Nghiên cứu và khuyến nông có sự tham gia

PARTICIPATORY RESEARCH AND EXTENSION IN AGRICULTURE Organisation of learning in participatory research and extension approaches W.Ton University Twente, The Netherlands Faculty of Behavioural Sciences Enschede, November 2005 Graduation Committee: Prof. Dr. J.W.M. Kessels Dr. B. Witziers Dr. R. Maslowski I Acknowledgement This thesis is the result of my final project carried out to complete my study Educational Science and Technology at the University of Twente in the Netherlands. The fieldwork for this research took place at the International Centre for Tropical Agriculture (CIAT) in Kampala Uganda. I wish to thank Mrs S. Kaaria and Mr. R. Delve for being my mentor in Uganda and making my fieldwork possible through their contacts with the various organisations. The discussions and support during the preparations of my final report made it possible to finish the work in time. Especially the logistic support like transport and accommodation made the fieldwork in the more remote parts of Uganda possible. Without their help it was not possible to carry out this research. I also extend my thanks to:
The management of A2N, VEDCO, NARO (National banana program) and ActionAid to arrange the field visits to the various districts.
Dr. B. Witziers for being my mentor, encouraging to continue my research in Africa and for his guidance during the preparation and finalization of my research.
Dr. R. Maslowski for being my second mentor and giving constructive comments after reading my thesis.
Mr. O. Ortiz of CIP, Peru for giving me the initial topic proposal for my research and the discussions on how to approach this topic.
Staff members of CIAT in Kawanda for the support during my stay at the research station.
The management of all the organisations I have visited for their fruitful discussions on participatory research and extension.
All the farmers for their valuable contributions during discussions and for showing the progress they have made on their farms. Wouter Ton Enschede, November 2005 III Summary Organisation of learning in participatory research and extension approaches in agriculture. Different organisations have developed approaches to include the farmers’ knowledge in the research and extension process and to increase the knowledge and skills of the farmer. The increase in knowledge and skills of the farmers is the result of a learning process. The aim of this research is to determine the factors that influence the effects for farmers and scientist of the different participatory research and approaches. First a theoretical framework is developed. This framework consists of characteristics of the organisation, characteristics of the participatory research and extension methods and the effects for farmers and scientists. Based on this framework a survey among managers and field staff of research and extension organisation was conducted. The results of this survey show that most of the organisations use a participatory approach. To get a better understanding of the research and extension processes a case study was made from the research and extension system in Uganda. The case study showed a more differentiated picture of participation. From the results of the survey and the case study it appears that the factors that have a positive effect on the participation of farmers are an organisation that is development-oriented and promoting an input-based technology. The factors that enhance the learning of farmers are a high level of farmers’ participation and sufficient resources of the organisation to support the learning. The learning of farmers is leading to application of the new technology and to results for farmers and scientists in the end. IV Abbreviations used A2N Africa 2000 Network AESA Agro Eco System Analysis AHI Africa Highlands Initiative AKIS/RD Agricultural Knowledge and Information Systems for Rural Development CBF Community Based Facilitator CBO Community Based Organisation CIAL Comite de Investigacion Agricola Local CIAT Centro Community Based Facilitator Internacional de Agricultura Tropical CIP Centro Internacianal de la Papa CORDAID Catholic Organisation for Relief and Development Aid EA Environmental Alert ERI Enabling Rural Innovation F2F Farmer to Farmer FAO Food and Agriculture Organization FFS Farmer Field Schools FPE Farmer Participatory Evaluation FRC Farmer Reflect Circle FRG Farmer Research Group GDP Gross Domestic Product HIVOS Humanistisch Instituut voor Ontwikkelingssamenwerking IFAD International Fund for Agricultural Development INIBAP International Network for the Improvement of Bananas and Plantains IPM Integrated Pest Management NAADS National Agricultural Advisory Services NARO National Agricultural Research Organisation NBRP National Banana Research Programme NGO Non Governmental Organisation NOVIB Nederlandse Organisatie voor Internationale Bijstand NRM Natural Resource Management PDC Participatory Development Communication PEA Participatory Extension Approach PM&E Participatory Monitoring and Evaluation PRA Participatory Rural Appraisal PRE Participatory Research and Extension RDE Rural Development Extensionist SPSS Statistical Package for Social Studies T&V Training and Visit ULAMP Uganda Land Management Project UNDP United Nations Development Programme USAID United States Agency for International Development VEDCO Volunteer Efforts for Development Concerns Table of contents 2 Acknowledgement ..............................................................................................I Summary.......................................................................................................... III Abbreviations used........................................................................................... IV 1. Introduction.................