Historical
Development of FPR in Ethiopia
The
Initial Project: Farmers’ Research Project
The
Follow-On Project: “Institutionalisation of FPR in the SNNPRS”
A Project coordinator, FARM-Africa
Farmers’ Research Project, POB 495, Awassa, Ethiopia (FARM.FRP@telecom.net.et)
B Farming Systems Agronomist,
Natural Resources Institute, UK, and Project Technical Advisor
C Farmers Training and Database
Team Leader, Bureau of Agriculture, SNNPRS
D Centre Manager, Areka
Agricultural Research Centre
D Agronomist, FARM-Africa
This case study
follows the process of institutionalising Farmer Participatory Research (FPR)
into research, extension and training organisations in southern Ethiopia. The process
commenced in 1991 with the "Farmers Research Project", in which
FARM-Africa worked with non-governmental and governmental organisations in
carrying out participatory research with farmers in North Omo Zone. In 1998,
the impact of the project was assessed through a peer review process.
Geographical scaling up of the application of FPR to cover the entire Southern
Region and the institutionalisation of FPR into the main research and
development (R&D) organisations was recommended. This led to formulation of
a three-year project, that started in April 1999 and builds on the experience
and contacts made since 1991.
The purpose of
the project is to "incorporate the tools and processes of FPR into the
work of the Bureau of Agriculture (BoA), the Bureau of Planning and Economic
Development, the Awassa and Areka Research Centres and the Awassa College of
Agriculture". This requires: awareness and appreciation of the concept and
philosophy of FPR at all levels, institutional procedures that facilitate incorporation
of FPR approaches, knowledge and skills to plan and implement FPR, adequate
institutional resources for implementing FPR, adequate staff incentives to
encourage adoption of tools and procedures of FPR, and effective linkages
between farmers and relevant organisations.
The
institutionalisation process is being conducted in a broadly supportive
national policy environment, with both research and extension policies
incorporating participatory principles. Progress has been stimulated by the
formation of a Steering Committee that brings together heads of the main
institutions in the Southern Region to coordinate the process, and a Technical
Team (comprised of members from all the main institutions) to implement
training, research and monitoring activities. Training in participatory
concepts and methods, including participatory on-farm trials, has raised staff
awareness and skills. The training in Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA) is
linked to joint diagnosis of farmers’ priorities and the development of
participatory research programmes. Two FPR fora have brought together Ethiopian
experience in FPR from across the country, including presentations by farmers.
The case study
elaborates the achievements of the project so far in changing procedures,
approaches and attitudes in the main institutions, and points out the main
challenges that remain. The project is one of the few examples of a
comprehensive effort to incorporate participatory research and extension
simultaneously into the main R&D institutions of a large region, and many
of the lessons being learned can be applied elsewhere.
Between 1991
and 1998, FARM-Africa, an NGO based in the UK, conducted the DFID-supported
Farmers’ Research Project in pilot areas in southern Ethiopia and gained
considerable experience in applying Farmer Participatory Research (FPR) methods
in partnership with government organisations (GOs) and non-government
organisations (NGOs). The experiences and lessons of implementing FPR in these
pilot areas led to a three-year follow-on project (the EU-supported
“Institutionalisation of FPR in the SNNPRS”), which commenced in April 1999.
The purpose of
the latter project is to facilitate the institutionalisation of FPR approaches
and tools within the organisations involved in generating and transferring
agricultural technology in southern Ethiopia. This is meant to contribute to
improving the process of technology generation and transfer so that it suits
the economic, social and cultural setting of small-scale farmers. The project
further envisages better use of appropriate technologies that improve the
production and productivity of small-scale farmers, and ultimately contribute
to improved food security in the project area. The underlining assumption is
that technologies acceptable to small-scale farmers can be generated only if
the ultimate beneficiaries are fully involved in identifying and prioritising
constraints, and identifying, evaluating and disseminating alternative
solutions.
The project is
being implemented in selected woredas[2]
of the Southern Nations, Nationalities and Peoples Regional State (SNNPRS,
referred to hereafter as “Southern Region”) in collaboration with research,
extension and academic institutions in the State. This paper highlights the
background to the present project, the challenges faced and some lessons
learned in promoting and institutionalising FPR in southern Ethiopia.
