INTRODUCTION
HIV/AIDS has a profound social, economic and development impact, especially among poor rural people. The agricultural sector has a fundamental role to play in mitigating HIV/AIDS impact on poor households and communities. That requires to implement both HIV/AIDS-sensitive interventions and supplementary targeted projects aimed at alleviating labour losses, mitigating the HIV/AIDS-related economic crisis, arresting agricultural disruption, advancing food security, enhancing nutrition as a basic HIV/AIDS healthcare component, and maintaining community dynamics. In the long-term, mitigation also comprises tailored rural reconstruction projects, enhancing local capacity to address HIV/AIDS impact.
Guidelines for Integrating HIV/AIDS Concerns in Agricultural Emergency Interventions
……FAO, 2002. J.Gari
-
Focus and rationale for study
- to identify mitigation practices that have been tried out with affected households/communities and to find out why they did or didn't work, taking socio-economic, cultural and other factors into consideration
- explore and analyse under which conditions the more promising /recommended mitigation practices would be replicable
- envision the approaches, concepts and processes under which promising mitigation practices are facilitated or implemented
The category of deliverable needs to be rethought. It might not be things so much as processes which enable engagement with the problems in the newly changed environment
… D. Topouzis, 2003
|
-
Approach and methodology used
-
An initial comprehensive literature review involving desk and internet research related to HIV/AIDS
-
Fields visits were made to three countries to participate in meetings such as the planning meetings of the FAO Integrated Programme (IP)
-
Focus is on what approaches and technologies are being tried at household (micro) and community levels; what is working in practice and how well; where the apparent gaps are; and what lessons are coming through to date to provide insights on strengthening the relevance, effectiveness and out-scaling of promising practices.
-
Country cases: ZAMBIA
-
The challenge of finding effective responses in terms of mitigating the severe impacts of the pandemic, have spurred the need for new perspectives, approaches and responses to agricultural extension and community development
-
The scope and nature of those wide-ranging social problems clearly extend way beyond the paradigms and capacities of traditional public agricultural extension systems.
Box 1: Pit Farming -A Farmer-Initiated Response from Zambia
In the Plateau area of the Southern Province of Zambia, farmers have initiated what is called pit farming. This involves farmers digging round holes (120cm or 180cm in diameter and 60cm deep) and then filling them with a mixture of organic material (household thrash, crop residues, animal manure and topsoil) for composting over a period of 2-3 months.
Crops are then planted under mono- or mixed cropping conditions e.g. 20 maize plants per hole if 180 cm in diameter or 10 per hole if 120cm in diameter. Approximately 435 holes are dug per 2500 square metres if 180 cm or 985 holes if 120 cm. Holes can be used for 4-5 years before refilling with organic material. Some farmers intercrop legumes such as cowpeas or groundnuts with maize or sorghum in their pits. Fruit tree planting (mangoes, oranges, bananas) in pits is also practiced.
This method of crop production is categorised under “conservation tillage” and conserves water, labour (through minimal cultivation and weeding), and reduces the risk of soil erosion hazards through minimal disturbance/opening of surface vegetation. Weeding is readily done by hand or slashing.
Pit farming is spreading rapidly through farmer-to-farmer extension in the Southern Province. Though very labour intensive for initial layout and digging, pit farming saves appreciably on labour in the subsequent planting seasons. For households affected by HIV/AIDS, pooling of village labour, including available youth, is practiced to meet the labour needs in the initial pit digging and filling.
Source: D. Hesselbach, GTZ Agric. Advisor, ASSP Project, Zambia
|
Box 2: Challenges for Rural Development Organisations in Mitigating HIV/AIDS in Communities
-
How to initially interact or engage with communities in appropriate, sensitive ways?
-
If through existing institutions/organisations, how functional/capable are they and who determines this?
-
Do those institutions need re-orientation, strengthening or organisation development, to address the complex tasks involved?
-
How will institutional coordination be effected and at which levels?
-
How will communities/stakeholders be involved and assured that their needs are being met?
|
PARTICIPATORY IMPACT MONITORING (PIM) ZAMBIA
Engelhardt-Wendt et al (2002)
-
found that this approach enabled groups at community level to “better know their own situation and to come up with their own solutions”.
-
villagers selected “Focal Point Persons” to lead and facilitate community responses to the pandemic.
-
Focal Point Persons.” or small focal groups may be of wider interest in facilitating and leading active community based approaches and responses in mitigating HIV/AIDS.
