396 Modern Agricultural Reforms
that is often central to Types 1–4 means they should be seen as types of non-
participation (Hart, 1992; Satterthwaite et al, 1995).
Great care must therefore be taken over both using and interpreting the term
participation. It should always be qualified by reference to the type of participa-
tion, as most types will threaten rather than support the goals of sustainable agri-
culture. What is important is to ensure that those using the term participation
both clarify their specific application and define better ways of shifting from the
more common passive, consultative and incentive-driven participation towards
the interactive end of the spectrum.
In recent years, the creative ingenuity of practitioners worldwide has hugely
increased the range of participatory methods and approaches in use (see Conway,
1987; KKU, 1987; PLA (formerly RRA) Notes, 1988 cont.; Mascarenhas et al, 1991;
Chambers, 1992; IDS/IIED, 1994; Pretty et al, 1995). These imply shifts of initia-
tive, responsibility and action to rural people themselves, and result in processes of
collective learning leading to collective action. Sustainable soil and water conserva-
tion, with all its uncertainties and complexities, cannot be envisaged without all
stakeholders being involved in continuing processes of learning and action.
Future Challenges: Towards Land Husbandry
Soil and water conservation practices based on imposed technological interven-
tions have not delivered the environmental or economic benefits they promised.
The practice of designing and implementing interventions without involving local
people can only succeed with coercion. Such enforced responses may appear tech-
nically appropriate, but are commonly rejected by local people when external pres-
sure is removed.
A thorough reassessment of existing soil and water conservation practices is
needed, building on the recent experiences of participatory and farmer-oriented
programmes that emphasize the broader goals of land husbandry. These experi-
ences signal that changes to soil and water conservation programmes are both pos-
sible and positive. The principal impacts have been:
- economic benefits, such as increases in land value and demand for labour,
substantial increases in crop and livestock production, and increases in fodder
and fuel production, increases in the diversity of crops grown, and improve-
ments in livelihood security through the diversification of livelihood sources; - social benefits, such as greater self-confidence and sense of cohesion in com-
munities, reduced conflicts over resources, reduced out-migration, attention
to the needs of landless groups and new rapport between local people and
external professionals; - environmental benefits, such as recharge of aquifers and increased supply of
drinking and irrigation water, reduced soil erosion, salinity, and the use of