Karl-Erik Johansson

Agroforestry is considered a subsistence system that balances the urgent need for food and income of small scale farmers with restoration and conservation of ecosystem services, and climate change adaptation and mitigation. The Vi Agroforestry Program aims to implement agroforestry as a means to alleviate poverty and increase resilience among the poorest smallholders. After seven years, the Vi Agroforestry Project in the Mara Region of Tanzania had an inter-village variation in the proportion of households with tangible surviving agroforestry trees ranging from 10%–90%. Using a multiple methods approach, this variation was analysed in relation to changes and differences among administrative districts and project zones regarding perceived barriers to agroforestry adoption, project interventions, governance and the chronology of the process. In districts and zones where collaboration among the project staff, government counterparts and other stakeholders had been established at multiple levels, more agroforestry trees survived and a larger proportion of households practiced agroforestry. The established collaboration made it possible to discover and consider opportunities and barriers to agroforestry development such as diverse stakeholder interests and perceptions. As a result, potential conflicts could be avoided and socially robust solutions developed, adapted and integrated into the local subsistence systems.

Agroforestry practices can improve the adaptive capacity and resilience of local farming and subsistence systems while providing livelihood benefits to households. However, scaling up of agroforestry technology has often proved difficult. Many studies have been carried out to explain the lack of tangible impact, based mainly on formal household/farm surveys comparing characteristics of non-adopters with that of adopters. In this study, we mapped the relationship between agroforestry tree survival in villages that were a part of the Vi Agroforestry project in the Mara region, Tanzania with key social-ecological variables. A random sample of 21 households from each of 89 investigated project villages was used. The proportion of households with surviving agroforestry trees, varied from 10%–90% among villages. Social and ecological differences between villages were important explanations to this variation. Variables related to the project and its operations explained most of the inter-village variation in households with few surviving trees. To encourage the majority of village households to practice agroforestry their perceptions of tree ownership and the benefit of agroforestry were additional key factors to the project showing the importance of socio-cultural issues to the households’ decisions to continue beyond the initial tree planting and testing phase.

Sustainable Development and Sustainability: Landscape Approach as a Practical Interpretation of Principles and Implementation Concepts: The situation for governors and managers of natural resources has increased in complexity. Previously it was enough to sustain the yields of wood, food and energy. Today, maintenance of ecosystem services, conservation of biodiversity, rural development and human wellbeing are new additional objectives. At the same time there are new risks and uncertainties linked to climate change, economic globalisation, energy security and water supply. Consequently, adaptive and holistic research, governance and management are needed. Landscape is a concept and framework that can be used as an approach to enhance implementation of policies about sustainable development as a societal process and sustainability as outcomes on the ground. For our analysis to define the landscape approach we used a hierarchical framework consisting of principles, concepts and initiatives; and included three principles defining SD and sustainability and five international concepts to analyze its implementation for our analysis to define landscape approach. We propose a practical operationalization that consists of five core attributes, (1) a sufficiently large area that matches management requirements and challenges to deliver desired goods, services and values, (2) multi-level and multi-sector stakeholder collaboration that promotes sustainable development as a social process, (3) commitment to and understanding of sustainability as an aim among stakeholders, (4) integrative knowledge production, and (5) sharing of experience, results and information, to develop local or tacit to general or explicit knowledge. Finally, we discuss the need for integrative research to study landscape approach concepts and what local initiatives using different concepts deliver on the ground.

