V. PLANNING STAGE
Step 13. State of knowledge review and assessment of research needs
- Assess readiness of each of the designed technologies for direct extension and/or need for further research
- Compile integrated list of research needs, including:
- Need for further D&D (pre-project follow up and/or monitoring of field trials during project implementation
- On-farm trials of candidate technologies
- Farmer managed trials to assess adoptability and elicit farmer’s own design ideas
- Researcher managed trials to evaluate experimental variables under:
- On-station investigations under controlled conditions to obtain detailed information on component interactions, response to management, germplasm screening, etc.
Step 14. Research and extension plan
- Develop overall plan of action, detailing:
- Individual research investigations
- Extension activities
- Integration of research and extension goals and activities
- Collaboration in research and extension networks
VI. IMPLEMENTATION STAGE
Step 15. Implementation of R&D and extension activities
- Continue to apply the iterative D&D process to refine prototype agroforestry systems on the basis of feedback from research and extension experience (re-diagnosis and re-design)
- Institutionalize communication channels between different programme components (hold periodic meetings to pool experience, assess new developments and modify the plan of action in the light of new experience)
Comparison of D&D with similar methodologies
Several methodologies that endeavour to design improved and appropriate land-use systems are currently in use, and at least two of them, the FSR/E and Land Evaluation, have been in use for the longer period than the D&D. Comparisons have been made between D&D and these other longer-established methods . With regard to procedural aspects, D&D is more closely related to the FSR/E (sometimes D&D is even portrayed as a form of FSR/E). According to Raintree, D&D is, however, different from FSR/E in the following aspects:
- It possesses a broader diagnostic scope, giving specific attention to the role of trees within the farming system;
- It has a more elaborate technology design step, which is needed to visualize the more complex landscape intervention typical of agroforestry;
- It may be applied at variable-scales; and
- It places a greater emphasis on the iterative nature of a diagnostic and design process.
- A detailed comparison of D&D with Land Evaluation has been made by Young. He argues that if Land Evaluation is applied to agroforestry, then the wrong methodologies are attempting to accomplish virtually the same task: to find out the best system of improved land use for a given site. One of the main differences, however, appears to be a stronger treatment of environmental aspects in Land Evaluation, and a stronger treatment of social aspects in D&D.
- Another relatively new methodology of similar nature is the agro-ecosystem analysis. This is a conceptually simpler methodology for rapid rural appraisals. Although no systematic comparison has been made between D&D and agro-ecosystems analysis, the two approaches share the same philosophy. Another recent holistic approach to land management that has originated from the rangeland management perspective places a greater emphasis on design as opposed to diagnosis.
- It will thus appear that all these methodologies have the same essential features; each, however, has specific merits for specific situations. The D&D because of its agroforestry orientation is more popular in agroforestry circles. Nonetheless, if agroforestry itself is considered as a subset of farming systems (as Farming Systems experts sometimes claim) and FSR/E becomes broader and visualizes tree on farms as essential components of farming systems, the remaining differences, if any, between FSR/E and D&D will be of purely academic interest.
- But the fact remains that these are only methodologies for logically addressing land-use problems; they are not substitutes for action, i.e., testing, refining, and disseminating interventions. Additionally, a sound grasp of biological and social problems, as well as knowledge of possible interventions and a creative approach, are required of the multidisciplinary teams. The suitability of the diagnosis and the design will be a function of their knowledge and creativity; similarly, the success of the action depends on the merits of the available technologies. Furthermore the methodologies can, at best, only identify the problems and suggest the solutions; the solutions themselves depend on how the knowledge is advanced and applied.
|
Participants