The challenge of HIV/AIDS: Where does agroforestry fit in? - World ...

Chapter 17: Institutional collaboration in agroforestry143and iii) there is a lack of interdisciplinaryteam work, leading to sub-optimal use ofexisting human resources and a lack ofsynergy. Research results are therefore notdisseminated effectively.The extension system also has severalbottlenecks that hamper the free flow ofinformation with research and educationalorganizations. These include: i) a hierarchicalextension approach, using one-waycommunication for spreading nationalpolicies and tending to overlook localknowledge and practices; ii) a focus ontechnologies that do not consider socioeconomicor cultural aspects; iii) weak institutionalsupport systems (e.g. resources,facilities, human resources, knowledge andskills) hamper the acquiring and sharingof knowledge; and iv) limited experienceand lack of capacity in using participatorymethods. In addition, cross-cutting policyand institutional factors influence the linksbetween research, extension and education.Policy makers are often not sufficientlyinvolved in the development process ata local level. Institutional structures do nothelp either; there are often several differentministries involved, which may or may notcollaborate.As a result of these bottlenecks and missinglinks, educational institutions face difficultiesin teaching subjects that requireinterdisciplinary skills and a good grasp ofcurrent research and extension paradigms.Examples of such complex areas are thelivelihoods in the ethnically diverse uplandsof Southeast Asia, the links betweenlocal land use and environmental services,or farmers’ postharvest processing andmarketing.Given the increasing interest in agroforestryeducation at tertiary level, how can individualinstitutions tackle the kind of issuesdiscussed above? They cannot change sucha complex situation alone. To have a strongvoice, they need to unite. Networkingamong universities and colleges has beenfound to be an effective tool.Development of regionalnetworksSeveral universities and colleges in Africaand Southeast Asia began to take an interestin agroforestry education during themid-1970s. This was triggered by populationincrease, rapid changes in land use(including extensive deforestation) andissues raised by the global society aboutsustainable development and the environment,such as widespread soil erosion andland degradation. Educational institutionswere also influenced by external factors,such as advances in international agroforestryresearch and development. Theprocess of strengthening capacity for agroforestryeducation and training evolvedthrough the following steps:1. International training courses, such as theWorld Agroforestry Centre’s ‘Introductionto agroforestry research and development’in the 1970s and 1980s, exposededucators and researchers to agroforestryprinciples and practices.2. Alumni tried to introduce agroforestrycourses into their home institutions inAfrica, Asia and Latin America, with varyingdegrees of success. This was done opportunistically.3. A broader interest emerged in universitiesand colleges to incorporate agroforestryinto education programmes, particularlyin faculties of forestry.4. Some institutions developed degreeprogrammes (B.Sc. and M.Sc.) in agroforestry.5. In time, many institutions began teachingagroforestry courses or programmes attechnical, B.Sc. and M.Sc. levels, but therewere few mechanisms for institutionalcollaboration nationally or regionally(compared to forestry and agriculture).6. The need for joint curriculum standardsand sharing of resources was recognized.7. Regional workshops were held, culminatingin decisions by educational institutionsto establish regional networks. Thisprocess was jointly facilitated by the Centre’sAfrican and Southeast Asian officesand key universities in the two regions.Status and needs assessments and institutionalvisits to universities and colleges(conducted in the early 1990s in Africa andin 1997/8 in Southeast Asia) revealed a seriesof constraints to agroforestry education(Hansson 1992; Temu and Zulberti 1994;Rudebjer and del Castillo 1999):• agroforestry was not recognized as specializationor discipline;• agroforestry curricula were inadequate:they were often incomplete and lackeda common standard;• training materials were in short supply:they were to few, too specialized, or inthe wrong language, and even whenmaterials were available, the librariescould not afford them;• there was limited research capacityamong staff and graduates;• lecturers needed training in all aspectsof agroforestry because agroforestry sciencehad developed so fast that therewere few trained teachers; and• there were inadequate links with fieldpractices.At the same time, opportunities fornetworking were appearing. Agroforestryprogrammes were offered within many educationalinstitutions. Stronger institutionswanted to take the lead while the ‘weaker’ones wanted to learn from others. Therewas recognition of the challenges relatedto land sub-division and intensification of