system is currently very simple; this component of the system would need to be de-veloped, or linked to other sub-models before it could be considered for forecasting.
This point was echoed during the stakeholder workshop, and in discussions with re-searchers at ILRI/IWMI.
Evaluating models: Usability Participants were clear that models that were to be used by many stakeholders needed to be highly intuitive, useable and/or familiar to the users (see page 49). This was central to the approach taken, with several iterations in simplifying the GUI (graphical user-interface), instructions for users and the ap-pearance of the model code. These were all made with the single purpose of making the SWAP model more transparent and usable to potential users. This process is still not complete. It would be desirable for further iterations of stakeholder feedback to improve the usability of the model.
Evaluating models: Links to policy Several of the participants were clear about the need for a model to fit the policy context (see page 50). If there are ‘levers’ a policy maker has, that are not included in the model, the model will be quickly dismissed.
This concept was central to the decision to use a pre-existing framework of farmer behaviour and the factors central to the adoption of SWC measures (see page 117).
By using this framework, developed in the literature, the inclusion of all the relevant factors was insured from the start. Some individuals may raise factors that are not included (e.g., gender). This is unlikely to be a fatal flaw in the model, as participants can see the factors included have been through significant development prior to the model being built, giving the model legitimacy.
6.2 Constructing the SWC Policy Context
This chapter has explained that the way in which the SWC policy context was viewed was central to the development of the SWAP model, both in the general approach taken, and in the specific design. It is thus important to make explicit the way in which the issues of SWC and more generally land degradation have been construc-ted here. Chapter 4 began to do this implicitly but it is worthwhile making explicit and specifically focussing on detailing the critique of the policy process of SWC in
6.2. Constructing the SWC Policy Context 115
Ethiopia.
6.2.1 In General
In summary the general explanation in the literature is as follows. Despite awareness of the problem and the identification of simple SWC measures in many areas, the policy interventions designed to increase adoption have often failed in developing countries. It would appear that understandings of individual household decisions and constructions of farmer behaviour (based on household surveys and interviews) have been unsuccessful in guiding interventions when extrapolated to a wider scale. This is potentially due to the social and complex nature of the individual adoption decisions being made. Indeed, many writers have suggested policies are poorly calibrated to farmers and their behaviour (e.g., Illukpitiya and Gopalakrishnan 2004). It would appear one of the underlying issues is that land degradation and SWC are highly contextual (Warren,2002), making them difficult for traditional policy hierarchies and structures to deal with.
6.2.2 In Ethiopia
Beyond these generic explanations, in the Ethiopian context the disappointing impact of interventions has been put down to “misguided policy, authoritarian and top-down approaches guided by targets and coercion to mobilise labour, blanket approaches across vastly different agro-ecological and socio-economic contexts, or inappropriate technologies, just to name a few” (Ludi et al. 2013, p. 5). Others have drawn sim-ilar conclusions (e.g., Merrey and Gebreselassie,2011), which begin to highlight the political and cultural context alongside more generic issues.
Historically, interventions have been made in a top-down fashion in Ethiopia (Ludi et al., 2013). Keeley and Scoones (2000, p. 94) suggest that tendencies toward “au-thoritarianism, hierarchy, centralized rule and lack of transparency” have persisted in the Ethiopian state. Ethiopia’s history of authoritarian rule under the Derg is likely to play a large part in the development of its policies and thinking of policy makers (Ludi et al.,2013).
In recent times, the language of policy makers, and other stakeholders has shifted to include participatory concepts (Ludi et al., 2013). However, as Keeley and Scoones
6.2. Constructing the SWC Policy Context 116
(2000) and Harrison (2002) point out, this change appears to be a reflection of the international development literature and the demands of donors (i.e., official agen-cies, philanthropic organisations), and the actual changes felt on the ground are less clear and well-documented. Indeed, Merrey and Gebreselassie(2011, p.5) note that
“[a]lthough guidelines and training programs emphasize ‘participation’ of communit-ies, it will take many years to change the dominant culture of government and indeed communities from an authoritarian to a democratic mindset”.
Key to the process of SWC adoption and the interventions designed to increase it are the ‘development agents’ that play a central role in government work. These are indi-viduals who have the most contact with farmers, and are intended to provide neutral technical support . However,Ludi et al.(2013) highlight the fact that their training is often inadequate, their voices are not generally heard in the planning process, they are poorly motivated owing to poor pay, and are often compromised by being involved in administrative and political matters alongside their technical duties. More funda-mentally they are,
“caught between farmers and government, with the difficult task of recon-ciling top-down plans and quotas with local concerns and needs. They transmit information down to farmers but struggle to pass ideas and re-flections back from farmers to higher levels” (Ludi et al. 2013, p. 19).
This final point sums up the central problem that motivates the primary purpose of the SWAP model. The model is designed to help address this struggle in passing ideas and information up the policy hierarchy, by focussing discussion and interaction between stakeholders.
Whilst the possibility is not explored here in detail, this critique is assumed to be of some relevance to many developing countries’ SWC policy contexts. Thus the SWAP model is also potentially relevant and useful to SWC policy stakeholders in other countries.