Country cases: ZIMBABWE
-
African Farmers Organic Research & Training (AfFOResT), an NGO based in Harare, has been conducting needs assessments and providing training nationally for organisations and communities
Box 3: Focal Topics for Community Trainer Programmes (3-5 days) on Healthy Living through Food and Nutritional Security (AfFOResT), Zimbabwe
-
Healthy Living and Nutrition – building on IKS
-
Crop and Animal Production for Household Food Security
-
Maintaining Natural Soil Fertility
-
Natural Pest Management
-
Intercropping/ Mixed Cropping
-
Clean/Sterilised Water – Feasible Practices
|
Country cases: MALAWI
-
There have been many recent studies on the impact of HIV/AIDS (often referred to locally as the “chronic illness”).
-
COMPASS, RENEWAL OXFAM and CARE
-
The Ministry of Agriculture and Irrigation produced a Policy and Strategy for HIV/AIDS in the Agriculture Sector (2003-2008) earlier this year.
Box 4: Community-Based Food Banks – A Malawi Village Response
There were a few cases where village communities had established funeral maize banks. Each household is expected to contribute a certain amount of maize every year, and is then eligible to draw from this, if and when they have a funeral. Those households that are unable to contribute to the maize bank are not eligible for any assistance. Although this is a good initiative, it does have the obvious weakness that those in most need of support are unable to receive any maize due to their inability to contribute to the scheme. However, consideration could be given to providing direct assistance to those who are unable to contribute – this could be through the direct transfer of maize on their behalf. Ideally, transfers on behalf of the poorest households should be made by those in the village that can afford to do so. However, there could be a need for external assistance, and this could be co-ordinate through either churches or village committees who would be responsible for identifying those households who are unable to make any form of contribution.
What is very important about this initiative, is that it is a scheme that has been successfully initiated and managed by the community in a sustainable way without any external assistance. If external assistance is provided as a way of supporting the poorer households, then efforts should be made so as not to destroy the nature of the community driven initiative and management systems. As with any successful initiative, other villages should have the opportunity to learn more about how such food banks operate. For example, people from villages where this scheme is operating could visit other villages and encourage them to establish similar schemes. Alternatively, people from neighbouring villages should be encouraged to visit villages where the scheme is operating and learn more about it.
Source: CARE Malawi Study on the Impact of HIV/AIDS on Agricultural Production Systems and Rural Livelihoods in the Central Region of Malawi. 2002.
|
-
Salient Findings and Conclusions
-
The need to look beyond analysis at the micro-level (household) and to link findings at this level to the other critical levels for effective responses i.e. the community and district levels.
-
What is evident is that detailed insights at the micro-level – with gender cited as the pertinent example over 15 years – have not translated into enduring action at community level.
-
The gaps in knowledge (including know-how) at meso–level (community to district) are of critical importance where cases of promising practice need to be shared and integrated into more effective conceptual frameworks for wider implementation and taking to scale.
4.2. MOST PROMISING APPROACHES/ PRACTICES
-
The most effective and promising approaches to mitigation have been those that have focused on participatory and group problem solving approaches facilitated with and for, rural communities
-
PEA and FLS focus on holistic and systemic processes in social community development and foster ownership, initiative and resilience on the part of communities. (See Box 5). Those approaches strengthen communities to take responsibility for their own livelihoods through emancipation and empowerment.
-
Need for competent facilitators - this is the area that often makes the difference between success and failure in community development processes -- which is why support and investment in the training and development of such facilitation competencies merits priority attention in:
-
Development agencies/ service organisations in districts/communities and
-
Local communities themselves.
Box: PEA explained…
THESE ARE APPROACHES TO FACILITATION AND INTERACTION WITH FARMERS THAT INVOLVE THEM FULLY AS PARTNERS IN:
-
PROBLEM SOLVING
-
INNOVATION/ ADAPTATION
-
DETERMINING RESPONSES BY EXTENSION SERVICES PROVIDERS.
THROUGH SUCH APPROACHES, FARMERS TAKE INCREASING OWNERSHIP FOR THEIR PRODUCTION SYSTEMS AND LIVELIHOODS AND BECOME MORE INDEPENDENT AND SELF-RELIANT IN PROBLEM SOLVING AND INNOVATION APPROPRIATE TO THEIR NEEDS AND RESOURCE ENDOWMENTS.
PEAs ARE ESPECIALLY RELEVANT FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF SH-FS FARMERS.
|
Box: FLS (Farmer Life Schools) explained…
THESE ARE A DEVELOPMENT OF FARMER FIELD SCHOOLS THAT FACILITATE AND ENABLE FARMERS TO ANALYSE THEIR OWN SITUATIONS IN A MORE HOLISTIC CONTEXT AND FIND SOLUTIONS THEY CAN IMPLEMENT THEMSELVES.
FLS IS A PROCESS THAT PROMOTES CONSTANT AND OPEN INTERACTION BETWEEN THE FARMERS INVOLVED, THUS LEADING TO AN INFORMAL NETWORK OF FARMERS.