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Origins of this research .........................................................................................1 1.2 Aims of this research ............................................................................................2 1.3 Research methodology..........................................................................................2 1.4 Overview of the following chapters.......................................................................3 2. Theoretical background of PRE...................................................................... 5 2.1 Characteristics of the organisation.........................................................................5 2.1.1 Objectives of the organisation .............................................................................. 5 2.1.2 Type of technology promoted by the organisation ............................................... 7 2.1.3 Funding of the organisation .................................................................................. 8 2.2 Developments leading to the appearance of PRE methods.....................................8 2.2.1 Development in agricultural policies.................................................................... 8 2.2.2 Focus on marginalized groups ............................................................................ 10 2.2.3 Environmental degradation................................................................................. 10 2.2.4 Civil society........................................................................................................ 10 2.2.5 Valuation of farmers’ knowledge ....................................................................... 11 2.2.6 Constructivism.................................................................................................... 11 2.3 Characteristics of PRE methods ..........................................................................12 2.3.1 Types of participation......................................................................................... 13 2.3.2 Stakeholder involvement .................................................................................... 13 2.3.3 Roles of facilitator .............................................................................................. 13 2.3.4 Learning strategies.............................................................................................. 14 2.4 Farmer Field School and Farmer Research Group ...............................................15 2.4.1 Farmer Field School ........................................................................................... 15 2.4.2 Farmer Research Group...................................................................................... 15 2.5 Expected effects of the PRE approach.................................................................17 2.6 Conclusion..........................................................................................................18 3. Survey: views of managers and field staff on PRE ....................................... 19 3.1 Framework for the survey ...................................................................................19 3.1.1 Characteristics of the organisation...................................................................... 20 3.1.2 Characteristics of PRE........................................................................................ 20 3.1.3 Expected effects of the PRE approach................................................................ 21 3.2 Research method.................................................................................................22 3.2.1 Construction of the questionnaire....................................................................... 22 3.2.2 Administering the questionnaire......................................................................... 22 3.2.3 Data analysis....................................................................................................... 23 3.3 Results................................................................................................................23 3.3.2 Characteristics of PRE........................................................................................ 24 3.3.5 Influence of PRE on effects for farmers and organisation.................................. 29 3.4 Conclusion..........................................................................................................34 Table of contents 4. Case study of PRE approaches in Uganda .................................................... 35 4.1 Uganda ...............................................................................................................35 4.2 Research method.................................................................................................37 4.3 Interviews with twelve selected organisations .....................................................37 4.4 In-depth study of four selected organisation ........................................................40 4.4.1 Results of in-depth study of four selected organisations .................................... 40 4.4.2 CASE 1: Africa 2000 Network-Uganda ............................................................. 41 4.4.3 CASE 2: ActionAid ............................................................................................ 42 4.4.4 CASE 3: National Agricultural Research Organisation...................................... 43 4.4.5 CASE 4: Volunteer Efforts for Development Concerns..................................... 44 4.5 Comparison of PRE methods in the four cases ....................................................45 4.6 Conclusion..........................................................................................................47 5. Conclusion and discussion ........................................................................... 49 5.1 Conclusion..........................................................................................................49 5.1.1 Characteristics of the organisations and their influence on the type of PRE...... 49 5.1.2 Characteristics of PRE and their influence on the effects for farmers and scientists ............................................................................................................ 