecosystem in central Kenya, and identification of the indications of its health. The lessons learnt from the application are briefly discussed.

Introduction

Given the newness of the agro-ecosystem health (AESH) field, the major accomplishments to date are conceptual and methodological. The empirical information that exists serves, for the most part, to demonstrate the applicability of the concept rather than supply a comprehensive numerical estimate of the health status (Smit et al 1998) of a given ecosystem. The University of Nairobi and the University of Guelph are carrying out a research programme (funded by International Development Research Centre, IDRC) whose objective is an integrated assessment of a tropical highland agro-ecosystem using the agro-ecosystem health framework.

This approach acknowledges that an agro-ecosystem can be defined from many different perspectives, giving rise to multiple—conflicting or complementing—descriptions of them. Considering all these perspectives is the only means to elucidating the structural-functional characteristics of the agro-ecosystem. Stakeholders must therefore be included in both the definition of the system and in its description. For the system to be sustainable, the stakeholders must be part of the search for solutions. Their involvement in problem identification, analysis, planning and implementation becomes a key component of the process. Indeed, they must own—and feel that they own—the problems, the solutions and the means of solving them.

To incorporate these concerns, this project is using participatory techniques, soft system methodologies and conventional research methods in an integrated, iterative and trans-disciplinary process that both evaluates and attempts to improve the health of agro-ecosystems. The process involves: (1) characterisation of the agro-ecosystems, (2) development of health indicators, (3) empirical assessment of indicators (monitoring and evaluation), and (4) taking remedial action where pathologies are detected.

This paper describes the methods used in the characterisation of the agro-ecosystem and selection of indicators. The lessons learnt from the application of these techniques are briefly discussed.

Study methods

Study area

The study is being carried out in Kiambu District, Kenya. The district is divided into several hierarchical administrative zones (Figure 1). The three lowest levels of the agricultural hierarchy (the village, farm and field) are being targeted. Six villages were selected through a multi-stage but purposive sampling strategy. The key factors influencing selection of a village were preponderance of farmers and presence of other research and development agencies. Data on villages (names of villages, their boundaries, farming activities, development activities) was supplied by opinion-leaders from the locations.

Figure 1. Hierarchy in agro-ecosystems: The central highlands of Kenya.

Participatory approaches

A five- to eight-day participatory action research (PAR) workshop was held in each of the six villages. Community members were informed about the workshop through opinion leaders, churches, administration officials (Chiefs and Assistant Chiefs) and posters. The workshops were held in venues within the village. Workshops commenced with an explanation of purpose and seeking community acceptance of the exercise. Communities were allowed to set their own time-schedules and to prepare budgets for refreshments, foods and other expendables required during the exercise even though the funds were provided by the AESH project. This served as a trend-setting mechanism for participation. Table 1 shows the key PAR techniques, the expected outputs and the order in which they were used.

Soft systems methodology

Soft systems methodology (SSM) is an approach to studying human activity systems developed by management specialists (Checkland and Scholes 1990). The methodology includes rich descriptions of problematic situations and the creation of various systems models, as well as an exploration of the social and cultural context for the systems being considered.

Cultural and social settings within the various human activity sub-systems in the village were studied. Relationships between various interest groups and stakeholders in the village were assessed through discussions with people involved and depicted in rich pictures. A similar approach was used to analyse the meaning ascribed to various social, cultural and economic issues in the village. Roles, norms and values ascribed to various stakeholders in the village were examined. Note was taken as to what embodies opinion leadership in the village and how leadership positions are obtained, used and protected. Root definitions, which are used in SSM to describe the actors and beneficiaries, the world-views on which their models are based, and the environmental constraints of the systems, were used to model both the primary-task and the issue based sub-systems in village agro-ecosystems.

Observational study methods

Semi-structured interviews were conducted during the transect walks of the PAR workshops. Communities were asked to stratify farms and/or households in the village based on criteria developed in a participatory manner. Households to be interviewed were selected from each stratum based on a random process but taking into consideration the availability of household members for the interview. A team of three people visited each of the selected households: a researcher, an extension agent, and one community member. The household head was requested to give a guided tour of the farm/dwelling. Farm sketches were made indicating types of enterprises and resource availability and utilisation. The interview was administered following a checklist (Table 2). Copies of farm records were made as well as a listing of time and work schedules.

Table 1. PAR tools used in the study and the expected outputs.

	Objectives	Tools	Expected output
1.	Introduction	Self introduction, pairing, speeches, ice-breakers	Acceptance/permission to carry out exercise
2.	Planning for the workshop	Time schedules, assigning roles and responsibilities	Workshop logistics, trend-setting for community participation
3.	Village boundaries and inventory of resources	Social map	Location of farms and households, names and sex of HH heads, boundaries
		Resource map	Inventory of resources, infrastructure, state of resources, identify problems
4.	Historical background	Historical profile	Community identity and history, past events and their impacts, coping strategies
5.	Trend-lines and time-lines	Trend charts	Lists changes, direction of change, triangulation of (4) above
6.	Seasonal trends	Seasonal calendars	Seasonal trends in climate, economic and social activities
7.	Transect walks	Route mapping	Identification of issues and problems
		Walk	Observation of type and status of resources, problem identification, triangulation
		Transect profile	Resource inventory
		Semi-structured interviews	Observation of type and status of resources, problem identification, triangulation
8.	Resource mobility	Mobility charts	Flow of goods, services and resources to and from village
9.	Identification and analysis of institutions	Venn (chapati) diagrams	Types, numbers and importance of institutions, problem identification
10.	Major gender concerns	Activity profile	Types and degree of drudgery of chores, persons responsible
		Daily calendar	Daily routines by age and gender
		Access and control matrix	Resource types, ownership, control  and utilisation by age and gender
		Decision making matrix	Power and opinion leadership issues in the village and household
11.	Major health concerns	Health analysis	Types, causes and importance of major health concerns by age and gender
12.	Problem identification and analysis	Problem listing	Triangulation of needs
		Ranking (pairwise/matrix)	List of needs in order of priority
		Problem analysis	Opportunities and constraints, coping strategies, possible solutions
13.	Action planning	Community-action planning	Resources, schedules, strategies

