Grassroots Development and Sustainable Development: A View from Voice of Farmers Project

Abstract: Along with national programs on sustainable development and climate change response, small-scale projects with a bottom-up approach also play an essential role in implementing sustainable development goals. The paper* analyzes the concepts of grassroots development and sustainable development based on a bottom-up climate change mitigation and adaptation project implemented in two Northwest provinces of Vietnam.

Keywords: Bottom-up, grassroots development, sustainable development, empower, participation, basic needs, NGO, adaptation, mitigation, climate change.

Introduction

Faced with significant climate change impacts, Vietnam as a whole, and the Northwest region in specific, has experienced various extreme weather events in recent years. As one of the most vulnerable sectors to climate change, agriculture is becoming increasingly fragile and threatening. In that context, the Voice of Farmers Project (VOF) was implemented from 2019 through 2022 to assist communities in the Northwest region of Vietnam to increase their resilience to climate change by introducing smart agriculture, climate change adaptation, and enhancing their role in socio-economic development planning (2021, PanNature).

In the project, Climate-Resilient Agriculture Villages (CRAV) were built with three objectives: guaranteeing agricultural productivity and income for local people, enhancing production capacity to adapt to climate change, and improving farming and animal husbandry activities to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and negative environmental impacts. The project was conducted in six districts in two provinces of Son La and Lai Chau under the coordination of People and Nature Reconciliation (PanNature), a local NGO, with financial support from the Civil Society in Development (CISU) through Agricultural Development Denmark Asia (ADDA).

As a grassroots project with a bottom-up approach, the project presents the features of this development approach, such as engagement of participation, aiming to meet people’s basic needs, and NGOs’ critical role in empowering. With climate change adaptation and mitigation goals, the project also reflects sustainable development. This paper analyzes some aspects of grassroots and sustainable development concepts through the mentioned project as a case study. From there, we argue that grassroots projects can play a knowledgeable role in improving people’s lives, adapting and mitigating climate change towards the goal of sustainable development.

Grassroots development

Grassroots development or bottom-up development is the alternative development model for the top-down conventional developmental approach, which was considered to have failed due to the hindrance of institutions created to foster development from the top. In that sense, the bottom-up model prioritizes rural development and distribution, focusing on small-scale, income-generating projects that involve the urban and rural poor, unlike the top-down model’s focus on industrialization and economic growth. (Sanyal, B. 1998, p1). This concept is being analyzed below with some main features and reflections in the introduced case.

Basic needs and participation

The concept of “basic needs” was promoted by multilateral organizations such as the International Labour Organization (ILO) and the World Bank, focusing on development policies for the poorest communities in society instead of macro-level policies. (Willis, K., 2005, p. 93). The Basic Needs Approach, introduced at the ILO’s 1976 World Employment Conference, outlines basic needs such as physical living conditions, access to services, employment, and decision-making for participation. (Willis, K., 2005, P.93-94). According to ILO, the basic need approach is described with six dimensions: “1. Minimum requirement of a family for consumption of food, shelter, clothing, household equipment, and furniture. 2. Essential services provided by and for the community: water, sanitation, public transport, facilities for health, education and culture. 3. Employment freely chosen. 4. Participation of the people in making the decisions that affect them through organizations of their own choice. 5. Dignity of individuals and peoples. 6. Freedom to chart their destiny without hindrance” (Hoadley, J. S., p. 149). This paper is concerned with two items of the basic needs approach, including the minimum requirement of families for food consumption and the participation of people in decision-making concerning our case study.

Among the VOF project’s goals, securing income and food security for people is the top goal based on supporting agricultural and livestock activities. In the context of climate change, many impacts, such as landslides, erosion, floods, and droughts, have affected people’s traditional cultivation. With the participation of communities in discussing and selecting adaptive models, the project has supported new livelihood models to help people address these impacts. New livelihood models based on climate change adaptation and mitigation interventions have positively ensured production outputs and increased communities’ income. For example, rice is essential to ensuring food security in Hop 1 village, Ban Lang commune, Lai Chau province, with a poverty rate of up to 28.3%. However, traditional farming does not bring high productivity, especially in the context of the impacts of extreme climate events. The project technically supported the community by applying the System of Rice Intensification (SRI) in cultivation. As a result, productivity improved, and income increased by 15-20 % compared to conventional planting. This result was essential in securing food for their family’s basic needs. (PanNature, 2022).

