consumption. Environ. Sci. Techno., 37: 229-34. Onneshan, 1: 1-4. 29. Rahman, S. and M. Rahman 2008. Impact of land. 42. Rashid, M.H. and M.S. Islam, 2009.
World Applied Sciences Journal 22 (5): 672-682, 2013 ISSN 1818-4952 © IDOSI Publications, 2013 DOI: 10.5829/idosi.wasj.2013.22.05.2890
Development of Indicators for Sustainable Rice Farming in Bangladesh: A Case Study with Participative Multi-Stakeholder Involvement 1,2
Ranjan Roy, 2Ngai Weng Chan and 2Ruslan Rainis
Department of Agricultural Extension and Information System, Sher-e-Bangla Agricultural University, Bangladesh 2 Department of Geography, School of Humanities, Universiti Sains Malaysia, Penang, Malaysia 1
Abstract: Indicators are increasingly recognized as an important decision aid tool to translate sustainability issue from theory into practice. However, indicator development for sustainable community development is rather successful than the agricultural sector due to methodological lacuna. The aim of this study is to develop a methodological framework for indicator development and an essential set of indicators of sustainable rice farming in Bangladesh by adopting participatory multi-stakeholders involvement approach. The study adopted informal discussion with academicians, literature review, online experts’ survey and focus group discussion with the farmers of three sub-districts that represent irrigated, rainfed lowland and upland rice growing ecosystems. These exercises yielded a set of indicators of three dimensions: economics (6), society (10) and environment (5), as well as a process of deriving indicator system with requisite information. The paper concludes that by employing a true participatory approach indicator development collectively decisive to extract an essential and representative set of indicators. Moreover, the study indicates the more significance of social indicators in promoting rice farming sustainability is Bangladesh. We highlight sustainability indicator development is a fairly demanding and challenging process. However, a blend with stakeholder’s knowledge and local experience enhances the questions of indicator’s applicability and practicability. Key words: Methodology
Delphi technique
Participatory
INTRODUCTION
Bangladesh
unique process to translate sustainability from theory into practice and an effective, efficient and systematic way to make the farming sustainability concept into operational. It is now unequivocal that agricultural sector is a significant source of environmental harm. Despite agrarian production has been increased substantially over the last four decades, present production system faces enormous challenges [5]. Similarly, the rice production in Bangladesh has increased from about 17 million tons in 1970 to about 48 million tons in 2009 [6]. However, several studies have reported that current rice production is not environmentally sounded and socially responsible [7, 8, 9]. Considering the perpetual pressure of the increasing population rice farming sustainability is a vital issue, as it provides annual 95% of the total food grain’s production and consumption, production employs about 65% of the country’s entire labor force and contributes to 10% GDP [10]. Plausibly, sustainable rice farming has attracted considerable attention of academicians, researchers, NGOs workers and policy makers. It is likely that developing and diagnosing essential indicators
It is assumed that indicator has been used for centuries. However, indicator achieved its utmost significance as an integral part of sustainability issue after publishing the historic document the Brundtland report “Our Common Future”. In many countries, indicators are now increasingly used to steer sustainable development (SD). Research has also been shown that indicator not only appropriate for assessing sustainability but also a holistic tool for monitoring, management and achieving SD. Despite the term, “indicator” is often vague and heterogeneous; several researchers described the significance of indicator. For example, indicators: provide core information on the social, economic and environmental state of the system [1], are key levers in diagnosing problems and understand their underlying causes [2], can apply as tools for monitoring progress towards SD [3] and supply proper justification for decisive planning and policy-making [4]. Consensus from these studies reveals that an indicator system is a fairly Corresponding Author:
Sustainable development
Ranjan Roy, School of Humanities, Universiti Sains Malaysia (USM), 11800 USM Pulau Pinang, Malaysia. Tel: +60164503180.
672
World Appl. Sci. J., 22 (5): 672-682, 2013
would be a starting point to curb the unsustainable condition of farming system. Accordingly, these indicators will assist to assess the sustainability, monitoring, management of the system and culminating to play a central role in evidence-based policy making and strategy formulation. Many researchers and organizations have been involved in the generation of indicators since the early 1990s. However, many literatures reported that indicators were not providing actual benefits for which it develops [11]. Moldan and Dahl reviewed the state of the art in indicator development for sustainability and demonstrated that several conceptual challenges remain with indicators, methods need further improvement and more efforts are needed to generate integrated sets of indicators to support self-regulating sustainability [12]. Moreover, Pintér et al. said that the recent economic and food crises explicitly expressed the weakness of current indicator systems, which fails to provide necessary warning and take adequate preventive action [13]. Research observations indicate that partly the problem lies with methodological gaps. Realizing the significance of rice farming sustainability issue and shortcomings of indicator development method in agriculture, we inspired to conduct this study setting two objectives: (i) to develop a methodological framework for indicator development and (ii) to develop an essential set of indicators for sustainable rice farming in Bangladesh, by adopting participative multi-stakeholders involvement approach.
