The workshop on 'Mitigation of HIV/AIDS impacts through agriculture and rural development' was held at the HSRC in Pretoria, South Africa, from 27-29 May 2003. The overall goal was to 'initiate a process of analysing success stories and defining future actions for the mitigation of HIV/AIDS impacts through agriculture and rural development'.
This was done specifically in light of the fact that the effects of HIV/AIDS in many parts of the world but in the southern Africa region in particular, are devastating. Further, while international agencies are active in the mitigation process and both networks and case studies exist, little practical documentation o is available on how agriculture and rural development interventions can support the mitigation of HIV/AIDS.
The challenge for the participants of the workshop was therefore to move beyond theoretical discussions and deliberate on the ideas, strategies and successes from (mainly) Southern Africa that have potential as interventions in new areas.
Below are the main objectives of the workshop:
To summarise the impact of HIV/AIDS on farms/households and communities. In this process, specific attention was be given to the theoretical aspects related to the impact, as well as theoretical recommendations/concepts which have proven to be successful in other cases and which could be implemented in order to mitigate the impact (Day 1)
Sharing knowledge and experiences on evidence based successes and problems of HIV/AIDS mitigation work in rural areas in order to highlight gaps which still exist in the mitigation process and provide reasons for these (Day 1)
Analysing the lessons learnt from successes and failures in HIV/AIDS mitigation in the past. Where successes have been documented, these will be used to develop recommendations for best practises and instruments/guidelines for replication of such successes elsewhere (Day 2). Attention will specifically be focused on key levels of mitigation interventions, including on:
В Individual level (e.g. farms and households);
Community level (e.g. responses by communities);
Institutional level (e.g. service delivery arrangements, extension services, markets, etc.); and
Policy level: approaches for strategy development
Initiating of and committing to future action plans. These might include fields/projects for further research, programme proposals, networking, broader stakeholder involvement, etc. (Day 3).
Key findings of the workshop
AIDS undermines people's ability to engage in agriculture, and to benefit from rural development. As the current crisis in southern Africa has shown, those living with or affected by chronic illness can work less, or spend time caring for others, or have decreasing experience and skills. They may have to sell off productive assets, or leave them under-utilized.
From 27 - 29 May 2003, 45 participants from 13 countries representing government, international and local NGOs, UN bodies, academic institutions and donors met in Pretoria to discuss practical lessons on mitigating the impacts of HIV/AIDS through agriculture and rural development. This workshop initiated a process of sharing experiences, with the longer-term objective of developing good practice and influencing policies. Some of the key findings include:
Development, relief and rehabilitation must be addressed together.
Standard practice focuses on social and economic development, punctuated by occasional emergencies that require short-term relief until people get "back on track." However, increasing poverty rates and the collapse of services show that development work hasn't been too successful in the past. The advent of AIDS underscores the fact that 'business as usual' must change.
Many of those affected by HIV/AIDS need special support to help them participate and benefit from interventions. Children and young people need the opportunity to develop their own skills and resources by staying in school; they should not have to drop out to keep their families alive. Those most affected by AIDS simply don't have the time or ability to engage in development efforts, and need relief, social protection or welfare over an extended period in order to survive.
For example, a healthy couple caring for orphans may get by, perhaps with some agricultural support. A widow in the same community, ill with AIDS while caring for orphans, finds it harder to engage in agriculture. She may not benefit from agricultural support and her family may need food support, better medical care, and wavering of school fees. It is important to note that the situation of the widow could well represent the future of the healthy woman in the first example.
Given the reality of AIDS, the entire approach to development must change. Interventions in any community should always combine development, relief and rehabilitation aspects. Without increased support through safety nets and other forms of on-going social protection, standard development practice will not suffice for the most vulnerable.
Policy should encourage and be influenced by local implementation.
National and international policies provide important direction for the fight against AIDS. However, efforts are always implemented locally. Too often, policy-makers don't understand the practical problems in communities, or the specific factors that lead to success or failure.
Ministries, organizations, and international bodies should make stronger efforts to learn from the successes and difficulties encountered within efforts to minimize the impacts of AIDS. These lessons should be continually used to review and improve advocacy, and eventually policy.
Better targeting and participation help affected people take charge.
Practitioners must be clearer about whom they are working with, and are not working with. It is insufficient to target 'people affected by AIDS.' Impacts of illness and premature death vary widely across families; even the situation of a single family changes dramatically over time. Agricultural support can help one family, but be meaningless for its neighbor. Young girls at high risk of HIV may not benefit from programmes that are successful with older women.
Service organizations should use participatory approaches, through which they seek out and work with affected men, women, boys and girls who usually are unintentionally excluded. Efforts to work with 'the vulnerable' as a broad group must be replaced by a more sensitive approach that is responsive to people with different types of vulnerability. This starts by listening to them.
Focus on multisectoral partnerships at district and village level.
No single rural development intervention can work for everyone in a community, so there must be a range of services. HIV/AIDS is not a health issue alone: a single family may need a mix of services across sectors, all in the district or village. However, no one organization can address all.
It is crucial to foster improved services coordination and to forge strong local partnerships among organizations with complementary skills spanning agriculture, health, education, social protection, and so on. In a single village, organizations with complementary skills can build upon the expertise of others. For example, an integrated approach by home-based caregivers, orphan committees, agricultural extension agents and health workers can ensure that food, school fee relief, home gardens and health care go directly to families that most need them. This is a broad version of the AIDS 'continuum of care.'
Partnerships have been discussed for decades, but are less easy to implement. There are examples of strong partnerships among specific organizations and departments in some districts or communities, but we need keener efforts to encourage these local partnerships more widely.
Beyond 'labour saving' technologies and practices.
People affected by AIDS tend to have multiple burdens, with less time to address them. One common response is to encourage "labor saving technologies and practices." These can be useful in some situations, but the focus on labour-saving should be broadened to "labour management."
In addition to saving labour, labour management can include spreading labor demands over time to minimize work needed at peak periods (such as different approaches to land preparation), enabling quick returns to labor (through fast-maturing varieties or animal breeds), or increasing returns to labour (through adding value to any goods that are marketed).
Development of a range of technologies and practices should include active involvement of the people who could benefit, taking indigenous knowledge and cultural aspects into consideration.
Base policy and practice on experimentation and evidence of success.
Good practice should be based upon evidence of what works, not merely on seemingly good ideas. We need more experimentation and creative approaches, backed by evidence of successful interventions. These can then influence policy and practice more widely.
Action research provides one way of assessing interventions for understanding what does and does not work in specific situations, for different types of people.
Use of a standard, systematic format for writing up short case studies allows examples to be compared, and makes it easier to assess efforts. Through development of more case studies, it will become easier to identify examples of good indicators of success.
Topics which need more attention
There was insufficient time to address several key issues. Chief among these were:
Orphans, vulnerable children, youth and AIDS
Impact of Aids on staff of agencies that provide services
Development programmes that unintentionally increase HIV transmission
- 297Kb ~ 2 min]