Non-governmental organizations (NGO) and government donor agencies (GDA) are often caught in a dilemma; an NGO between responsiveness to its target group(s), expectations of individual donors and demands of its GDA; GDA between its policy to respect NGO’s integrity, its wish to keep NGOs accountable for received fund and its operation within the bounds of its general policies. This dilemma is mirrored in the NGO–GDA negotiation for funds. Based on negotiation theory and using three explanatory approaches, 18 years of negotiations between an NGO, Vi Skogen (ViS) and its GDA, the Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency (Sida), are analyzed in order to demonstrate how organizational structures, power relations and the context influence the outcome of the negotiations. All three approaches help to explain how ViS managed, mainly in the interest of its individual donors, to resist changes demanded by Sida and also to explain how the agendas of ViS and Sida finally converged. Les organisations non gouvernementales (ONG) et les organismes donateurs gouvernementaux (ODG) sont souvent pris dans un dilemme : pour les ONG, satisfaire à la réactivité pour leur (s) groupe (s) cibles (s), aux attentes des donateurs individuels et aux exigences de l’organisme donateur gouvernemental auxquelles elles sont rattachées; pour les ODG, mettre en œuvre leur politique visant à respecter l’intégrité des ONG, obtenir que les ONG rendent compte des fonds qui leur sont versés, et mener leurs opérations dans les limites de leur politique générale. Ce dilemme se retrouve dans les négociations pour l’attribution des fonds entre ONG et ODG. À partir de la théorie de la négociation et en utilisant trois approches explicatives, nous analysons dix-huit ans de négociation entre Vi Skogen (ViS), une ONG, et Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency (Sida, l’agence suédoise de coopération au développement international), l’organisme donateur gouvernemental dont elle dépend, afin de démontrer comment les structures organisationnelles, les rapports de force et le contexte pèsent sur le résultat des négociations. Ces trois approches contribuent à expliquer comment ViS a réussi, principalement dans l’intérêt de ses donateurs individuels, à résister aux changements demandés par Sida, et comment les programmes de ces deux entités ont fini par se rejoindre. Nicht-staatliche Organisationen und staatliche Spendenorganisationen stecken oftmals in einem Dilemma; die nicht-staatlichen Organisationen stehen zwischen ihrer Ansprechbarkeit gegenüber ihren Zielgruppen, den Erwartungen individueller Spender und den Forderungen ihrer staatlichen Spendenorganisationen; die staatlichen Spendenorganisationen stehen zwischen ihrem Grundsatz, die Integrität der nicht-staatlichen Organisationen zu respektieren, ihrem Wunsch, die nicht-staatlichen Organisationen für erhaltene Mittel zur Rechenschaft zu ziehen und ihrer Tätigkeit, welche innerhalb der Schranken ihrer allgemeinen Richtlinien zu erfolgen hat. Dieses Dilemma spiegelt sich in den Verhandlungen über Mittelzuweisungen zwischen den nicht-staatlichen Organisationen und den staatlichen Spendenorganistionen wieder. Begründet auf der Verhandlungstheorie und mittels dreier Erklärungsansätze werden die seit achtzehn Jahren stattfindenden Verhandlungen zwischen einer nicht-staatlichen Organisation, Vi Skogen (ViS,) und ihrer staatlichen Spendenorganisation, der schwedischen Behörde für internationale