Ethiopia is one
of the least developed countries in the world. Its economy is heavily based on
agriculture, which accounts for more than half of Gross Domestic Product, 80%
of total employment and 90% of exports (CIA 1999). Over 80% of Ethiopia's 57
million people live in rural areas and are engaged in subsistence farming or
pastoralism. Pressure on the land is very high: the average landholding per
household in the mid/high altitude areas in the region is only 0.2–0.6 ha
(Percy 1997).
Ethiopia has
great agricultural potential because of its vast areas of fertile land, diverse
climate, generally adequate rainfall and large labour pool. Nevertheless,
Ethiopian agriculture has remained underdeveloped on account of a range of
factors, including drought, which have persistently affected the country since
the early 1970s, a poor economic base, inappropriate government policies and an
unstable political climate.
The Southern
Region covers about 10% of the total area of Ethiopia and has a population of
11 million (20% of the total). The region is highly diverse, complex and
risk-prone, and most of it is affected by recurrent drought resulting in food
insecurity. Ninety percent of the population of the Southern Region is engaged
in agricultural activities. Subsistence mixed farming prevails and landholdings
are fragmented. The soils in most parts of the region have been heavily
exploited. Degradation of the natural resources is becoming more severe.
In the 1990s
Ethiopia underwent a process of regionalisation as part of its decentralisation
process. There are now 14 regions in the country, mostly based on ethnic
divisions. With regionalisation came new roles for the Ministry of Agriculture.
At the central level, the Ministry's activities are focused on national policy
issues, and on coordinating and facilitating activities at the regional level.
The Regions now have much more autonomy than before, as have the Zones within
the Regions (Percy 1997).
Agricultural
extension began in Ethiopia in the 1950s, and various approaches have been
taken over the decades. An integrated development approach in the 1960s and
1970s was followed by the adoption of the Training and Visit (T&V) system,
which became the main extension approach used by the Bureau of Agriculture
(BoA), although it was later recognised to be insensitive to the varied
requirements of small-scale farmers. The present government extension system
agreed upon between central and regional levels is based on the package approach
and is called the "Participatory Demonstration and Training Extension
System" (PADETES). It combines technology transfer and human resource
development, and promotes the participation of farmers in the research process
(Percy 1997). However, there are several weaknesses in this approach, such as
the promotion of inappropriate technology, insufficient on-farm and adaptive
research, continuation of inappropriate promotion criteria for research and
extension staff (i.e. based on scientific publications), poor research and
extension linkages, and the lack of “real” participation of farmers (Misgana
1998). This has meant that, because of a range of biases (class, gender,
literacy and location), most small-scale farmers have derived limited benefits
from this programme. In addition, the capacity of research and extension is
very low to respond to the problems and needs of the farming communities.
Participatory
research is not new in the Ethiopian research system. Its history dates back to
the 1980s, when the first attempts were made to make closer contact with
farmers. Some of the limitations of previous research approaches, such as the
pure commodity approach, led to the adoption of Farming Systems Research (FSR)
by the National Agricultural Research Authority (now the Ethiopian Agricultural
Research Organisation, EARO). The lessons from the FSR approach, and the
increasing concern for active participation of farmers in research, led to
experimentation with more farmer participation and the development of a
research-with-farmer’s approach. However, such initiatives were taken only in
small projects in a few of the research centres.
Overall, FPR
has been described in different ways based on the mode of participation and the
steps to be followed in the research process. However, most of the descriptions
focus around the various roles played by the main actors in the research
process. When the Farmers' Research Project (FRP) of FARM-Africa began its
operations, an attempt was made to conceptualise FPR. At the National FPR
Workshop conducted in 1992, a working definition of FPR was stated as "a type of research approach in
agricultural research that involves farmers at all levels including decision
making" (Sandford & Reece 1992). Based on this, the Farmers’
Research Project worked in North Omo Zone attempting to move towards
“collegiate research” (Biggs 1989), i.e. recognising the farmers as innovators
and experimenters, and treating them as active and equal partners with
researchers and extensionists (rather than mere passive end-users of
technologies).
Although there
was a wide awareness of the need for farmer participation in technology
development in Ethiopia, it was not given sufficient attention in the past.