Grassroots development is frequently referred to as “participatory,” and participation is commonly used as an umbrella phrase to point to the involvement of local people in development initiatives, which non-governmental organizations frequently lead. (Willis, K, 2005, p. 103). As the definition of ILO, “A basic-needs-oriented policy implies the participation of the people in making the decision which affects them through organization of their own choice” (Hoadley, J. S., p. 150). Significantly, people with basic needs should actively participate in determining their needs rather than having them dictated from above (Douglas Rimmer, 1981, p.235). Participation can also mean the engagement of local people in setting development agendas rather than external agencies deciding priorities and working with them to achieve them. (Willis, K., 2005, p. 104).

The above definition of participation was entirely reflected in the VOF project. Acknowledging that people’s participation in establishing their basic needs in production to adapt to climate change while improving income is critical to the project’s success, the project implementer determined that participation engagement is one of the main pillars of the project. As a result, from the beginning, project planning included people through village meetings, interviews, surveys, and collecting input from local stakeholders. Participatory rural appraisal (PRA), which is popularly employed by NGOs to involve knowledge and awareness of local communities rather than relying on external knowledge (Willis, K., 2005, p.104), was applied in this proccess. People’s participation is also demonstrated through livelihood model implementation and their contributions to local socio-economic plans, which will be further discussed in the following section.

People’s participation is crucial for successfully implementing basic needs-oriented projects, especially when planning is organized into specific communities. (Bowler, S.J., 1987, p. 23). This is especially true relating to the VOF project. The project is implemented in six villages in two different provinces, so each locality experienced different issues related to climate change impacts, human potential, natural conditions, and cultivation capacity. Thus, the participation of the community from an early stage is significant in determining their specific basic needs. For example, survey results show that even though they have common economic models with farming and animal husbandry, each village has different orientations suitable to their natural conditions and production capacity. For example, Ban Lang’s selected solution is to produce sticky rice using the SRI method to increase rise productivity, while Thin Village planned to transition from ineffective crops to mango planting to deal with land erosion (PanNature, 2022).

NGO’s role and empowerment

The development that transited from top-down to bottom-up approaches links to the growth of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) (Willis, K., 2005, p. 97). NGOs are regarded as a solution to the limitations of the state or market in promoting development due to their ability to efficiently provide more appropriate services to local communities and quickly respond to local demands based on local knowledge and resources. They also contribute to “non-material aspects of development, in particular processes of empowerment, participation, and democratization” by being accountable to local communities and allowing them to have a stronger voice in their activities (Willis, K., 2005, p. 98 – p99). NGOs are ideal for fostering development from below due to their focus on community building, decentralized decision-making, and voluntary local efforts, unlike state and market institutions that prioritize social control and profit. (Sanyal, B. 1998, p. 2).

As the NGO implementing the project, PanNature has played an essential role in filling the gap of local government limitations, which may stem from a top-down approach and lack of sufficient resources in involving community participation and empowering them. Accordingly, PanNature has acted as a bridge to ensure that the local socio-economic development plans are consistent with the capacity and needs of the people through involving their participation in development activities planning and implementation. This role is also explicitly demonstrated through empowering the community and supporting, monitoring the successful performance of livelihood models in the communities.

Empowerment, a significant development policy term since the 1990s, has a variety of controversial definitions, with the central meaning of having greater power and control over one’s life. (Willis, K., 2005, p. 102). Empowerment is “the process of enhancing an individual’s or group’s capacity to make purposive choices and to transform those choices into desired actions and outcomes.” (Alsop, R., Burtelsen, M. & Holland, J., 2006, p.1). “The term empowerment is commonly used to indicate both an outcome, in which a person or group enjoys a state of empowerment, and a process, an action that moves a group or person from a lower to a higher state of empowerment.” (Alsop, R. et al., 2006, p.3). Participation is one of the significant routes via which empowerment is intended to be accomplished. (Willis, K, 2005, p. 103). However, even acknowledging that participation is a key to empowerment, Willis expressed doubt about the effectiveness of this in reality. Willis argues that NGOs promote participation to empower locals but often fail to achieve this. Instead, locals participate in meetings or contribute labor, not to the broader sense of empowerment. (Willis, K., 2005, p. 104).