Entwicklungszusammenarbeit (Sida), untersucht, um darzustellen, welchen Einfluss Organisationsstrukturen, Machtverhältnisse und der Zusammenhang auf das Verhandlungsergebnis haben. Alle drei Ansätze tragen zu der Erklärung bei, wie die ViS es, hauptsächlich im Interesse ihrer individuellen Spendengeber, schaffte, sich den von der Sida geforderten Änderungen zu widersetzen und wie sich die Ziele der ViS und der Sida letztendlich näher kamen. A menudo, las organizaciones no gubernamentales (ONG) y las instituciones donantes gubernamentales (GDA) se enfrentan a un dilema: las ONG deben decidir contentar a sus grupos meta, las expectativas de los donantes individuales y plegarse a las exigencias de su GDA; las GDA entre su política de respetar la integridad de las ONG, su deseo de hacer a las ONG responsables de los fondos recibidos y su funcionamiento dentro de los límites de sus políticas generales. Este dilema se refleja en la negociación entre las ONG y las GDA a propósito de los fondos. A la luz de la teoría de la negociación y utilizando tres enfoques explicativos, se analizan dieciocho años de negociaciones entre la ONG Vi Skogen (ViS) y su GDA, la Agencia Sueca de Cooperación Internacional para el Desarrollo (ASDI), con el fin de demostrar cómo las estructuras organizativas, las relaciones de poder y el contexto influyen en el resultado de las negociaciones. Los tres enfoques ayudan a explicar cómo ViS consiguió resistir, sobre todo en interés de sus donantes individuales, los cambios exigidos por la ASDI y también cómo convergieron finalmente los programas de la ViS y la ASDI. 非政府组织(英语缩写 NGO)和政府捐助机构 (英语缩写 GDA)往往处于进退两难之中:非政府组织夹在对其目标群体的反应、个别捐赠者的期望及其政府捐助机构的要求等之中;政府捐助机构则夹在其对非政府组织完整性的尊重、其在保持非政府组织对接受资金负责方面和这些组织经营操作限于该机构一般政策范围内方面的愿望等之间。 这一进退两难反映于非政府组织与政府捐助机构在资金方面的谈判之中。基于谈判理论和使用三种解释性方法,对一个名为 Vi Skogen (ViS) 的非政府组织及其政府捐助机构”瑞典国际发展合作署”(Sida) 之间在十八年中的谈判进行了分析,以演示组织结构、权利关系及其背景对谈判结果的影响。所有三种方法帮助解释了 ViS 在主要是保护其个别捐赠者的利益情况下如何得以成功地拒绝了 Sida 所要求的变化,同时也解释了双方的议程如何终于趋於一致。 非営利団体(NGO)と政府ドナー機関(GDA)は、目標グループへの反応におけるNGOの相互間、 個々のドナーの期待、NGO保全を尊重する方針におけるGDAへの要望、受け取った基金に責任を持つNGOへの期待、一般的な方針の結合における運営において、よくジレンマに陥る。このジレンマはNGOとGDAの基金交渉で明らかになる。交渉理論に基づき、3つの説明可能なアプローチを用いることで、NGO、Vi Skogen(ViS)、GDAであるスウェーデンの国際開発協力庁(Sida)における18年間にわたる交渉を通して、組織体制、力関係、状況が、どのように交渉の結果に対して影響を及ぼすかを分析する。これらすべての3つのアプローチでは、主として個々のドナーの利益においては、Sidaによる要求された変更に対する抵抗に対してViSがどのように管理されるか、さらにViSとSidaに関する基本方針がどのように最終的に集約されるかの説明するのに役立つ。 المنظمات الغير حكومية(NGO) ووكالات الحكومة المانحة(GDA) غالباً ما تكون واقعة في مأزق ؛ المنظمات الغير حكومية (NGO) بين الإستجابة لمجموعاتها المستهدفة، توقعات الجهات المانحة الفردية و طليات وكالات حكومتها المانحة(GDA) ؛ كذلك وكالات الحكومة المانحة (GDA) بين سياستها على إحترام نزاهة المنظمات الغير حكومية(NGO) ، و رغبتها في إبقاء المنظمات الغير حكومية (NGO) للمساءلة عن الموارد المالية التي تم إستلامها و التشغيل في حدود سياساتها العامة. هذه المعضلة منعكسة في تفاوض المنظمات الغير حكومية(NGO – وكالات الحكومة المانحة (GDA) للحصول على الأموال.على أساس نظرية التفاوض واستخدام ثلاثة طرق تفسيرية، وثمانية عشر عاماً مفاوضات بين منظمة غير حكومية (NGO)، المنظمة السويدية (Vi Skogen (ViS)) ووكالة حكومتها المانحة ((GDA، ووكالة التنمية الدولية السويدية التعاونية (سيدا ((Sida)، يتم تحليهم من أجل إظهار كيف أن الهياكل التنظيمية ، وعلاقات القوة والنفوذ تؤثر في نتائج المفاوضات. الثلاث طرق تساعد على شرح كيف نجحت المنظمة السويدية (ViS) ، أساساً في الإهتمام بجهاتها المانحة الفردية ، مقاومة التغييرات التي تطالب بها سيدا ((Sida وأيضا شرح كيف أن جداول أعمال المنظمة السويدية(ViS) وسيدا ((Sida أخيرًا تقاربوا.