Some researchers did not even consider participatory approaches to research to
be proper science at all. To them, farmer participation meant the end of good
research; they considered it rather as a better way of technology transfer,
which they did not regard as the task of research. It was under such conditions
that the Project was launched in North Omo Zone with the overall goal ”to increase, in a sustainable manner, the
incomes of resource-poor families in the project area, and ultimately, through
example, in Ethiopia as a whole”. It aimed to achieve this by promoting the
use of FPR as a mechanism for generating and disseminating improved and
appropriate agricultural technologies.
In recent
years, however, there has been a considerable “push” by donors, and from
national researchers, towards participatory agricultural research. As a result,
there is now a wide array of “participatory” projects in Ethiopia, as well as a
wealth of literature discussing the issues of farmer participation in
agricultural research activities. The work of CIAT (Centro Internacional de
Agricultura Tropical / International Centre for Tropical Agriculture) and
client-oriented projects of ICRA (International Centre for development-oriented
Research in Agriculture), as well as the use of PRA in the African Highlands
Initiative (AHI) projects and some of the initiatives of academic centres (such
as Alemaya Agricultural University and Mekelle University) are some of the practical
cases found in our country. However, many of these initiatives are based of
projects that operate for short periods and have not brought about
institutionalisation of the FPR approach. The Farmers’ Research Project of
FARM-Africa made its own contribution to promoting FPR in 1991–98: it provided
FPR training and carried out practical implementation with GO and NGO partners
at the field level, and disseminated information on the results and impacts of
FPR.
Although there
has been growing interest in better participation of farmers in developing
technologies so as to improve their adoption, the experience of researchers is
generally limited to surveys using questionnaires or consultation and, at a
later stage, verification trials. Almost all research activities, except some
verification trials, have been carried out in the research centres. In the case
of FSR approaches, the experiences are limited to single divisions within the
research centres. In Awassa Agricultural College in the Southern Region, FSR
was introduced into only one department, which has only a small number of
students. The majority of the research and extension professionals have limited
knowledge of FPR, and resources have not been allocated to support FPR work.
Taking this situation into account, the Project gave attention to enhancing the
knowledge and skills in FPR of the staff of partner organisations through
research studies, training activities and participatory on-farm trials.
|
Box 1: Aims of the Farmers’
Research Project The Farmers' Research Project
strove to achieve the following outputs: 1. to
create better linkages and understanding between farmers, researchers and
extension staff; 2. to
develop a better understanding of ways in which FPR can be conducted in
Ethiopia; 3. to enhance
the capacity of GOs and NGOs to enable farmers to undertake FPR; 4. to
stimulate and encourage the incorporation by GOs and NGOs of FPR into their
own organisational activities. To
achieve these outputs, the Project developed a comprehensive framework of
activities through which it promoted a participatory approach to undertaking
agricultural research with local farmers. The key elements of this framework
were: ■
participatory diagnostic studies complemented by
additional, specific research studies; ■
training programmes, both formal and informal,
for institutional staff as well as local farmers; ■
participatory on-farm trials, i.e. research
trials that take place in a farmer's field and are managed and evaluated by
the farmer him/herself. There activities were
supported by a programme of internal monitoring that served to assess and
re-direct project activities. |
Top Historical
Development of FPR in Ethiopia
Lessons Learned
from the Farmers’ Research Project
Between 1991
and 1998 the Farmers’ Research Project published 38 reports on different
research studies[3].
These studies and their reports were primarily aimed at creating a better
understanding, by researchers and extension staff, of the local farming systems
and their constraints and opportunities. Many of the reports relate to
diagnostic studies, i.e. one that describe the farming systems being practised
by different rural communities and analyse their constraints and opportunities.
These diagnostic studies were undertaken using Rapid or Participatory Rural
Appraisal (RRA/PRA) techniques and involved 10–12 days spent in the field
studying the farming systems in question. Despite being very useful for the
identification of farming conditions and constraints, the Project staff felt
that the prioritisation of these constraints was not something that could be
easily or usefully done in this short time. A longer period of discussion
within and between the community and outsiders of different professions is
required before sensible judgements can be reached about priorities and “best
bets” for farmers to try out.
