Approaches to Sustainable Agricultural Production: Models for North-eastern Germany. - Management of a Transdisciplinary Research Project -.
Approaches to Sustainable Agricultural Production: Models for North-eastern Germany - Management of a Transdisciplinary Research Project Verena Toussaint Centre for Agricultural Landscape and Land Use Research (ZALF), Müncheberg Thomas Aenis, Uwe Jens Nagel Humboldt-University of Berlin, Faculty of Agriculture and Horticulture While the economic importance of agriculture in Europe is decreasing, demands for the protection of natural resources and a consideration of aesthetic landscape aspects are increasing. Although a vast number of regulations regarding land use and rural areas exist within the EU, much less has been done to ensure sustainable rural development. Few practical initiatives to reduce negative environmental impacts of agricultural practices have been implemented. Assuming that the ecological knowledge base has not been sufficiently exploited in view of introducing sustainable agriculture in Germany, the ecological research priority programme of the Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF) aims at developing means to implement this knowledge in agricultural practices and rural policies at various sites. As part of the priority program, the research project presented here develops ecologically-sound agricultural and land use management procedures in the context of the existing ecological and socio-economic framework. The project develops and implements model initiatives for three selected counties in the federal state of Brandenburg. The application-oriented research approach necessitates both, interdisciplinary co-operation as well as a close linkage between science and practice and is thus highly demanding concerning project planning and project management. Participation and Interdisciplinarity The project is based on the hypothesis that approaches to change land use towards sustainability are not successful if they do not include the interests of as well as the constraints facing land users and decision-makers. One important element motivating different stakeholders to actively participate in the research project is its application-oriented approach. The concepts and solutions to be developed must be relevant not only in theory but result in concrete development activities in the model regions. This is seen as a prerequisite not only for maintaining a sustainable interest in the research project by the local population but also for evaluating impacts in view of transferability. A wide variety of organisations, ongoing projects, and local initiatives active in the region are valuable points of contact and resources for cooperation. Taking into account the limited period, the project is focused on the utilisation of existing knowledge for site-specific application purposes. All aspects mentioned above call for a transdisciplinary research concept. Both, research concept and the approach to project management are based on the principles of participation. Different stakeholders with various areas of expertise, interests, and power are involved in the use (and planning of) of agricultural landscapes. The scientists involved are only one of these groups. The success of consensus-based and effective concepts and solution strategies depends on the active involvement of relevant regional stakeholders. It can only be achieved if stakeholders participate from the very beginning in defining problems and objectives, as well as in planning, implementation and evaluation. The organisation and development of interdisciplinary co-operation is an additional and necessary element to realise the complex objectives of the research project. This requires a process of observation and understanding to create joint objectives, methods and practical means of co-operation between all scientists involved. Interdisciplinary co-operation is seen as
a process rather than a single event and requires specific organisational activities throughout the entire research period. From the start of the project, the researchers believed that interdisciplinary work and integration of practice actors are two sides of a coin. Both principles also require step-by-step (or: rolling) planning and a continuous readjustment on the basis of knowledge and experience gained. Step by Step Project Planning The acceptance of the principles of participation excludes detailed preliminary planning. During the first project phase scientists involved agreed on the need for a step-by-step project planning and implementation procedure. As a consequence, optimal problem solutions are not defined a priori but rather developed as results of an ongoing process with iterative procedures. New findings are consciously integrated to reach improved levels of quality. Nevertheless, a logical structure for the research and development process as a whole was deemed necessary, first, to safeguard internal transparency and, second, to comply with certain administrative regulations. As a result, the project was subdivided into different phases: •
Definition of objectives and situation analysis
•
Development of concepts
•
Implementation
•
Evaluation of impacts
•
Transfer and up-scaling of results.