Despite the fact that the effectiveness of empowerment may be questionable in some development programs, the criticisms above are not appropriate to the VOF case as its meaningful empowerment has led to successful results in reality. The project’s community empowerment activities began with capacity enhancement via training courses on climate change effects and the impact of traditional farming on climate change. Subsequently, capacity-building activities expanded to sustainable farming techniques and essential skills such as production planning, financial planning, product advertising, and market access. More importantly, the project established Farmer Resilient Groups (FRGs), whose members were selected by villagers. After being trained by the project, these groups are responsible for providing knowledge to their villagers, helping them understand that climate change and environmental pollution can originate from their agricultural practices. Consequently, based on the people’s knowledge about local soil, climate, and production conditions, FRGs discussed with them to provide production orientation and select agricultural models suitable to the specific conditions of each village. Based on these selections, training courses on corresponding sustainable production techniques were organized for the people in both theory and practice (PanNature, 2021, p. 8). These project activities actually empower communities “to make purposive choices and to transform those choices into desired actions and outcomes.”

Above all, the transition of communities “from a lower to a higher state of empowerment” happened when their participation in building local socio-economic development plans was acknowledged with specific results. This activity was based on a before-project survey, which showed that only about 6% of community people participated in commune-level socio-economic development planning, and many people admit that they only provided information about family production without awareness about their role and their recommendations for the plans. (PanNature, 2021, p.3). Meanwhile, one of Vietnam’s policy tools to respond to climate change is the National Plan to Adapt to Climate Change, which regulates mainstreaming climate change response into national and local development plans and socio-economic development plans. However, the reality is that building annual socio-economic development plans in localities in the Vietnamese Northwest provinces is usually a top-down process. Commune-level plans depend heavily on district and provincial-level targets with a list of quantity, area, and agricultural plants without mentioning specific response solutions in specific areas. Thus, people have little opportunity to participate or contribute to this commune-level plan, even though they are both directly affected by climate change and carry out response actions in the fields. (PanNature, 2021, p.5). In that context, along with strengthening people’s capacity, PanNature proposed local authorities to engage the community in socio-economic development planning. As a result, in 2020, the People’s Committees of the six target communes signed agreements with FRGs, in which the local governments committed to facilitate the participation of villagers in development planning. Based on that mechanism, the FRGs discussed with the villagers to identify problems in agriculture production, proactively organized meetings, and invited local authorities to participate and propose production change plans. (PanNature, 2021, p.13). For example, with 26% of the production land of cassava encountering difficulties in the context of hot weather, drought, and landslides, Thin Village, Son La province, successfully proposed to the local government to convert the cassava area to fruit agroforestry. (PanNature, 2021, p. 14). This approach brought farmers to a new position, increasing their power in deciding on their agricultural production and for their better lives.

Sustainable development

The concept of sustainable development was adopted by the World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED) in 1987 in the “Our Common Future” report. According to the WCED, sustainable development is: “Development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” (Willis, K., 2005, p. 159). While this term is widely used, there is disagreement in academic and policy circles on how to apply it in reality (Sathaye, J. et al., 2007, p. 695). The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) process has evolved its discussion on sustainable development since the First Assessment Report, which focused on “technology and cost-effectiveness.” The Second Assessment Report expanded to equity, environmental, and social considerations. The Third Assessment Report (TAR) expanded to global sustainability, focusing on “efficiency and cost-effectiveness; equity, and sustainable development; and global sustainability and societal learning.” The TAR was prepared with support from IPCC Expert Group Meetings to focus on “sustainable development and social dimensions of climate change” (Sathaye, J. et al., 2007, p. 695). Sustainable development is being analyzed below from the perspective of efforts toward climate change adaptation, mitigation.

