The ‘happy strategies’ game: Matching land and water interventions with landscape needs
The ‘Happy Strategies’ Game:
Matching Land and Water Interventions
with Landscape Needs
Alan Duncan, Beth Cullen, Catherine Pfeifer and Peter
Ballantyne
International Forum on Water and Food, Johannesburg,
South Africa 14-16 Nov 2011
http://www.nbdc.org
Origins of the Game
Nile Project 3: Aims to identify ‘best bet’ practices and
technologies to scale out
Objectives of the Game
Match what we know to a specific landscape
Combine practices and interventions into a strategy to
address specific issues/problems of a landscape
Test an interactive ‘game’ approach to matching supply
and demand
Process
• Groups form, each with a facilitator, set of game cards
• Landscape introduction – contours, issues, actors …
• Groups formulate initial strategy ideas / review package of
‘practices’ in its hand
• Combine practices into a strategy
– Exchange wanted / unwanted practices with other groups
(with the helpdesk)
– Identify essential ‘interventions’ to deliver the strategy
– Develop innovations – practices – that you need but are not
already in the game. Obtain these from the helpdesk
• Share your strategy with the wider group
– Document your strategy, how you came to it, major choices,
any trade-offs you made
Intended result by group
An ‘objective’ tailored to the landscape [in the
presentation]
A strategy to achieve this objective, comprising:
Package of practices
Essential interventions
Needed Innovations
Site description – Jegerida
This fictional landscape is derived from real sites of the NBDC
Elevation
Wide variation in
elevation from
Highland to
Lowland
Slope
Some very steep
terrain especially
in mid-altitude
areas.
Rainfall
Moderate rainfall
of 900 to 1800 mm
per year.
Poorly distributed
– most falls in an
intense rainy
season
Soils
Deep volcanic soils
Susceptible to
erosion
Prone to
waterlogging
Low organic
matter content
Access to markets and water
One major urban
centre but poor
infrastructural
development
Many water
courses for
irrigation
Erosion potential
Slope and soils
mean high erosion
potential,
particularly in
Highland and mid-
altitudinal areas.
Elevation
Zone 1
highland
Zone 2 midlands
Zone 3 lowlands
Jegerida innovation platform
First meeting held recently
Actors: Many government line departments, Local
Agricultural Research Center, Grassroots Development
NGO
Key land and water management constraints
identified
Population increase leading to cultivation of steep slopes and land
deforestation, soil erosion etc.
Very short land use planning horizon by farmers.
Limited use of improved land and water management technologies
Erosion – loss of soil fertility
Flooding in lowland areas
Poor crop yields
System failures
Top-down implementation and lack of
farmer/community participation seem to be major
historical factors in deteriorating NRM practices.
Community based institutions may have been weakened
due to strong government intervention during a
previous regime
Although current approaches are said to be
participatory, this is debatable which has implications
for long-term sustainability.
Collective action not working
Planning and implementation
Most successful NRM activities are on farm and initiated
and carried out by farmers
Those requiring collective action are not working due to
previous efforts in which farmers have been co-opted
and ownership has been lacking.
Farmer awareness
Many govt
respondents stated
that “farmer
awareness” was a
major stumbling
block to progress –
such attitudes are
not conducive to
building farmer
engagement.
Farmers often destroy the results of
their work under collective
schemes which is perhaps
indicative of their feelings towards
these activities.
Summary
Overlying issues
Poor food security
High poverty levels
Key land and water management constraints identified
Population increase leading to cultivation of steep slopes and land
deforestation, soil erosion etc.
Very short land use planning horizon by farmers.
Limited use of improved land and water management technologies
Erosion – loss of soil fertility
Flooding in lowland areas
Poor crop yields
System constraints
Top down implementation
Weak local institutions
Market access limited