These phases are separated only for analytical purposes, they are not to be understood as chronologically isolated periods. Single activities may be carried out simultaneously as long as the basic logic of the problem solving cycle is maintained: Definition of problems and objectives – Development of problem solving strategies - Implementation and evaluation – Ensuring sustainability. Successive focussing of results from phase to phase follows the principles of funnelling, e.g., the setting of priorities concerning problems to be solved and the agreement of objectives to be followed, or the development of alternative solutions and their selection regarding relevance and feasibility. The process sets the framework for systematically and continuously approaching relevant solution strategies. Within every phase there is the need for step-wise action. Initial stimuli are given by the scientists who organise and moderate the process of joint decision-making with the stakeholders. However, the project remains open for stakeholder initiatives and ideas and allows for changes in the research process as determined by practical experience. As a result, project activities are located somewhere between ideal solutions and pragmatic approaches in the model regions. How to Manage the Integration of Stakeholders in the Research Process Acknowledging the difficulties in putting together an interdisciplinary research team, the Federal Ministry of Education and Research supported a one year “definition phase” to prepare a detailed project proposal once the basic project philosophy had been accepted. During this phase, the research team brought together stakeholders and decision-makers at different levels. First, they presented their basic ideas and concepts to representatives of the State Ministries for Agriculture and for Environment as well as representatives of regional administration and lobby groups. The circle of those involved was successively widened in an informal manner: those contacted recommended additional interested persons. The elaboration of the project proposal took place with the help of periodical workshops by the entire group of scientists. Here, the basic planning process was determined as well as an agreement on fundamental project contents reached. Stakeholders were invited to participate in these workshops and contribute their ideas and opinions. In this respect, the project proposal was not formulated as a guideline by researchers only but in dialogue with the people
concerned. As an example, the three model regions were selected in co-operation with regional decision-makers. The objective of the first actual project phase was to specify project contents together with an expanded circle of stakeholders, especially at the local level. To achieve this, a situational analysis of the model regions was conducted. Qualitative interviews were carried out with farmers, extension services, local and regional politicians, authorities, associations and initiatives, active in the fields of agriculture, environment, and nature protection. The selection of respondents aimed at widening the spectrum of existing opinions and identifying local knowledge. At the same time, the situation was analysed from a scientific point-of-view and existing formal plans were evaluated. Objectives of this situation analysis were: •
To identify regional problems as seen by stakeholders
•
To identify existing ideas and approaches for problem solving
•
To win potential collaborators in the regions
•
To extend existing knowledge about the regions within the research team.
The results of this situation analysis were summarised in a short paper to serve as the basis for a three-day regional planning workshop. Emphasis was placed on the presentation of various, subjective viewpoints rather than on a scientific analysis. Particular care was taken to make this document as user-friendly as possible. To maintain a workshop character, the number of participants was limited to 25. In addition to 7 scientists of various disciplines, 18 regional and local actors had to be selected. What was needed was a sample of stakeholders who where to some degree representative of major interest groups as well as of regions. At the same time, they had to be willing and able to participate in the three-day event. In a multi-step procedure, relevant interest groups and the number of participants for each group were determined. Then, local resource persons or groups were asked for names and substitutes. Where ever possible, persons were invited, who represented different functions and were expected to serve as multipliers. The overall objective of the planning workshop was to ensure that future project activities were in agreement with regional development goals and address fundamental regional problems. In order to achieve this, a logical sequence of activities was followed: on the basis of present problems develop a vision on the future of the region and determine the potential role of the research project. In particular, there were the following results: •
A critical supplementation of the situation analysis presented together with a prioritisation of the problems mentioned
•
An agreement on development goals for the region and the definition of areas for urgent action
•
An agreement on future fields of action for the research project including suggestions for potential partners.
As a result of the planning workshop four fields of action were determined. Based on these results, projects are presently being prepared in co-operation with local stakeholders and in most cases implementation in the regions has started. Each project uses specific forms of participation. In particular these are round-table talks, exchanges of information, interviews, etc.
The funnelling process necessary for the development of implementation projects starting with the first problem analysis and leading to implementation projects is schematically shown in the graph below.
Analysis of the Region Problems, Potentials Solution Strategies
Planning Workshop Fields of Action for the Model Regions
Projects ready for Implementation
An advisory board was established, the members of which are representatives of administration and interest groups at the state and regional level. At meetings the board periodically checks the project progress and gives support for the realisation of the projects. Presently, participatory monitoring and evaluation system is being tested. Once installed, it will enable stakeholders to have a strong say in project implementation and to assess project impact. Conclusion The project approach has shown that participatory planning of a research project in which both, researchers and regional actors are considered as equals is possible and may result in realistic project proposals. To do this, it was first necessary to come to a provisional internal understanding amongst researchers. Widening the circle of participating stakeholders and integrating their view into the detailed project planning was above all “costly” in terms of time. Compared to traditionally managed research projects, we have achieved field implementation only after a long period of conceptualisation and preparatory activities. This may be an extremely critical point when it comes to obtaining funds for this type of research. Only measurable and competitive impacts once the project comes to a close will be a convincing argument for future donors.