49 5.1.3 Effects of PRE for farmers and scientists ........................................................... 50 5.2 Discussion ..........................................................................................................52 References........................................................................................................ 53 Appendices ...................................................................................................... 57 Appendix 1: Questionnaire .......................................................................................... 57 Appendix 2: Interview questions Uganda.................................................................... 62 Appendix 3: Format for interview with development and research organisations ...... 64 Appendix 4: Interviews for in-depth study.................................................................. 65 Appendix 5: Format for interview with farmer group. ................................................ 67 Introduction 1 1. Introduction 1.1 Origins of this research In an analysis of agricultural research in the 90’s in Tanzania some of the major problems for research were identified as, poor stakeholder involvement, weak research-extension linkages, insufficient analysis of farmer adoption and poor technologies (Ngendello, Mgezei, & Schrader, 2003). Many other research and extension organisations in developing countries are still facing the same problems today. To overcome these problems farmers must get more involved in the extension and research process. Research is the development of new technologies and extension is the dissemination of knowledge. Different approaches have been developed to facilitate the farmers’ participation in the development of technologies to reduce poverty. These approaches are to facilitate the incorporation of farmers’ knowledge in the research and extension process and to enhance agricultural knowledge significantly and skills of farmers, which in turn could be reflected in an increase in production. The increase in knowledge and skills is the result of a learning process of farmers and researchers. Learning is an intentional process that requires a designed learning event and a situation where learning can take place. Learning events come in many different shapes, for example, training, discussion, video, farmer experimentation, brochures, radio broadcast, demonstrations, lectures, on-farm trials, exchange visits or a combination of any of these. Before the results for the organisation and for the farmer become visible the farmer has to apply what he or she has learned. The characteristics of the organisation will determine the type of Participatory Research and Extension (PRE) they are applying. A research- oriented organisation will apply a different type of PRE then an extension-oriented organisation. A research organisation dealing with the increase in agricultural production will develop technical solutions and the main reason for the participation of farmers is to validate the research findings. In a development-oriented research program the researchers will interact more intensive with the farmers in order to get an understanding of the farmers’ situation. An extension approach targeting an increase in production will apply a transfer of knowledge model while an organisation aimed at the empowerment of the farmer groups will encourage more activities carried out by the farmers. In Figure 1.1 the relation between organisational characteristics, type of PRE and the effects is given. Figure 1.1: Characteristics of the organisation, PRE and effects Characteristics of organisations • Technology • Objectives • Funding Characteristics of PRE • Type of participation • Stakeholder involvement • Role of facilitator • Learning strategies Effects • Learning • Application • Results Participatory research and extension in agriculture 2 The type of technology is forming the content of the learning event, so it can be expected that the type of technology will determine the design of the learning event. Extension approaches developed for simple technologies are not adequate for complex technologies (Eilittä, Mureithi, & Derpsch, 2004). A more input-based technology, such as seed, pesticides or a new variety will require a different approach compared to a knowledge-based technology, such as integrated pest management or integrated crop management. A number of development organisations have promoted different PRE approaches like Farmer Field Schools (FFS), and the Participatory Extension Approach (PEA). To describe the differences between the various PRE approaches the characteristics from the framework of Probst, Hagmann, Fernandez and Ashby (2003) are used, like the stakeholder involvement, the type of participation, and the learning strategies that are used. Different PRE approaches have a different approach to learning and will therefore use different types of learning events, for example, FFS have a constructivist approach to learning and rely on explorative learning events. In PEA learning is more directed to the transfer of knowledge and therefore an instructional design of the learning events is used. The outcomes of the PRE are (Probst et al., 2003): • The development and assessment of technologies; • Generation of new theoretical insights to influence policies; • Developing approaches for organisational and institutional innovation; • Increase of knowledge of farmers; • Empowerment of farmers to become equal partners in the development process. As part of an International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD) financed research project, the Centro Internacional de la Papa (CIP) has initiated case studies in four countries with different approaches and different technologies. Travelling to four countries was beyond the budget for this master thesis and therefore a survey to get the views on PRE of a wide selection of PRE practitioners has been chosen, complemented with data from one country. 