Through a two-way interaction, climate change can be regarded as part of the greater challenge of sustainable development. First, the impacts of climate change may seriously hinder development efforts in essential areas. Second, development decisions will impact the ability of mitigation and adaptation. (TERI, 2007, p.1). As a result, the IPCC underlines that climate change mitigation and adaptation policies can be more effective when they are constantly interconnected into strategies for more sustainable development trajectories. (TERI, 2007, p.2).

Therefore, increasing adaptation is an essential approach to sustainable development. “Adaptation refers to adjustments in ecological, social, or economic systems in response to actual or expected climatic stimuli and their effects or impacts. It refers to changes in processes, practices, and structures to moderate potential damages or to benefit from opportunities associated with climate change” (Smit, B. et al., p. 879). Enhancing adaptive capacity is crucial for sustainable development and equity (Smit, B. et al., p. 899) and for reducing vulnerability, especially in the most vulnerable areas and communities (Smit, B. et al., p. 879). Strengthening adaptive capacity can effectively manage climatic changes and uncertainties, reducing vulnerabilities and promoting sustainable development by addressing variability and extremes. (Smit, B., et al., p. 879).

Similarly, climate change mitigation is also regarded as an essential component of policies promoting sustainable development (J. Sathaye et al., 2007, p. 695). According to IPCC, “mitigation is an anthropogenic intervention to reduce the sources or enhance the sinks of greenhouse gases” (Klein, R.J.T et al., 2007. P.750). The literature increasingly emphasizes the mutually reinforcing connection between climate change mitigation and sustainable development. Even though the relationship between mitigation and sustainable development goals may not always be advantageous to both, in most cases, mitigation may result in additional advantages to further sustainable development. Sustainable development also can generate conditions for successful mitigation (Sathaye, J. et al., 2007, p. 732).

Both mitigation and adaptation approaches were applied in the VOF project to build agricultural models to deal with climate change for sustainable development. The project aims to establish “Climate-resilient Agricultural Villages” (CRAVs) with adaptive and mitigative agriculture models. Instead of the recently piloted climate-smart agricultural villages in rural Vietnam, CRAVs focus on engaging farmers’ proactive participation rather than just the technical components of producing agricultural products. (PanNature, 2021, p.6). With such an approach based on the awareness and experiences of farmers directly impacted by climate changes, various adaptive and mitigative models were proposed and successfully implemented by local communities. Some models are featured below as examples.

In order to increase rice productivity and reduce greenhouse gas emissions from traditional rice cultivation methods, Ban Lan village, Lai Chau province, has applied a System of Rice Intensification (SRI) technology to sticky rice cultivation. Households were technically and materially with seeds, fertilizers, and pesticides from the project to deploy the model. With the advantage of reducing production costs by 34,8%, fertilizer costs by 20-25%, and irrigation water amount by 30%, the model has brought high economic efficiency to households, with productivity increased by 20%. Each hectare of rice planted following SRI in the village helps increase revenue by 57% compared to conventional planting. At the same time, with the SRI cultivation method, the time for land submerged was shortened, leading to a reduction of NH4 gas emitted into the environment by 50% or 19.500kg CH4/ha in two years. In addition, the amount of chemical fertilizers and pesticides also decreased, helping to protect the environment. Besides, transplanting to plant sticky rice is also a solution to avoid the impact of hail and tornadoes in the locality due to the difference in cultivation time when the above phenomena occur (PanNature, 2022).

In Phe A village, Son La province, the village’s rice area was transmitted to grass planting as it often flooded in the extreme rainy season, leading to crop failure. Accordingly, with permission from the local authority, six hectares of rice cultivation of 42 households have been converted to grass growing, meeting the animal feed needs of 300 cows or 4,500 goats. Along with the model of composting organic fertilizer and composting food for livestock, this model led to an income increase for householders. In addition, with this model, emissions are estimated to be reduced by 4,289 kg of CH4 and 90 kg of NH3 from switching from traditional rice cultivating to growing grass in one village. In soil erosion areas, intercropping grass into fruit trees also helped maintain soil moisture and reduce landslides (PanNature, 2022).