are an inconsistency and difficulty in implementing the results. Usually, the top-down process misses casual observation and the bottom-up approach provides a more contextual understanding of local context [16]. In this context, it would be more accurate to apply a consolidated approach of expert’s judgment blended with the local people’s experience for indicator generation. Several researchers [17] have stressed that an integration between top-down and bottom-up approaches in that situation. Freebairn and King have figured out a vision for indicator generation illustrating relationships among the key-players [18]. Bauler et al. acknowledges that involvement of major stakeholders and users is a prerequisite of SD indicators by mentioning 3 reasons: integrating local knowledge with technical and scientific expertise, improving decision-making processes and using stakeholders as a counterbalance to the influence of experts’ and widening the ownership of assessment instruments [19]. Moreover, Roy and Chan proposed expert-led indicator development with active participation of stakeholders, since; they are customarily well known about their own situations and conditions [1]. Furthermore, researchers reported a combination of local and scientific knowledge is more well-fitted and precise in monitoring and managing environmental change [20]. UN Agenda 21 suggested for inclusion nine categories of key stakeholders and civil society groups in the indicator development process, including grower’s involvement for local indicators is indispensable. In fact, with a view to develop a holistic set of indicators, it is highly pertinent to consider knowledge on diverse disciplines, experience and concern on multidimensional attributes- environmental, economic and social. Likewise, indicator development through the participation process (generally involving major stakeholders) achieved a broadening consensus by the numerous researchers [18, 21, 22, 23, 17, 3, 24]. Consensus from these studies suggests so far that (i) most of the studies fairly developed indicators at the community level, (ii) several studies lack of true sense of multi-stakeholders (academicians, researchers, extension personnel, policy makers, civil society members, NGO workers, managers and farmers) participation, e.g., [23], (iii) there are few studies conducted in agriculture or crop production sectors. Thus, it needs a consolidated approach of modern science blended with expert knowledge and active participation of multi-stakeholders in the development of farm-level sustainability indicators. In conceptualization the multi-stakeholders and multidisciplinary approach, we proposed a methodological framework for indicator development (Figure 1).
Indicator Development by a Participative Approach: a Methodological Framework: It is a daunting challenge to determine the appropriate method for indicator development. Empirical research shows a considerable debate regarding the suitable methods of indicator generation that suit local context, i.e., the dichotomy between expert-led (top-down) and community-driven (bottom-up) approaches. Despite both approaches have strength and weakness, researchers developed numerous indicators by applying these approaches and manages, monitors and gauges SD issues. There is a well-established literature points out that “authors appraisal” or “expert judgments” are commonly used indicator development methods [14]. Indicator developed by the experts is also often shown accurate so far [15]. Simultaneously, it is recognized that indicator development by applying a top-down approach poorly reflects the situational context which creates a problem in result and policy implementation. In fact, where there is a less stakeholder involvement in project activities, there 673
World Appl. Sci. J., 22 (5): 672-682, 2013
Fig. 1: A methodological framework for indicator development at the farm level Establishing Study Context Defining Farming Sustainability: The concept of sustainable farming is both ambiguous and ambitious. Generally, management of natural resources is the key point of better production. That’s why it seems as an environmental issue. However, it gained initial credibility of decision makers as an economic issue. The concept of social dimension in sustainable agriculture (SA) is developed by USDA. Almost since then, there is a growing consensus that sustainable farming must be economically viable, environmentally sound and socially responsible. Sustainability is a ‘contextual concept’. Thus, considering the context of Bangladesh rice farming sustainability means: Maintain a high yield and productivity of rice that ensure economic viability; Less ecologically degrading production systems with special emphasis on the preservation and improvement of the natural resources; Signify the quality of producers’ life in terms of adequate access to information, education, market and decision making. Understanding Situational Context of Sustainability Dimensions: Due to the need to feed the burgeoning population intensive external input-based rice farming is a common feature of Bangladesh. That has caused soil fertility and organic matter depletion, declining and degrading land, water resources and biodiversity. According to researchers [25, 26] the land productivity is declining due to the cultivation of modern varieties of rice, injudicious use of pesticides, mineral fertilizers and
mono-cropping. Likewise, Jahiruddin and Satter diagnosed a list of soil health-related problems, e.g., soil salinity, water logging, topsoil erosion and so on [27]. Moreover, arsenic concentration in irrigation water due to the extensive withdrawal of underground water [28] and land fragmentation for ever-increasing population [29] are two emerging problems. Besides these, Bangladesh is one of the most climate vulnerable countries in the world [30]. All of these impediments presumably reduce agricultural productivity and its stability. Bangladesh is one of the densest population countries in the world (1000 persons/km2). Most of the people live in the rural areas (about 80%) and classified as poor (85%). More than half of the people employed in agriculture, whereas 4 out of 5 of whom are marginal and small farmers (
