Soil conservation in Swiss agriculture - Approaching abstract and symbolic meanings in farmers' life-worlds

This paper explores the significance of ‘life-worlds’ for better understanding why farmers adopt or reject soil conservation measures and for identifying basic dimensions to be covered by social learning processes in Swiss agricultural soil protection. The study showed that farmers interpret soil erosion and soil conservation measures against the background of their entire life-world. By doing so, farmers consider abstract and symbolic meanings of soil conservation. This is, soil conservation measures have to be feasible and practical in the everyday farming routine, however, they also have to correspond with their aesthetic perception, their value system and their personal and professional identities. Consequently, by switching to soil conservation measures such as no-tillage farmers have to adapt not only the routines of their daily farming life, but also their perception of the aesthetics of cultivated land, underlying values and images of themselves. Major differences between farmers who adopt and farmers who reject no-tillage were found to depend on the degree of coherence they could create between the abstract and symbolic meanings of the soil conservation measure. From this perspective, implementation of soil protection measures faces the challenge of facilitating interactions between farmers, experts and scientists at a ‘deeper’ level, with an awareness of all significant dimensions that characterise the life-world. The paper argues that a certain level of shared symbolic meaning is essential to achieving mutual understanding in social learning processes.

Reshaping Rural Extension: Learning for Sustainability (LforS): An Integrative and Learning-Based Advisory Approach for Rural Extension with Small-Scale Farmers

This publication offers concrete suggestions for implementing an integrative and learning-oriented approach to agricultural extension with the goal of fostering sustainable development. It targets governmental and non-governmental organisations, development agencies, and extension staff working in the field of rural development. The book looks into the conditions and trends that influence extension today, and outlines new challenges and necessary adaptations. It offers a basic reflection on the goals, the criteria for success and the form of a state-of-the-art approach to extension. The core of the book consists of a presentation of Learning for Sustainability (LforS), an example of an integrative, learning-oriented approach that is based on three crucial elements: stakeholder dialogue, knowledge management, and organizational development. Awareness raising and capacity building, social mobilization, and monitoring & evaluation are additional building blocks. The structure and organisation of the LforS approach as well as a selection of appropriate methods and tools are presented. The authors also address key aspects of developing and managing a learning-oriented extension approach. The book illustrates how LforS can be implemented by presenting two case studies, one from Madagascar and one from Mongolia. It addresses conceptual questions and at the same time it is practice-oriented. In contrast to other extension approaches, LforS does not limit its focus to production-related aspects and the development of value chains: it also addresses livelihood issues in a broad sense. With its focus on learning processes LforS seeks to create a better understanding of the links between different spheres and different levels of decision-making; it also seeks to foster integration of the different actors’ perspectives.

Vulnerability to risk among small farmers in Tajikistan: results of a 2011 survey

Tajikistan is judged to be highly vulnerable to risk, including food insecurity risks and climate change risks. By some vulnerability measures it is the most vulnerable among all 28 countries in the World Bank’s Europe and Central Asia Region – ECA (World Bank 2009). The rural population, with its relatively high incidence of poverty, is particularly vulnerable. The Pilot Program for Climate Resilience (PPCR) in Tajikistan (2011) provided an opportunity to conduct a farm-level survey with the objective of assessing various dimensions of rural population’s vulnerability to risk and their perception of constraints to farming operations and livelihoods. The survey should be accordingly referred to as the 2011 PPCR survey. The rural population in Tajikistan is highly agrarian, with about 50% of family income deriving from agriculture (see Figure 4.1; also LSMS 2007 – own calculations). Tajikistan’s agriculture basically consists of two groups of producers: small household plots – the successors of Soviet “private agriculture” – and dehkan (or “peasant”) farms – new family farming structures that began to be created under relevant legislation passed after 1992 (Lerman and Sedik, 2008). The household plots manage 20% of arable land and produce 65% of gross agricultural output (GAO). Dehkan farms manage 65% of arable land and produce close to 30% of GAO. The remaining 15% of arable land is held in agricultural enterprises – the rapidly shrinking sector of corporate farms that succeeded the Soviet kolkhozes and sovkhozes and today produces less than 10% of GAO (TajStat 2011) The survey conducted in May 2011 focused on dehkan farms, as budgetary constraints precluded the inclusion of household plots. A total of 142 dehkan farms were surveyed in face-to-face interviews. They were sampled from 17 districts across all four regions – Sughd, Khatlon, RRP, and GBAO. The districts were selected so as to represent different agro-climatic zones, different vulnerability zones (based on the World Bank (2011) vulnerability assessment), and different food-insecurity zones (based on WFP/IPC assessments). Within each district, 3-4 jamoats were chosen at random and 2-3 farms were selected in each jamoat from lists provided by jamoat administration so as to maximize the variability by farm characteristics. The sample design by region/district is presented in Table A, which also shows the agro-climatic zone and the food security phase for each district. The sample districts are superimposed on a map of food security phases based on IPC April 2011.