Excerpt from

Advice from Wise Ones:

A Study of Successful Education Programs

A guide for people developing programs to address

nonpoint source pollution at the local level

The Minnesota Department of Agriculture asked the University of Minnesota to develop a guide for people developing programs to address nonpoint source pollution at the local level. To do this, we interviewed people across the basin, the state, and the nation. This excerpt comes from a report that shares what we learned about successful water quality programs. The full report:

Lessons Learned about Successful Programs

We wanted to find out what makes educational programs which address agricultural nonpoint source pollution successful. We called experts from around the country who either studied or ran successful projects. This is what we learned from them.

Over and over we heard the importance of involving local people in meaningful ways from the very beginning. This develops a sense of ownership and commitment for the project. Local people helped identify the problem, develop a strategy of action, and were involved in planning and implementation. Educators became facilitators of the process and encouraged local people to be involved and take on roles of educators -- talking about what they had learned through their own experiences. Some people called this using a participatory process, another called it having a grassroots focus, others called it organizing, another called it "putting into practice the principles of adult education." A recent Government Accounting Office study of successful watershed projects found the same thing: successful projects involve local people in meaningful ways from the beginning of the project. GAO Report 95-218, Information on and Characteristics of Selected Watershed Projects. June 1995.

Most projects are using a combination of 1) education, 2) economic incentives, 3) development of new technologies, and 4) attention to social and psychological needs to address NPS pollution. These projects try to lower barriers while increasing the incentives for change. Although most projects work to get voluntary participation, a few have developed regulations. For example, after 20 years of using education, technology, and economic incentives and seeing little change, the North Central Platte Project in Nebraska went a step further and developed regulations which farmers must abide by.

Although there is a lead organization in each of the projects we studied, each said they would not be as successful if they didn't play well with others. When working with others they could tap into more information networks, reach more people through expanded contacts, gain expertise, and limit duplication. However, the key benefit of collaboration was the creation of an environment of mutual trust and respect, which in turn made it easier for farmers to trust and respect the work of the collaborators. Of course collaboration is tough to do. It takes time and energy and often means letting go of old turf issues. But it seems essential to developing successful projects. Each of these projects appears to have at least one person with strong interpersonal skills who could build collaborative bridges.

These successful projects were implemented by local people who were trusted and respected. Most projects concentrated on a geographic area with which local residents could relate. And most of the projects focused on a resource residents cared about. Not only are successful projects implemented locally, most of the successful projects we looked at were designed at the local level by local people with input from other levels.

Successful projects have adequate resources. Resources include technical expertise, financial resources, strengths and assets of local people, and interpersonal and process skills.

Farmers have to believe there is a problem, believe their practices contribute to the problem, believe there is something they can do to address the problem, and want to do something about it. Several experts said if farmers haven't internalized the problem, not much will happen.

Essentially producers have to believe it is going to work. Eighty-five percent of farmers are strong supporters of environmental objectives and really want to do what is best but you have to convince them that it will work. For example, if you want to reduce nitrogen applications, they have to be convinced that the tests are working, they have to understand what is behind those recommendations, and have confidence in them. No black box. That is first and foremost. (Nebraska agency person)

Most people believe they act respectfully. Yet, project directors emphasized the importance of treating all stakeholders respectfully. This involves including stakeholders in decision making, listening to and hearing various perspectives, and tapping into the strengths people have and inviting them to contribute. One person said this requires "listening five times more than you talk." There is no finger pointing or backbiting.

Successful programs use a variety of educational methods such as: neighborhood meetings, farmer research groups, newsletters, demonstrations, one-on-one meetings, group meetings, study circles, canoe trips, study tours to different parts of the country, and leadership tours to state capitals and Washington D.C. The methods build upon and complement one another. People have a lot of different ways to become aware and get involved. The educational efforts are learner based. Learners help determine what will be addressed and how it will be addressed. Educators assume that farmers have much to contribute to the educational process if given a chance.

It is important to be able to tell farmers, funders, and yourself how well the project is progressing. People want to see and celebrate change. It keeps people interested. People know something is happening.

This study was completed by the following University of Minnesota faculty and staff: Mary Anne Casey, Amy Rager, Gary Wyatt, Cindy Arnevik, Dave Pfarr, Jim Anderson, Les Everett, and Lowell Busman.

February 5, 1996