The 3rd International Conference on Conservation Agriculture in Southeast Asia

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "The 3rd International Conference on Conservation Agriculture in Southeast Asia"

Olivia Walton
6 years ago
Views:

1 The 3rd International Conference on Conservation Agriculture in Southeast Asia Assessing the contribution of participatory approaches to sustainable impacts of agricultural research for development in the Northwest Highlands of Vietnam HUU NHUAN NGUYEN, ELSKE VAN DE FLIERT, LAUREN HINTHORNE & OLEG NICETIC Centre for Communication and Social Change, School of Journalism and Communication, The University of Queensland,

2 THE CONTENTS Introduction Background Impact assessment of agricultural research projects A holistic impact assessment framework for AR4D Conclusion

3 RESEARCH OBJECTIVES 1 Review existing impact assessment approaches to participatory communication strategies of agricultural research projects in the Northwest Highlands of Vietnam; 2 Discuss limitations of these existing impact assessment approaches 3 Suggest a holistic impact assessment framework for analysing the contribution of participatory development communication strategies to sustainable impacts achieved by agricultural R4D projects

4 RESEARCH QUESTIONS 1. What approaches have been applied to impact assessment of agricultural research in the North-West Highlands of Vietnam over the past decade and what are their strengths and weaknesses in terms of informing agricultural development policies? 2. How, if at all, do these approaches explain the contribution of participatory communication processes towards impact? 3. What impact assessment framework could help to assess of participatory communication strategies underpinning agricultural research for development from a comprehensive livelihoods perspective in a region with variable stages of agricultural development and social change?

Vietnam Natural area: 330.000 km 2 CHINA Population: 85,846,997 (2010); Ethnic groups: 54 Poverty rate: 14.

5 Vietnam Natural area: km 2 CHINA Population: 85,846,997 (2010); Ethnic groups: 54 Poverty rate: 14.2%; The Northwest Highlands Natural area: 5.07 million ha Population: 4.15 million people; Ethnic groups: over 30 Poverty: 40% Limited access to markets and services: EAST SEA

6 Agricultural research projects in the Northwest Highlands Mainly research oriented: Initiated in the late 1990s Major implementers: government research organizations (VAAS), universities (HUA, TBU, TNU), and international development agencies (DANIDA, ACIAR, CIRAD, University of Hohenheim); Participatory approaches has been initially adopted but some as fashion ; Multi-disciplinary rather than inter- and trans-disciplinary;

Agricultural research projects in the Northwest Participatory

implementers: government research organizations (VAAS) in

CIRAD, ) Participatory communication: PRA tools Towards inter- and

7 Agricultural research projects in the Northwest Participatory communication strategies: Some initiated in the late 2000s Major implementers: government research organizations (VAAS) in collaboration with international development agencies (ACIAR, CIRAD, ) Participatory communication: PRA tools Towards inter- and trans-disciplinary; Bottom-up oriented communication; Be interested by multi-stakeholders

8 Weaknesses of conventional impact assessment approaches Short-term, quantitative, and economic focus rather than livelihood aspects; Donor-cost effectives and internal management overemphasis; Focus on scientific outputs, capacity building and publications, Top - down communication;

9 Weaknesses of conventional impact assessment approaches Gaps in understanding local culture, languages and perceptions; Little consideration to overlapped synergies; Lack of clear strategy for assessing long-term impacts in R4D; Poor feedback mechanism

10 Sustainable Livelihoods Framework Participatory Development Communication Participatory Impact Assessment Impact assessment framework to participatory communication strategies of agricultural research for development (AR4D) projects

11 WHY SUSTAINABLE LIVELIHOOD FRAMEWORK? Measuring impacts by livelihood capitals (Economic, Human, Social, Physical, Natural); Livelihood outcome and impacts Dynamic relationships: vulnerability contexts, livelihood resources, intervening institutions, and strategies and sustainable livelihoods Be assessed at different levels (individual, community, regional) Strong links with participatory development Source: (Scoones, 1998); (DFID, 1999) and (Adato & Meinzen-Dick, 2002)

12 WHY PARTICIPATORY DEVELOPMENT COMMUNICATION? Uses of communication to facilitate community participation in development process; Central elements: participatory process, interpersonal communication and media; Empowerment or participation as an end ; Participatory communication (e.g., flexible PRA tools); Source: Servaes (2003); Bessette (2004); Tufte and Mefalopulos (2009); (Chambers, 1994); Krall et al. (2003) and Catley et al. (2009) and (Van de Fliert, 2010);

13 WHY PARTICIPATORY IMPACT ASSESSMENT? Measuring real impacts rather than accounting for aspects of its implementation Long term and broader livelihood issues; Participatory communication and empowerment; Local community: indicators, resources and methods; Strong collaboration among stakeholders; A common agreement on steps to carry out; Source: (Catley et al., 2008); (Estrella & Gaventa, 1998); (Ashley & Hussein, 2000); (Marasas et al., 2001) and (Van de Fliert, 2010)

14 Source: Adapted from (Scoones, 1998), (DFID, 1999) and (Marasas et al., 2001)

15 CHALLENGES Existing conventional impact assessment approaches; Facilitation skills and understanding of local culture, political aspects; fashion of using participatory communication tools; Spill-over outcome and impacts; Resources: human resource, time, and money Impact pathway

16 A holistic impact assessment framework for agricultural R4D is needed; Being aware of challenges impact assessment framework; A new impact assessment framework needs a real world;

18 References 1. Adato, M., & Meinzen-Dick, R. (2002). Assessing the impact of agricultural research on poverty using the sustainable livelihood framework. FCND Discussion Paper 128, EPTD Discussion Paper 89. International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI). Washington D.C Ashley, C., & Hussein, K. (2000) Developing Methodologies for Livelihood Impact Assessment: Experience of the African Wildlife Foundation in East Africa. London, UK: Overseas Development Institute, Portland House. 3. Chambers, R. (1994b). Participatory rural appraisal (PRA): Challenges, potentials and paradigm. World Development, 22(10), doi: / x(94) Estrella, M., & Gaventa, J. (1998). Who counts reality?: Participatory monitoring and evaluation : a literature review (Vol. 70.). Brighton, Eng: Institute of Development Studies. 5. DFID. (1999). Sustainable Livelihoods Guidance Sheet. London: Department for International Development (DFID), UK. 6. Marasas, C. N., Anandajayasekeram, P., van Rooyen, C. J., & Wessels, J. (2001). A comprehensive conceptual framework for assessing the impact of agricultural research and development. Agrekon, 40(2), doi: / Scoones, I. (1998). Sustainable livelihood: A framework for analysis (Vol. IDS Working Paper 72). Brighton: Institute of Development Studies. 8. Van de Fliert, E. (2010). Participatory Communication in Rural Development: What Does It Take for the Established Order? Extension Farming Systems Journal, 6(1),

Australasian Agribusiness Review Vol Paper 2 ISSN

Australasian Agribusiness Review Vol. 23 2015 Paper 2 ISSN 1442-6951 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Towards