1.2 Aims of this research The aim of this research is to determine the factors that influence the effects for farmers and scientist of different participatory research and extension approaches. This will be done by answering the following research questions: • What are the characteristics of the organisations implementing PRE? • What are the characteristics of the various types of PRE? • What are the effects of PRE for farmers and scientists? 1.3 Research methodology The research will be conducted in three stages. 1. Develop a framework for participatory research 2. Conduct a survey of the field staff and managers 3. Carry out case studies in Uganda Participatory research and extension is a very wide and ill-defined subject therefore in the first palce a theoretical framework will be developed based on literature. This framework will consist of an analysis of the different perspectives of PRE in the literature and will include aspects like the who are the participants, what is the purpose of research, how are participants involved and what type of research is conducted. The results of this analysis are presented in chapter two. Second, based on the framework developed in chapter two a questionnaire is constructed to conduct a survey among field staff and managers in research, development and extension organisations to investigate their perspectives regarding the different approaches in PRE. The results are presented in chapter three. Third, a detailed study of PRE in Uganda is conducted to supplement the data from the survey with more detailed information from several cases of different PRE approaches. This information helps to Introduction 3 get a better understanding of the data collected in the survey. To collect this detailed information investigations in two stages will be carried out. First interviews with members of the management and field staff of various development, research and extension organisations are held. In the second stage some of the farmers who have participated in the different programs are interviewed. The findings from the interviews are presented in chapter four using the same framework as the survey to make crosschecks on the data possible. 1.4 Overview of the following chapters Chapter two gives a theoretical background of PRE. The chapter describes the developments that led to the present focus on farmer participation and gives a framework to analyse the different PRE approaches. A comparison is made between two main groups of PRE approaches. In chapter three the survey to investigate the opinion of field staff and managers is described and the results are presented. It outlines the construction of the questionnaire and the procedures used to apply the questionnaire. In chapter four the case study in Uganda is presented. First the results of the interviews with twelve organisations are presented followed by the results of the visits to four organisations with different PRE approaches and promoting different types of technologies. In chapter five the conclusions and discussion are presented. Theoretical background of PRE 5 2. Theoretical background of PRE In the past the agricultural system was divided in three parties, research, extension and the farmers, each with clearly defined roles. Research organisations were developing the technology while extension organisations were taking the technology to the farmers and taking the farmers problems back to researchers for them to solve. But it appears that farmers were not following the advice from the researchers. This could be caused by a poor technology resulting from ineffective research or from poor extension methods by not using the appropriate strategies to disseminate the technology to the farmers. To overcome these problems an active involvement of farmers in the research and extension process was required so various participatory research and extension (PRE) approaches were developed. The PRE approach is depending on the type of organisation. Research and extension are long seen as a task for the national government like education or health services. With the economic reforms and privatisation extension is moving to private service providers and Non Governmental Organisations (NGO) to provide the necessary services to farmers. To enforce the national agricultural research organisations, the international research organisations like CIP and the International Centre for Tropical Agriculture (CIAT) were established. These organisations collaborate with the national agricultural research programs. The national extension services focus on production and therefore resource poor farmers were not able to benefit fully from the extension programs. To improve the livelihood of this group of farmers donor funded development organisations started programs with a wider scope as only agricultural production. These programs can include beside agriculture issues like health, gender, HIV/AIDS, education etc. The aim of the program is to improve the living conditions of the farmers and the empowerment of the rural community to become an equal partner in the development process. The characteristics of the organisations are described in paragraph 2.1 to answer the first research question: What are the characteristics of the organisations implementing PRE? Participatory approaches to agricultural research, extension and development are fluent. There is not one approach but depending on the history and orientation of the organisation, the beliefs and expectations different approaches are developed. Often an approach starts with a single person or in a single project and gradually the approach develops, is described and spread to other organisations. These organisations further develop this approach. This leads to a wide range of approaches. Even if the approaches are labelled the same the content may be very different. It is therefore necessary to categorize an approach on how it is intended and implemented and not on a title alone. PRE is not invented at one time but it is the result of a development in agricultural research and extension over a long period of time. In paragraph 2.2 five major changes leading to participatory approaches are described. In paragraph 2.3 a framework developed by Probst et al. (2003) to differentiate between the various approaches is presented. This framework will be used to answer the question: What are the characteristics of the different types of PRE? In paragraph 2.4 two important PRE approaches, the farmer field school and the farmer research group are compared. In the last paragraph the expected effects from PRE are discussed to answer the question: What are the effects of PRE for farmers and scientists? 