CHAPTER 1
IMPERATA AND PEOPLE

1.3 Working with People and Imperata

Community development should begin with local community objectives. However, national or regional governments or programs often have objectives for Imperata rehabilitation that are combined with watershed restoration, resettlement, or economic development. These regional objectives may complement local community objectives, or they may be in conflict with them. Conflicting objectives usually cannot be resolved by just educating the community, but require dialog and respectful negotiation.

Project managers and extension agents serve both regional programs and local communities. They can help communities to explain their needs to programs and governments. They can try to adjust outside assistance to meet the objectives of local communities as much as possible. Or, they can choose only communities that are good matches for the development activities.

• 1.3.1 Role of the extensionist
  
  Extensionists are the critical link in the chain between farmers and research institutions, development organizations, and government offices. Especially in Imperata grassland rehabilitation, the extensionist should not just give farmers technical instructions. An effective extensionist listens and learns. Often, only local people can explain the history of an Imperata grassland and what land claims and land uses exist.

  

  ...is sensitive. Farmers have constraints and limitations, like insecure tenure or lack of resources. These constraints may keep them from carrying out recommended activities. Their reluctance may be perfectly rational. It may be the recommendations that need to be changed.

  ...recognizes farmers' abilities. Farmers are often creative experimenters. The extensionist should encourage them to establish small trials of variations on technical recommendations. Farmers with small plots can manage their land in a more complex way than large plantations. They can select and plant a mixture of multipurpose trees or specialty crops that grow in specific microsites or planting spaces. Such intensive development of the land leaves less Imperata as a fire hazard.

  ...helps the community with its objectives. The extensionist's work should serve community needs and objectives. In addition, short-term help with even small or unrelated objectives will build the community support and trust needed to address long-term or regional objectives.

  ...enables and empowers the community. Within the community, the extensionist should encourage self-help groups to develop cooperation and leadership in the community. The community should be prepared to continue its activities even if the extensionist or outside funding leaves. Communities in Imperata-dominated areas are often remote and isolated. The extensionist can help overcome this isolation by introducing community leaders to government agencies and other sources of long-term assistance.

  ...is patient and has a sense of humor!

• 1.3.2 Community perspectives
  
  Before launching any activities in Imperata grassland rehabilitation, outside facilitators should understand community perspectives on all ways that Imperata and alternative land uses affect the community. Talk to people representing all those groups potentially affected: men and women, people from various villages, people of all ethnic groups, rich and poor, young and old, long-settled residents and recent migrants, landowners and those owning no land. Often it is the least prominent people who are most dependent on forest and grassland resources.
  Cover the following topics:

1. History of the grasslands. When did these grasslands come into ' being? How have they been used in the past? Have they been continuously maintained as grasslands?
    

2. Use of Imperata and Imperata grasslands. Is Imperata used for thatch, medicine, rituals, fodder, or other things? Are Imperata grasslands used for shifting agriculture, hunting grounds, pasture, or thatch production? Are there people who depend upon the Imperata resource for jobs? (For example, people may earn money by plowing Imperata fields, or by thatching roofs.)

3. Changes in Imperata grassland use. Can community elders remember these uses having changed during their lives? How has Imperata use been affected by changes in population, markets, technology, government pressure, or other events?



4. Rules for grassland use rights. What are the current laws, regulations, and local customs controlling use rights for these grasslands? How have these rules changed or evolved from past traditions? How might an Imperata grassland rehabilitation effort change these rules, for example by changing land tenure or use rights?

5. Differences within the community. Who uses Imperata! Who claims Imperata grasslands? Are there differences between how different groups (ethnic groups, men/women, old/young, rich/poor, etc.) use or own it? How would changes brought about by Imperata grassland rehabilitation affect these groups?

6. Local value of Imperata. Do local people value Imperata and Imperata grasslands? How does that value compare with the value of forest, forest plantations, other secondary vegetation, agroforestry and crops? Where do farmers prefer to plant their crops?

7. Productivity and environmental sustainability. Are current land use practices productive? Do they cause environmental problems? Will they continue to be productive in the long term? Do local farming practices affect primary forest, old fallows, or grasslands? Is soil erosion significant? Does the threat of fire prevent investment in valuable crops?

8. Farmers' objectives. What are the farmers' plans or suggestions for improvement of the Imperata grasslands or of their farming practices? What changes do they think would benefit their households or the community?

9. Agroforestry or Assisted Natural Regeneration. Can agroforestry or ANR make the improvements suggested? What kind of agroforestry or ANR practices? What species of trees, shrubs or crops do farmers want to plant?

• 1.3.3 Community mapping and planning
  
  Encourage local people to engage in a participative exercise to make maps of the community and prospective land uses. This encourages sharing of information and discussing objectives. The maps become a focus around which the community begins to make decisions and plans. Start with a map or maps describing the current situation:
  
  Land ownership and claims. Map any large claims on forest and agricultural areas. Elicit detailed information about claims on Imperata grasslands.

  

  Existing vegetation types. Map the large areas of primary forest, secondary forest, agroforestry, and agriculture in the community. Pay particular attention to mapping the different kinds of lmperata grasslands: pure Imperata, Imperata with scattered shrubs and patches of forest, Imperata areas with scattered agricultural activities, sparse Imperata on poor soil, etc.

  Land use. Show detailed information on the various uses of Imperata grasslands, for example, agricultural fallow, hunting, and grazing.

  Special features. Include roads, streams, springs, hills, valleys, and other natural landmarks.

  Mark a copy of the map to show plans for future land use:

  Sites where current uses will continue :for example, forest, agroforestry, agriculture. Sites to remain in Imperata, for various reasons:

•  Imperata grasslands that the community wants to retain, for hunting, grazing, or thatch. Imperata might be an important source of forage for local communities' cattle and water buffalo.

• Imperata grasslands that are so remote, fire-prone or infertile that it is not worth trying to rehabilitate them in the near future.

Sites for conversion from Imperata to other land uses. Identify the planned land uses, depending on characteristics of the site and the priorities of the community:

• agriculture

• agroforestry

• assisted natural regeneration

• tree plantations

• improved forage


Improvements planned, especially buildings, roads, trails and water projects.

The community may identify only a small area of land for Imperata grassland rehabilitation. This may suggest that rehabilitation is not perceived to be a priority and that the community may be better served by other efforts. Perhaps more land would be desired for rehabilitation if there were better market access or more secure land tenure. Or, perhaps the community has a "wait and see" attitude, and success with a small area will motivate people to try more later.