In Na Khai village, Sap Vat commune, Yen Chau, Son La province, with the practice of keeping cattle and buffaloes in captivity, people in the village have long used manure to fertilize fruit trees. However, this fertilizer is mainly applied directly to plants without treatment, causing environmental pollution, gas emissions, and diseases for fruit trees. With the support of the project, ten households in the group composted livestock waste before fertilizing plants. Each household composts 2.5 – 3 tons of manure yearly, solving the problem of pollution and greenhouse gas emissions. This amount of fertilizer is used for fruit trees, sugarcane, and rice, helping to reduce about 35% of the amount of organic fertilizer every year (PanNature, 2022).

Above are a few climate change adaptation and mitigation models, among other livelihood improvement models, which brought communities environmental and economic value. The important factor is that the models are “complete and circular models which can solve multiple environmental problems and reduce greenhouse gas emissions at the same time.” (PanNature, 2021, p8). For example, in the models, the by-products of the livestock raising will be used as inputs for farming and vice versa. Therefore, not only increase people’s income and improve their lives, the models also help reduce emissions and the amount of chemical fertilizers and pesticides released into the environment. More importantly, thanks to training on climate change, people know how to observe extreme weather phenomena so that their production models can change accordingly to accommodate natural conditions, even after the project has ended.

According to Saythaye J. et al., among mitigation measures for the agricultural sector, numerous actions have demonstrated that appropriate adoption can achieve social, economic, and environmental goals, albeit trade-offs may sometimes emerge. The resulting compromises may appear to be particularly obvious in the near term, as long-term synergy among the factors of sustainable development seems to be prominent (Sathaye, J. et al., 2007, p. 731). For example, when implemented effectively, livestock and manure management mitigation measures can contribute to sustainable development but may also increase farmers’ costs and income. (Sathaye, J. et al., 2007, p. 732). These concerns, fortunately, did not apply to this project. Climate change mitigation measures employed in the project simultaneously brought long-term and short-term positive results and economic and environmental benefits to the people. For example, reducing emissions from changing farming methods also helps minimize investment costs and labor. Switching from growing rice to growing grass may cause people to lose their harvest from rice, but it will give them higher income from livestock farming.

Despite its small scope, the VOF project, with results in reducing poverty and adapting to climate change, may contribute to achieving the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Notably, the project can contribute to goal 11 on “Make cities inclusive, safe, resilient, and sustainable” with indicators 11.B.1 on Integrated disaster risk management, indicator 11.5.2 on Economic losses from natural disasters, indicator 11.B.1 on Integrated disaster risk management, indicator 11.B.2 on Local disaster risk management. Sustainable Development Goal 1 may also be an area in which the project can assist in “End poverty in all its forms everywhere” with indicator 1.5.2 on direct economic loss from natural disasters, SDG indicator 1.5.4 on local disaster risk reduction, and SDG indicator 13.1.3 on local disaster risk management.

Discussion and conclusion

The bottom-up development approach, which helps promote people’s participation and meet their basic needs, requires the roles of many stakeholders. Although the role of NGOs in grassroots development is critical, their role may be limited to being a bridge between relevant parties. As shown in the case study, denying the “top” involvement in these bottom-up development projects is impossible. The active participation of local authorities and people is an essential factor in the success of projects. The reason is that communities can only have political and institutional support to implement development activities with the government’s involvement. Furthermore, government involvement helps successful models easily be replicated through policy adjustments and improvement. Besides, the active participation of people plays a vital role in the success of the project because they are the ones who decide the development models to follow. Support of NGOs will not be adequate without active cooperation from the people. Therefore, the three parties’ roles complement and strengthen each other to be a comprehensive and practical cooperation. Grassroots development, thus, needs to integrate each party’s role and harmoniously combine each other’s strengths.

Sustainable development projects can succeed if they also bring practical benefits to people. There may be sustainable development models that will force people to sacrifice their short-term benefits. However, sustainable development models that mitigate or adapt to climate change will be welcomed by people when they also bring them economic benefits along with environmental advances. In the current context of climate change affecting all aspects of life, including agriculture, applying adaptation models that bring economic value is challenging but feasible. However, in these models, the role of NGOs as bridge organizations is crucial in lobbying the government to listen to the people, providing technology, and convincing people to implement sustainable development models. Raising awareness to adapt to climate change is not difficult; the challenge is facilitating people to apply that awareness and knowledge in economically, environmentally, and socially productive projects. Therefore, the job of development project workers is to turn vague sustainable development goals into visible, measurable, and achievable goals. If successful, this will bring about economically, environmentally, and socially sustainable development.