2.1 Characteristics of the organisation Organisations can be characterised according to the objectives of the organisation, the way the organisation is funded and the type of technology the organisation is promoting. The objectives of the organisation that implements the PRE can be research, extension or development. The orientation of the organisation will have an influence on the type of PRE. Some of the organisations are funded by the national government while donors fund others. 2.1.1 Objectives of the organisation Research Research is the development of new technologies. Technology is the basis for innovations, new ideas, processes or products for an individual or a group aimed at improving or creating new products and processes. Innovations are based on new technologies and can be developed from Participatory research and extension in agriculture 6 existing technologies or adapted from technologies originated from other areas. Technology is the knowledge and know-how in products and processes. Technology is not a discrete commodity, but is embedded in the factors of production such as products, people and methods. Research is the application of scientific theories and techniques in the field of agriculture in order to develop new technologies that can for example increase production, protect natural resources and the environment. Research is usually divided into three types; basic, applied and adaptive research. Basic research is the experimental or theoretical work that is undertaken primarily to acquire new knowledge without a specific application in view. This is done to generate new understanding of biological processes. Applied research is aimed at gaining knowledge or understanding to determine the means by which a specific, recognized need may be met in a timely manner. Applied research is carried out to solve specific, practical questions and is not to gain knowledge for its own sake. It is almost always done on the basis of basic research. Often academic or international agricultural research institutions carry out this type of research. Adaptive research is the transfer and adaptation of pre-existing research results to provide the basis for application by the end users. This research is aimed at the adjustment of technology to a specific need of a particular set of environment. In participatory research there are two directions; a pragmatic direction and a political direction. In the pragmatic approach participatory research is seen as a way to strengthen the cooperation between farmers and researchers in order to produce more appropriate technologies. Farmers are able to communicate their needs to the researchers and the researchers can develop solutions in cooperation with the farmers. In the political direction of research Freire (1972) has had a great influence on the course of thinking about development. He defined participatory research as an approach to create social change. Participatory research is a process used by and for people who are exploited and oppressed. The approach challenges the way knowledge is produced with conventional social science methods and disseminated by dominant educational institutions. Through different methods, it puts the production of knowledge back into the hands of the people where it can strengthen their struggles for social equality, and for the elimination of dependency and its symptoms: poverty, illiteracy, malnutrition, etc. Freire puts a strong emphasis on empowerment. Empowerment is a consequence of “liberatory learning”. Power is not given, but created during the activities in which the co-learners are engaged. The theoretical basis for this discovery is provided by critical consciousness; its expression is collective action on behalf of mutually agreed upon goals. Learning for empowerment is different from building skills and competencies, these being the results of conventional schooling (Freire, 1972). Extension Extension is the dissemination of technologies. Dissemination is the systematic distribution of information or knowledge through a variety of ways to potential beneficiaries for practical application. The implementation, which is putting the innovation into practice, is depending on three sets of factors, the environmental factors, the innovation factors and the personal factors. The environmental factors are those factors or characteristics of the environment that influence the dissemination of innovations or the utilization of innovations by farmers like support, marketing conditions, availability of inputs and culture. Rogers (1995) has identified six innovation factors that influence the diffusion and adoption of research: • Complexity of the innovation; • Perceived relative advantage of the innovation; • Compatibility of the innovation to existing values, experience and need; • Trialability, or the degree to which the innovation can be experimented with; • Observability, or the degree to which the results of implementing an innovation are visible; • Relevance, the degree to which the research is applicable to practice. Besides the innovation factors there are also individual factors. Those are the relevant characteristics of the individual that influence the utilization of the innovation by practitioners. Examples of Theoretical background of PRE 7 characteristics are: age, education level, autonomy, problem solving ability, open-mindedness, social-, economic- and geographical-conditions. The environmental factors are often