This document describes a game to match land and water interventions to landscape needs. It provides background on the origins and objectives of the game. It then details the process of the game where groups are given landscape profiles and must develop strategies combining practices and interventions. The document provides an example landscape profile for the fictional area of Jegerida which faces issues like soil erosion, flooding, and food insecurity. It also summarizes discussions from an innovation platform meeting that identified challenges in the area like weak community participation and limited use of improved land management technologies.

1. 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

2. Origins of the Game
 Nile Project 3: Aims to identify ‘best bet’ practices and
technologies to scale out

3. 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

4. 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

5. 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

6. Site description – Jegerida
This fictional landscape is derived from real sites of the NBDC

7. Elevation
 Wide variation in
elevation from
Highland to
Lowland

8. Slope
 Some very steep
terrain especially
in mid-altitude
areas.

9. Rainfall
 Moderate rainfall
of 900 to 1800 mm
per year.
 Poorly distributed
– most falls in an
intense rainy
season

10. Soils
 Deep volcanic soils
 Susceptible to
erosion
 Prone to
waterlogging
 Low organic
matter content

11. Access to markets and water
 One major urban
centre but poor
infrastructural
development
 Many water
courses for
irrigation

12. Erosion potential
 Slope and soils
mean high erosion
potential,
particularly in
Highland and mid-
altitudinal areas.

13. Elevation
Zone 1
highland
Zone 2 midlands
Zone 3 lowlands

14. Innovation platform updates

15. 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

16. Baseline diagnosis
 Looked at planning, implementation, innovation and
livelihoods issues

17. 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.

18. 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.

19. 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.

20. Campaigns
Implementation
Quotas
Land and
water
management
interventions

21. Farmers often destroy the results of
their work under collective
schemes which is perhaps
indicative of their feelings towards
these activities.

22. 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