THE FOCUS IS ON EACH FARMER ANALYSING THEIR SITUATION AND GAINING THE INSIGHTS NEEDED TO COMMITT THEMSELVES TO SELF-DEVELOPMENT.
FLS ENCOURAGE FARMERS TO BECOME AWARE THAT THEY CAN INFLUENCE THE DYNAMICS OF FARMING SYSTEMS AND SHAPE THEIR OWN FUTURE.
Source: Du Guerny et al, 2002
|
Box 5: Resilience and Social Capital in Communities
Community
An interacting population of various kinds of individuals in a common location.
Resilient Community
One that takes intentional action to enhance the personal and collective capacity of its citizens and institutions to influence the course of social and economic change. It is capable of developing a vision of its future and a sense of direction which most of its members endorse, contribute to and own. Community members then contribute to implementation of the strategic vision on the basis of available/accessible resources. The availability of resources is less significant in building community resilience than the way in which resources are viewed and utilized by the community.
Social Capital
The sum of the institutions which underpin a society, and the glue that holds them together. Rural Communities often have natural resources (natural capital) but lack skills (human capital) and organisations (social capital) to turn natural resources into physical assets/wealth. The process through which this is done is of equal importance to the outcome as it can increase or decrease vulnerabilities of communities and rural households which is highly relevant for HIV/AIDS.
Source: Adapted from Communities Facing the HIV/AIDS Challenge: From Community Vulnerability to Community Resilience. UNDP. South East Asia Programme. 2002.
|
4.3. District Institutional Coordination/ Capacity Level
-
One of the major problems confronting communities in SADC countries is the disparate and random array of service providers and development organisations that often interlope into their villages and lives
-
This is true for all focal countries and the issue of institutional coordination came up frequently in the IP meetings
-
Conclusions / Recommendations:
There is an apparent need for concept and programme development to optimise mitigation capacities at meso ( e.g. district) and micro (e.g. community/household) levels
-
Rugalema (FAO Report, 2001), states that the major constraints impeding the development of the response of the agricultural sector to HIV/AIDS are lack of knowledge and of conceptual capacity.
-
The key challenge is how to bring this about, taking into account the absorptive capacities of communities and the need to build the human resource dimension of social capital at that level.
PARADIGM CHANGE
Under existing paradigms for agricultural technology generation and transfer, emphasis is placed on technical contents and messages for farmers. What is needed is:
-
Concepts for practitioners in which local transformation and problem solving can take place,
-
Facilitation skills to the part of those engaging in social innovation and change processes with communities and,
-
Enabling policies and strategies at national levels.
Box 6: Contrasting the Old and New Paradigms
5.2. Concept Development for Local Community Action
-
What have been most successful, so far, in mitigation at community level, are integrated and systemic approaches, which recognise the holistic and community-driven dimensions of the problems and the need for self-reliance in food production and community interdependence.
-
What have not been very successful are reductionist approaches, based on narrow, external prescriptions – often for given technologies/ methods with a single-issue focus that does not fit the conditions of resource-poor farmers.
-
Farmers have to become smarter and more motivated as the subjects of their own development – not just the objects of other people’s development agendas
-
They need training and education to analyse their situations and find solutions that they can implement by themselves.
(Topouzis and Du Guerny, 1999; De Waal et al, 2003)
The LOCOM ACTION cycle builds on the PEA experiences in three countries and integrates the following features:
-
It is systemic and connects all stages and processes and actors to foster interdependency and self-reliance.
-
An action learning approach which is essentially organisation development for rural communities
-
Focuses on local community farming systems, farmers’ knowledge and livelihoods
-
Tests, screens and adapts externally sourced technologies for local appropriateness
-
Builds broad-based community leadership and capacities
-
Include groups often marginalized or excluded from community activities
-
Flexible to emerging/changing community demands and needs
Figure 2: Local Community Action Cycle to Strengthen Nutrition and Food Security in Southern African Communities/Households
Support materials for community facilitation and training
-
Guides/ Posters/ Fact sheets (e.g. Intercropping)
-
Securing Threshold Food Security at Household or Community Level
-
‘Layman’s Guide to Livelihoods’
Figure 1. DISTRICT AGRICULTURAL EXTENSION SERVICES SYSTEM (Conceptual Framework for Malawi)
PATHWAY TOWARDS COMMUNITY RESILIENCE AND ENABLING LOCAL GOVERNANCE FOR RURAL SERVICES PROVISION TO MITIGATE THE IMPACT OF HIV/AIDS
Box 7: Some Issues and Challenges for Policy and Strategy Development to Mitigate the Impact of HIV/AIDS in Rural Communities.
|
|