The project
also conducted 22 other studies defined as “topical” or “special” studies.
Topical studies are in-depth studies of the production, consumption and
marketing of particular commodities or inputs, and are published in technical
pamphlets. Examples of such pamphlets include sweet potato production, small-scale
poultry keeping and indigenous methods of mole-rat control. Special studies are
in-depth follow-up studies on particular problems that had been identified in
diagnostic or topical studies, such as the reproductive problems of local
cattle.
All reports
were distributed widely both within and beyond the Southern Region. The Project
believes that it has a clear view of whom it is trying to target with these
publications and the kind of message it is attempting to convey. However, the
Project also recognises that careful follow-up is required in order to
understand how these publications can be improved and to ensure that the
targeting strategy is appropriate.
The
beneficiaries of these studies and their reports can be divided into three
broad groups. Firstly, the Project staff members who were involved in the
studies gained professional knowledge and expertise from their direct
participation. Secondly, through the wide distribution of the reports, many
others – most notably research and extension staff – gained a better
understanding of the area's agricultural systems and constraints. The
publications also stimulated a shift in attitudes about participatory
approaches and how to conduct research with farmers; as a result, Project
collaborators reformulated their plans and designed new proposals. Several of
the collaborating organisations undertook further diagnostic studies as a
direct result of having been involved in these initial studies. The third group
of beneficiaries are the local farmers because, through these studies, the
support services (i.e. research and extension) have become better informed
about the farmers’ needs and constraints, as well as more aware of more
appropriate methods of working with farmers.
Top The Initial Project: Farmers’ Research Project
The Farmers’
Research Project organised a wide range of training activities, including:
■
formal training courses for research, agricultural extension
and development staff of GOs and NGOs;
■
workshops for research, agricultural extension and
development staff of GOs and NGOs;
■
visits by senior/middle-ranking officials of GOs and
NGOs to see field activities;
■
travelling seminars by students to see field
activities;
■
formal training courses for farmers;
■
workshops for farmers;
■
travelling seminars by farmers to other farming areas,
research stations etc.
These
activities had a variety of objectives, depending on the nature of the event
and the people involved. For example, the training events for GO and NGO staff
were primarily aimed at enhancing their personal and institutional capacity to
conduct FPR, whereas training events for farmers were partly aimed at creating
better knowledge about the ways in which FPR can be conducted in Ethiopia, and
partly at fostering better linkages and understanding between farmers,
researchers and extension staff.
Between 1991
and 1999, the Project organised a total of 80 training events, involving about
2,300 people. Of these events, 21 were formal courses for GO and NGO staff, 16
were workshops for GO/NGO staff and 20 were travelling seminars for farmers.
The rest were visits for senior officials (3), national conferences (3),
travelling seminars for agricultural college students (6), workshops (9) and
formal training (2). Most of the Project’s training activities were based on
the provision of two standard, formal courses for GO/NGO staff in PRA and
participatory on-farm trials (POFTs). Both courses centred on the complementary
use of classroom-based theory and analysis, and field-based practice and
experimentation, with course participants being able to put the theories they
learned in the classroom into practice in the field.
The most
important observation from these training activities has been the
transformation of the trainees’ attitudes to agricultural research and
extension. Some GO/NGO trainees have trained
others in their respective organisations, thereby extending the knowledge and
skills they obtained from their training with the Project. There are already
some examples of the practical application of FPR by some of the collaborating
organisations, representing an important behavioural shift in their approach.
With regard to
training events for local farmers, travelling seminars were the most
appreciated. Indeed, many farmers with whom the Project has developed a
relationship consider these to be the most useful of the Project’s activities.
Farmers mention the direct practical impacts of travelling seminars, for
example, starting up a community-based programme to control the tsetse fly and
construction of moisture-conserving terraces as a consequence of having
observed similar successful programmes in other regions. Although travelling
seminars are very popular with the farmers, they are expensive, because they
normally last 4–5 days, with farmers being transported in project vehicles and
spending nights away from home. This therefore severely limits the potential
replicability of this activity.