influenced by the organisations that disseminate the technology. Organisations, governments and institutions have general goals like to increase the income from agricultural activities, to promote food security, encourage empowerment of communities and to promote sustainable development. Based on needs assessments the organisations design programs to achieve these goals. Programs have often an integrated approach to stimulate the implementation by farmers of the new technology by paying attention to characteristics that will enhance the adoption and implementation. At the same time the organisation will take measures to improve the environmental factors like providing credit, create marketing opportunities, improve the necessary infrastructure and make inputs available, sometimes even at subsidised rates. To increase the success rate of the program the personal characteristics can be used in the selection of the participants for the program. Development Programs of development organisations often have an ideological background. When this background is religious, these organisations will implement their program through church related organisations. The background can also be solidarity of the more wealthy with the “poor and oppressed”. Programs of development organisations are targeting the poorer levels in society that are often left out in government programs. These groups are difficult to reach and have a multitude of problems that cannot be solved with a single sector approach of only improving health or education. Government programs tend to be single sector because the programs are related to a specific ministry or department within the government. Development organisations have more freedom to use a multi- sector approach because they are not associated with the government ministries. The ideological background of the organisation puts emphasis on the empowerment of the communities. This empowerment enables the community to advocate their case at the different levels of government. 2.1.2 Type of technology promoted by the organisation In general terms, technologies can be classified as input-based or knowledge-intensive. (Rogers, 1995). In input-based technologies the physical component of the technology, the “hardware” is dominant. These technologies usually have direct effects on yield and depend mostly on the availability of a physical input (seed of a new variety or an agrochemical). Input-based technologies often depends on a single simple message that fits in with the current farming system, shows clear and immediate effect, does not involve too much risk and is reversible. Adoption rates for this type of technology are good as shown in the IFAD study (IFAD, n.d.). IFAD evaluated several projects and found that successful innovations shared the following characteristics: • They followed a more structured process, with clear sequential steps; • They addressed a need widely shared by the poor; • They built on existing or traditional knowledge, technologies, practice, cultural and social norms; • Their advantages were clear to farmers and the rewards were rapidly visible; • The cost of adopting the projects was affordable, in terms of the financial burden, increased workloads and social costs; • They were relatively simple, and less likely to arouse distrust among the rural poor; • They were well tested: prior testing and piloting of innovations is necessary to reduce risks and unknown factors, particularly when innovations are brought in from outside the area; • They were based on exchanges of farmer knowledge within project areas and among regions; • The project design approach was flexible and frequent adjustments took place during implementation of the innovations; • There was genuine commitment on the part of IFAD, project and cooperating institution staff, and systematic IFAD follow-up; • The correct policy environment and effective partnership facilitated them; • They are easily reversible if they do not succeed. Participatory research and extension in agriculture 8 These findings are very much in line with the six innovation factors that influence the diffusion and adoption of research that Rogers (1995) has identified. Knowledge-intensive technologies, such as Integrated Pest Management (IPM), depend on farmers learning biophysical principles involved in pest control and then applying the acquired knowledge to make better decisions. In this case, Rogers refers to this kind of knowledge as the “software” of the technology. This type of technology is more complicated and requires a change in attitude. Often the results are not immediately visible and changes in the power structure and the organisational set-up are needed. More stakeholders are involved often with conflicting interest. A balance between short term and long-term effects needs to be found. An example of a complex technology is green manure. Eilittä et al. (2004) found low adoption rates for green manure/cover crops because it does not seem to fit in with the present farming system. There are no direct benefits, the crop requires more labour, occupies land where food crops could have been grown and most species are not fit for human consumption. Walker and Crissman (1996) found that the adoption of improved varieties, an input-based technology, has been significantly higher (reaching about 20% of Peruvian potato area) than the knowledge-based technology IPM (less than 5%). This suggests that input-based technologies would favour economic impact in the short term. However, IPM and participatory approaches build human and social capitals, which are essential for the sustainability of innovation in technological and organizational terms (Ortiz, Garrett, Heath, Orrego, & Nelson, 2004). 