In addition, a survey of all households in the village was conducted. The survey questionnaire was designed in the local language. Information on household structure, farm/household management, incomes, farm productivity and resource availability/ utilisation was sought. The village ecosystem committee members were trained to assist households in filling-in the forms to ensure a high response rate.

Selection of AES health indicators

Gitau (1997) provides a detailed description of biophysical, socio-cultural and economic characteristics of the Kiambu AES. From this a summary of goals, objectives, expectations, problems and issues of concern of stakeholders in the Kiambu AES was developed. Influence diagrams with linkages between various issues and problems as visualised by the communities were drawn. From these, a generalised list of attributes relating to issues, goals, objectives and expectations of the main stakeholders in the AES were derived. Variables that reflect changes in these attributes over the short- (fast changing = current to one year), medium- (between one and three years) and long-term (more than three years) were listed. Indicators were selected from these variables based on their validity, feasibility and who the operator and/or end-user would be. Variables selected as indicators were those having a high feasibility (practicality of measurement, cost/time effectiveness) and validity (how well it measures the attribute of concern). Some attributes are of interest to a variety of groups (researchers, farmers, community in general, policy makers etc). Indicators for these attributes were selected based on the ease of measurement and interpretation by the users.

Complex systems modeling

Methods of analysis and synthesis for data generated by AESH research are still being explored. Several complex-systems approaches—ranging from influence diagrams and loop models to various forms of catastrophe and chaos theory—seem to be promising. The loop models seem to be the most transparent in terms of understanding internal system dynamics. Figure 2 shows an interim conceptual model of the AES. Outputs are divided into amenities, by-products and value products. The external environment and the human activity system influence the type, quality and quantity of output through subsidy to the system (Izac and Swift 1994). The external environment and the human activity system influence the type, quality and quantity of output through subsidy to the system. With time, more detailed models will be used to study system behaviour in terms of various ecosystem health attributes (and hence indicators). System characteristics such as integrity, adaptability, efficiency, effectiveness, resilience, productivity, stability and equity will be varied in order to predict system behaviour under various conditions. Values taken by attributes under these conditions will be taken as reflecting system thresholds, targets and ranges.

Table 2. Checklist for the semi-structured interview.         

Figure 2. A simplified conceptual model of the agro-ecosystem.

Discussion

Agro-ecosystem health studies are currently underway in several other countries as well as Kenya. These have demonstrated that holistic approaches—such as agro-ecosystem health—are feasible even under difficult field conditions.

In some ways the current study is a revisiting of older notions of integrated community development, but with more explicit consideration of both systems theories and the socio-economic, political and ecological dimensions which are the determinants of agro-ecosystem health. It takes cognisance of the multiplicity of perspectives and interests. The SSM approach facilitates an understanding of conflicts, opinion leadership and the power structure within the human activity sub-systems. This provides a more structured system for dealing with equity and development issues than standard community development approaches.

The combination of participatory work and systems theories grounds the work both theoretically and practically, providing a framework through which health and sustainability can be promoted. It circumvents the basic problem with standard research and development programmes: the inability to arouse popular participation (Holdcroft 1984) while providing a means—to communities, researchers and policy makers—for monitoring and evaluating both the human activity and the underlying biophysical sub-systems.

The key constraints within the agro-ecosystem health approach are the difficulty in bridging the interdisciplinary gap and the potential resistance to the empowerment of disadvantaged (but not always the minority) groups within the multiplicity of stakeholders in the system. The approach is potentially disruptive to existing power-structures because of its all-inclusive, empowering-through-information approach. Moreover, methods for a more holistic interpretation of empirical data (both qualitative and quantitative) are yet to be developed. However, the incorporation of a plurality of approaches and ideas ensures that the learning cycle remains open.

References

Checkland P. and Scholes J. 1990. Soft systems methodology in action. John Wiley & Sons, Chinchester, England, UK.

Gitau T. 1997. Report of participatory action research workshops held in six villages of Kiambu District. Department of Public Health, University of Nairobi, Kenya (Mimeo).

Holdcroft L.E. 1984. The rise and fall of community development, 1950–65: A critical assessment. In: Eicher C. and Staatz J. (eds), Agricultural development in the third world. The John Hopkins University Press, London, UK. pp. 46–58.

Izac A. and Swift M.J. 1994. On agricultural sustainability and its measurement in small-scale farming in sub-Saharan Africa. Ecological economics 11:105–125.

Smit B., Waltner-Toews D., Rapport D., Wall E., Wichert D., Gwyn E. and Wandel J. 1998. Agro-ecosystem health: Analysis and assessment. Faculty of Environmental Science, University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario, Canada. 114 pp.