Farmers have
also reported that other training activities have brought benefits, such as the
adoption of new technologies or management techniques, and farmers
participating in the PRA training reported that they had expanded their
knowledge and understanding of local problems. Many farmers involved in
training activities reported that they had shared information with other
farmers, and a few trained farmers took on a training role themselves,
motivated to defend new technologies and to demonstrate technologies to other
farmers. However, farmers also commented that some training activities raised
interest and/or suspicion among neighbouring farmers, highlighting the
importance of communicating to local farmers through community structures to
ensure that everyone is informed about project activities.
Top The Initial
Project: Farmers’ Research Project
POFTs are
experiments conducted on a farmer's field and managed and evaluated by the
farmer him/herself. The Project considers POFTs to be an essential part of any
research process, fulfilling the following objectives:
■
to test technologies and practices under the resource
constraints and management levels experienced by farmers, and to provide
important feedback about farm-level constraints and problems;
■
to monitor how farmers adapt technologies/practices to
achieve a better “fit”;
■
to complement existing farmer experimentation and
enhance farmers’ experimental capabilities.
Between 1991
and 1999, the Farmers’ Research Project was involved, to a greater or lesser
degree, in 39 POFTS involving over 400 farmers. In each case, the Project had a
partner organisation, since it had no mandate to set up its own independent
linkages with farmers. The degree of involvement varied from high intensity,
involving a substantial amount of Project staff’s time in the field, to low
intensity “very hands-off” support, with the Project simply advising a
collaborating GO or NGO on trial design and/or analysis of results. The POFT
process, in most cases, followed a diagnostic study using PRA tools and
methods. After analysis of the situation and problems with the farming
communities, those problems that could be addressed through on-farm research
were put in the list for joint follow-up action.
|
Box 2: The Participatory
On-Farm Trial (POFT) Process A planning meeting with selected farmers in groups
(farmers are selected by community members in a meeting or, in some cases,
partner organisations that are working closely with the community facilitate
farmer selection) includes: ■
More
detailed and focused discussion on the problem to be addressed by the POFT ■
Identification
or suggestion of possible / alternative research areas (e.g. variety test,
practices such as composting, pest-control measures) ■
Clarification
of the need to consult others’ experiences (including research findings) ■
Fixing
dates for second planning meeting, at which o
feedback from
consultation is discussed, o
decisions
are made on what to try, o
farmers'
objectives in the POFT are clarified in light of the problem under question, o
farmers’
criteria for treatment selection are clarified, o
treatments
(what farmers suggest and what professional experts suggest) are identified, o
agreement
is reached on what data / observations are to be made, o
activity
calendar and sharing of responsibilities are set out. ■
Execution
of POFT, including o
monitoring
/ observation, data recording o
cross
visits and field days ■
Evaluation
meeting o
setting
out criteria (accumulated through time) o
preference
ranking o
recommendations
/ suggestions ■
Sharing
with others o
community
meetings, field days o
workshops
(for professionals, farmers) |
The “adaptation
POFTs” were extremely popular with farmers because they gave them access to a
range of planting material to experiment with. In contrast, the usual
procedures of the agricultural extension service would, at best, only give them
access to one species/variety that has been selected by the professional
experts. These adaptation trials, together with the PRA and POFT training that
normally preceded them, built an entirely new kind of relationship between
farmers and extension staff.
Regarding
technology development, a smaller but significant proportion of the farmers
reported technology adaptation and conducting their own research in order to
develop technology, mainly in the area of pest control. With respect to the
development of farmer research capacity as a result of the POFTs, nearly all
farmers who were interviewed in the review stated that they had a wider choice
than before of technologies that they could use to address a specific problem.
Most of them were able to lay out and manage conventional on-farm experimental
plots and evaluate technologies using participatory ranking. A few were also
actively conducting their own new experiments.
Top The Initial Project: Farmers’ Research Project
The lessons
learnt from the Project included:
■
the need to work closely with local GOs and NGOs if a
project approach is to become institutionalised within local structures;
■
the importance of adopting a multifaceted approach to
FPR, including training, studies and POFTs;
■
the importance of continuous and regular monitoring
and evaluation of the process of FPR and of the technology; this includes
looking at the progress, challenges and lessons and designing the next steps;
■
the importance of combining theoretical training with
practical hands-on sessions;
■
the need to involve senior-level staff in training
events, in order to influence the management of local organisations and their
policy towards FPR;
■
the possibility of effective use of POFTS to stimulate
the adoption and adaptation of technologies by farmers and to strengthen
farmers' experimental capabilities; it is important to monitor how these
technologies spread to other farmers in order to see the adoption rate and
paths of dissemination as well as what adaptations are made;
■
the importance of linking with the wider community of
farmers to encourage dissemination of information.