In conclusion, the goal of sustainable development requires effort on global and national scales, but small local programs still can contribute. It can be seen that, even though it is only a small bottom-up project, the VOF project has made knowledgeable contributions to people’s livelihoods, the environment, and sustainable development. The results of the project are not only measurable during the project period but also exist in the long term, thanks to the bottom-up approach. As one of the countries most affected by climate change, Vietnam has implemented numerous national climate change adaptation and mitigation measures. Vietnam also receives many international development assistance programs, including climate change grants. However, small grassroots projects like these can supplement top-down programs for Vietnam to move forward to its sustainable development goals.

*This paper is a part of the M.A. program on Social Science specified in Development Studies at Chiang Mai University of Nguyen Thi Thuy Hang, PanNature’s Communication Manager.

References

Alsop, R., Bertelsen, M. & Holland, J. (2006) Empowerment in practice: from analysis to implementation. The World Bank. https://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/286191468315851702/pdf/350320Empowe rm1ctice01OFFICIAL0USE1.pdf
Bizikova, L., Burch, S., Cohen, S. & Robinson, J. (2010). Linking sustainable development with climate change adaptation and mitigation Climate Change, Ethics and Human Security. 157-179. 10.1017/CBO9780511762475.011.
Bowler, S.J., (1987). The basic needs approach to development: A case study of rural water supply in Kenya. The University of British Columbia. https://open.library.ubc.ca/media/download/pdf/831/1.0058200/1
Klein, R.J.T., Huq, S., Denton, F., Downing, T.E., Richels, R.G., Robinson, J.B. & Toth, F.L. (2007). Inter-relationships between adaptation and mitigation. In Parry, M.L., Canziani, O.F., Palutikof, J.P., van der Linden P.J. & Hanson, C.E. (Eds). Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (pp. 745-777). Cambridge University Press.
PanNature. (2021). Farmers as the Heart of Climate-Resilient Villages: A Case Study in the Northwestern Mountains of Vietnam. PanNature. https://www.nature.org.vn/en/wp- content/uploads/2021/10/141021_VOF-ENG.pdf
PanNature. (2022). Du an tang cuong tieng noi va nang luc cua cac nhom nong dan nguoi dan toc de bi ton thuong voi bien doi khi hau Tay Bac Viet Nam (VOF): Ket qua va tac dong that doi. https://www.nature.org.vn/en/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/30122022_TLCS-ket-qua-va-tac-dong-Lang-NNUP_Tom- luoc.pdf
Sanyal, B. (1998). The Myth of Development from Below. Academia. https://www.academia.edu/2972572/_The_Myth_of_Development_From_Below_By_Bis h_Sanyal_1998_
Sathaye, J., Najam, A., Cocklin, C., Heller, T., Lecocq, F., Llanes-Regueiro, J., Pan, J., Petschel-Held G., Rayner, S., Robinson, J., Schaeffer, R., Sokona, Y., Swart, R. & Winkler, H. (2007) Sustainable Development and Mitigation. In Metz, B., Davidson, O.R., Bosch, P.R., Dave, R. &Meyer, L.A. (eds) Climate Change 2007: Mitigation. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (pp. 692-743). Cambridge University Press.
Smit, B., Pilifosova, O., Burton, I., Challenger, B., Huq, S., Klein, R., Yohe, G., Adger, WN., Downing, T., & Harvey, E. (2001). Adaptation to climate change in the context of sustainable development and equity. In JJ. McCarthy, O. Canziani, NA. Leary, DJ. Dokken, & KS. White (Eds.), Climate Change 2001: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability (pp. 877-912). Cambridge University Press.
The Energy and Resources Institute (TERI). (2007). Climate Change Mitigation and Sustainable Development. United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Division for Sustainable Development. https://www.un.org/esa/sustdev/sdissues/energy/op/new_delhi_workshop.htm
Willis, K. (2006). Theories and Practices of Development. Routledge.

Related Posts