2.1.3 Funding of the organisation The government can provide funding for the research- and extension-organisations. This makes the organisation subject to all the regulations regarding planning, budgeting and salary structures that are prevalent within the government. Governments in developing countries are struggling to provide sufficient funds for an efficient operation of research and the extension services. Non Governmental Organisations (NGO’s) are organisations that supplement government tasks. They work within government programs but are financed by donors. There is a substantial influence of the donors on the NGO because the NGO has to apply to the donors for funding for projects and they only will get their money when the project fits within the donors’ policy. This way the donor will have an influence on the type of PRE the NGO is implementing. Through donor financing the NGO is more flexible in the expenditures and are able to pay higher salaries for the same jobs compared to the government resulting in a migration of qualified staff from government to NGO. 2.2 Developments leading to the appearance of PRE methods 2.2.1 Development in agricultural policies In colonial times and the early years of independence the objectives of the national agricultural policies of African states were aimed at increasing the production of cash crops for export. This type of agriculture started under the colonial rule but after independence the governments continued to support large-scale cash crop growers. The government could use the revenues from the export of these crops for development. The technology for cash crops was often imported from other countries. Before a new crop was introduced the farming system was studied because the new cash crop had to fit in with the existing cropping patterns and the success was depending on the availability of labour. In early agricultural research, based on rationalism, uniform recommendations were produced and disseminated among farmers. The application of the scientific knowledge of the researchers by the farmers should lead to higher production. Recommendations were mainly focussing on technical solutions like improved varieties, fertilizer and chemical crop protection. This concept worked well with homogeneous groups of farmers cultivating the same crop on the same type of soil under similar climatic conditions. The success of the “green revolution”, the boost in production of rice and wheat in India and Asia was based on these blanket recommendations. Later the concept of growing cash crops was extended from the large-scale producers to the small- scale producers, the small holders. This approach was targeting income generation by the rural population through the cultivation of cash crops. The aim was to create employment in the rural areas Theoretical background of PRE 9 and stop the people from moving to the cities to look for income. The idea was that the economic benefits would trickle down to the poor. This cash cropping system lasted from about 1910 to 1970. In the 70’s several severe droughts put the focus on national food self-sufficiency. This approach is aimed at making the nation self-sufficient in food, especially grains. When these droughts occurred attention was drawn on the dependency on the import of food grains. Because the prices for food imports were rising the countries saw a need to produce their own grain. Agricultural research starts looking at all agricultural activities in interaction with each other, the farming system. The farming system research focussed on traditional food crops and irrigated rice. The objective of this research was to keep the food prices in the urban areas low. Food prices are a political sensitive area. The target group of the extension service were the small holders. Small holders were seen as more efficient producers as the commercial farmers and by targeting the small holders a larger group was involved in the development. Now a larger group was receiving direct economic benefits from their activities and do not have to wait for the trickling down of the benefits from the more wealthy farmers engaged in the cash cropping system. Beside the food production also the possibilities for setting up cottage industries were explored to absorb the surplus labour in the rural areas. A lot of development activities like small industrial workshops were set up. The government can use pricing policies to promote agricultural production. Offering guaranteed prices to producers can stimulate the production. Agricultural marketing boards were introduced to offer a fair price to farmers. A different approach can be the subsidizing of inputs like seeds and fertilizers or cheap credit schemes. Also ploughing services and disease control in cattle can be ranked as subsidies. “Supply shifters” are agricultural policies to increase the production by improving the quality of the inputs for the production process. This relates both to intellectual and physical inputs. These inputs can be improved seeds, technology, and infrastructure like roads, credit, extension, research and irrigation. The “green revolution” is an example of a “supply shifters” policy (Delgado, 1995). Besides the pricing policy, extension is an important instrument for the government to promote agricultural production. The “Training and Visit” (T&V) is an extension approach that concentrates on the transfer of scientific agricultural knowledge and technology from research institutions to farmers. The term training and visit sums up the process of service delivery. Subject matter specialists give training to frontline extension agents on new but simple technical issues. The trained extension agents visit contact-farmers to deliver the technological messages. The goal of T&V was to increase crop production in controlled environments (e.g. irrigation schemes). Early experiences have shown quick production increases in cotton, rice and wheat. A different approach to extension is the “farmer-to- farmer” (F2F) system. A characteristic of the F2F extension approach is that farmers learn from other farmers about new agricultural technology or practices. The dissemination of innovations develops spontaneously when one farmer has successfully tested a new practice or technology, attracting the interest of other farmers. If the innovator is willing to share the knowledge, a farmer network