Despite some
successes, the continuity and sustainability of such efforts were constrained
by a number of factors. The practical application of the knowledge acquired
during staff training was largely limited to the individuals trained rather
than being spread within the institutions. Most of the trainees were
middle-level professionals, whereas the senior officials, who lack awareness of
participatory research, failed to provide support to facilitate the spread of
the knowledge and skills. With regard to the outcomes of the POFTs, the
Project's experience indicated the need to improve the uptake environment[4]
in order to facilitate the wider use of technologies developed through FPR.
This demands a detailed analysis of the key actors and their roles both in
formal and informal research and extension systems.
Overall,
the Project demonstrated the viability and usefulness of a programme of
activities that provides a framework within which FPR in Ethiopia could be
successfully carried out by either GOs or NGOs. The key components of this
framework were identified as: (1) diagnostic/PRA studies supported by other
research studies, (2) a wide mix of training activities and (3) a programme of
POFTs.
Top The Initial Project: Farmers’ Research Project
What
is Institutionalisation of FPR?
Experiences
and Progress made toward Institutionalisation
In 1998 a peer
review of the Farmers’ Research Project was conducted by the major research and
extension and higher-education institutions relevant to the Southern Region.
This review and a subsequent collaborative workshop strongly recommended the
development of a project with the purpose of institutionalising FPR in the
major agricultural R&D institutions of the Region. Following the
recommendations of the collaborative workshop, a three-year follow-on project
was conceived. As described in the introduction, the purpose of the project is
to institutionalise FPR approaches and tools within the organisations involved
in generating and disseminating agricultural technology in the Southern Region.
The project was jointly planned by the Bureau of Agriculture (BoA), Awassa and
Areka Research Centres[5],
Awassa Agricultural College[6]
and the Bureau of Planning and Economic Development in the Southern Region.
These organisations implement the project in collaboration with FARM-Africa in
nine woredas (one woreda from each zone of the Southern Region) and five
“Special Woredas”. This project commenced in April 1999.
Top The Follow-On Project: “Institutionalisation of FPR in the
SNNPRS”
Institutionalisation
is a process through which new ideas and practices are introduced, accepted and
used by individuals and organisations so that these new ideas and practices
become part of “the norm” (Sutherland 2000). Institutionalisation of a new
approach involves change and development within the organisations. It is more
than a policy or intention, more than a strategy or plan, and more than an
activity or method.
In the project
in the Southern Region of Ethiopia, “institutionalisation” of FPR has been
defined as the incorporation of FPR tools and procedures into the regular
activities of the organisations mandated to work with farmers. It refers to the
routine application of practices that actively engage farmers in a
decision-making role in identifying and prioritising production constraints,
defining and testing potential solutions, and selecting and adopting / adapting
technologies that enhance agricultural production and productivity. The project
document laid out that FPR would be considered to be “institutionalised” if the
following were achieved by the end of the three-year project period:
■
clear awareness of, and appreciation for, the concept
and philosophy of FPR at all levels;
■
acquisition and development of knowledge and skills to
plan and implement FPR;
■
creation of institutional structures that facilitate
the incorporation of FPR approaches;
■
availability of adequate resources in terms of skilled
staff, funds and logistical support for implementing FPR;
■
creation of effective linkages among relevant
organisations and the farming community to enhance coordination and experience
sharing;
■
availability of adequate incentives to encourage
adoption of tools and procedures of FPR and to develop respect for farmers’
knowledge and skills among staff of relevant organisations.
In light of
this, the following outputs are being pursued in order to realise the
objectives of the project:
■
ensuring the support of Council (i.e. elected
government) members, policymakers and decision-makers at various levels to
facilitate the institutionalisation of FPR;
■
creating awareness of FPR among those who influence
the environment for project implementation;
■
providing training in PRA, POFTs, training of trainers
(ToT) and participatory monitoring and evaluation;