may develop. But F2F extension can also be used in planned development projects. This approach is based on the conviction that farmers can disseminate innovations better than official extension agents because they have an in-depth knowledge of local crops, practices, culture and individuals, they communicate effectively with farmers, and are almost permanently available in the community. Innovations are provided by agricultural research institutions and later tested and adapted by selected farmers (GTZ, n.d.). The 80’s saw a decline in the world market prices for agricultural products that the developing countries were exporting. The governments were forced to cost reduction by reducing the government services like research and extension. More focus was put on industrial development and cash crops for the generation of revenues from export. The aim of the structural adjustment programs was a reduction of the bureaucracy and the promotion of a more open market to stimulate production. The program left it to the government to draw up plans for a more efficient research and extension service but the capacity of the government for planning was rather poor and the international agricultural research centres offered assistance to the governments with planning (Worldbank, 1994). Participatory research and extension in agriculture 10 Over the years the focus of research and extension shifted from cash crops to food grains but with an emphasis on commercial production. This left out the subsistence farmers. In the 80’s a change can be noticed. There is more attention for marginalized groups, the effects of abundant use of pesticides became clear and more attention was given to good governance. At the same time the farmers were not merely seen as receivers but as partners in development. In the following paragraph these changes will be further explained. 2.2.2 Focus on marginalized groups Population growth, climatic change and pressure on the available land caused people to move into areas that are not suitable for viable agricultural production. The marginalized groups are getting more divers by changes in economic patterns and the differences in land tenure are increasing. The marginalized groups get attention mainly through donor agencies. Donor agencies are enforcing this attention by putting conditions in loans and manpower assistance that the donors provide to governments and research institutions. It was tried to repeat the “green revolution” in Africa and South America. In these parts of the world this approach to increasing food production was less successful then in Asia. In Africa and South America the small holder agriculture was very divers and the climatic, ecologic, social and economic conditions differ from area to area. There is a wide range of variety in soil types, crops, and rainfall patterns. Blanket recommendations did not work and recommendations had to be more adjusted to local conditions. Extension and research had to cover larger areas and a wider variety in conditions with the increase in attention for marginal groups. A way to increase the coverage is the inclusion of farmers in the research process. The focus on marginal groups causes problems in the allocation of research funds. As most of the rural population is living in the low potential rain fed areas resources for research and extension are withdrawn from the high potential areas (Delgado, 1995). 2.2.3 Environmental degradation The technical solutions promoted by the “green revolution” had a serious impact and the environment and the sustainability of the system came under question. The natural environment has great influence on agricultural production. To have a sustainable system all aspects in the system have to be taken into account. A few examples of the links between the environment and agriculture are cattle grazing on natural pastures, trees and shrubs harbouring useful insects and soil covered with vegetation prevents erosion. A focus on increase of agricultural production can have a negative impact on the environment. So led the widespread use of broad-spectrum insecticides to the eradication of useful predatory insects and had an unchecked growth of plague insect as a result, destroying large areas of rice. Deforestation, overgrazing and intensified land use led to severe soil erosion. Based on these negative experiences the need for a more holistic approach to agricultural production was felt. Not only the production is important but also the natural environment that is supporting this production needs to be taken care of in Natural Resource Management (NRM). There are several conflicts of interest between direct poverty alleviation and national resource conservation. At some instances natural resources have to be sold because it is the only source for short-term income. Solutions are no simple technical interventions but are sought in the improvement of management whereby a balance must be found between the conflicting interests of various groups and conflicts between long-term and short-term benefits. At the moment research and extension can no longer focus on agricultural production alone but also have to include the NRM. 2.2.4 Civil society In the 90’s a combination of rapid population growth, stagnating agricultural income and environmental degradation called for a new approach in agriculture. It was hoped that the private sector would fill the gaps left by the withdrawing government but the low prices on the world market for agricultural products did not help to improve the situation. Sustainable development requires an accountable government so decentralisation was promoted to bring the funds and decision making closer to the farmers. Decentralised government decisions making and financing is a condition for participatory research but is also the outcome of the participatory process (Probst, 2000). To be able to hold a government accountable the communities must be organised and educated for their task. The Theoretical background of PRE 11 empowerment of marginal groups was promoted and the