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;
■
establishing more organised information and database
systems;
■
establishing a functioning organisation and management
system for FPR activities;
■
ensuring the participation of farmers in all
processes, and the linkage of technology generation to extension and input
supply;
■
establishing systems of participatory monitoring and
evaluation (PM&E).
Top The Follow-On Project: “Institutionalisation of FPR in the
SNNPRS”
Provision
of Practical and Field-Based Training
Participatory
Problem Diagnosis and POFTs
Challenges
within the Formal Institutions
Decentralising
Research and Extension
So far, at
policy level, there is general agreement within the collaborating institutions
in the Southern Region that an FPR approach to agricultural R&D should be
institutionalised. Also at federal level, the strategies of both research and
extension support the principle of participation. By the time of the mid-term
review of the follow-on project in July 2000, the stakeholders shared
considerable optimism about the possibility of achieving its aim. Review
findings (Waters-Bayer et al 2000) and subsequent activities of the Project are
highlighted here under a number of key headings.
Top Experiences and Progress made toward Institutionalisation
At the outset
of the Project, the concept of involving farmers in agricultural R&D
activities was supported by federal and regional policies, but there was a need
to translate the policy declarations into practical guidelines and clear
directives to incorporate FPR into the regular activities of the government
organisations. Currently, there is a very good awareness of the FPR
institutionalisation process at various levels in the project area. There is
also good acceptance and positive appreciation of the FPR approach by farmers,
Development Agents (field extension agents) and woreda-level staff of the BoA.
However, there is a need for continued effort in raising awareness and changing
attitudes, particularly among senior officials, including Council members at
zonal and regional level. An inter-institutional peer group assessment carried
out during the mid-term review also indicated that the level of awareness
differed between institutions (higher in BoA and lower in the Council and
planning offices at zonal and regional level).
The Project has
used various means to raise the awareness and encourage the involvement of
partner organisations in FPR and its institutionalisation. In one of the most
effective campaigns ever to publicise FPR methodologies in Ethiopia, the
Project made good use of the national broadcasting service to reach a huge
audience in the country. This was made possible first by making informal
contacts with journalists and taking them to visit project sites and then by
buying airtime so that FPR experiences can be broadcast in weekly programmes in
instalments of three months. This FPR programme is broadcast every Monday on
the agriculture programme ("Awde
geter") of Radio Ethiopia. In addition, the Project is creating
awareness by:
■
drawing up project agreements (memoranda of
understanding) with all partner organisations;
■
membership of all partner organisations in a
high-level Project Steering Committee;
■
inviting the institutions to send participants to
courses / workshops on concepts and principles of FPR, and on PRA, POFT,
PM&E and ToT;
■
engaging staff of the institutions in joint activities
such as diagnostic surveys, field-monitoring visits and impact studies;
■
collaboration in holding annual FPR Fora in which
experiences are exchanged and issues debated;
■
collaboration in formulating a set of flexible
guidelines for the implementation of FPR;
■
arranging participation of staff of partner
organisations in conferences related to FPR;
■
publicising FPR in articles in national newspapers.
Top Experiences and Progress made toward Institutionalisation
The Project
includes all the key government institutions directly or indirectly involved in
technology generation and transfer: the BoA (from Rural Development Centres to
regional level), Awassa and Areka Agricultural Research Centres, Awassa
Agricultural College and the Bureau of Planning and Economic Development. These
institutions were involved right from the project preparation stage and have a
considerable sense of project ownership. There is close cooperation in
planning, implementing, monitoring and evaluating the FPR-related activities.
At the time of
the mid-term review, the verbal commitment of the key players to
institutionalisation of FPR were judged to be good, but the changes needed in
institutional procedures had still not taken place. Staff members at various
levels in the partner organisations were beginning to recognise more clearly
that changes are required with respect to disbursement of funds, job
descriptions and research review procedures. There were still problems related
to funding the FPR activities in the field, especially travel and per diems,
and for facilitating (e.g. through transportation) and funding additional
activities not foreseen in the original project proposal, such as travelling
seminars for Farmer Research Groups (explained below).
FARM-Africa was deliberately kept as a separate
entity in the institutionalisation process (i.e. not part of a government
institution) and was meant to help all the partner institutions acquire the
knowledge and skills to carry out FPR and to set up the necessary structures
and linkages to institutionalise it. The formation of both a Steering Committee
composed of the heads of the institutions and a Technical Team composed of
technical staff from these institutions brought these partners closer together.
FARM-Africa should play a coordinating role only temporarily, until the partner
institutions take over the coordination within the lifetime of the project
(i.e. not after a “handover” at the end of the project). Passing through the
process of building up experience in FPR in a smaller area (North Omo Zone) and
then scaling up within the Southern Region has required a gradual shift in the
role of FARM-Africa, with the partner institutions taking over increasing
responsibility. Increasingly, these institutions are taking the lead in
activities such as training and facilitating joint diagnostic surveys by
researchers, extensionists and farmers. The great amount of interaction between
the institutions that was needed to implement FPR and realise this shift in
roles has improved the linkages between them.
The creation of
an annual FPR Forum also helped to create a joint stakeholder understanding of
FPR and to improve the institutional linkages. The purpose of the Forum is to
bring together organisations and individuals involved in FPR-related activities
in order to share experiences, lessons and challenges. It includes farmers, who
describe and discuss their experiences with FPR. The Forum is based on
practical cases and helps to review the quality of the FPR process from
different perspectives and in different settings. Suggestions and recommendations
drawn from the Forum are disseminated through Forum reports. Information about
organisations and individuals working on FPR is brought together and made more
widely available. Thus, the Forum provides an opportunity for networking and
for growing into an additional institution that could support further
development of FPR in the Southern Region.
Farmer Research
Groups (FRGs) have been set up wherever POFTs are being conducted in the
Project area. The FRGs are formed during the diagnostic survey and continue to
take part throughout the POFT process. FARM-Africa introduced the concept of
working with FRGs at the first PRA training conducted in the follow-on project,
and this was discussed by the trainees. During the diagnostic survey, the trainees
explained their ideas about the need for, composition, roles and
responsibilities of the FRGs to community members, who then selected the
initial members of their FRG. During the course of the POFTs, staff of the
partner institutions monitored the activities of the FRGs. At a review meeting
held just before the second FPR Forum in February 2001, farmer members and
non-members of the groups reflected on the composition, roles, responsibilities
and performance of the groups in their communities. They suggested that the
roles of the FRGs should be:
■
to coordinate the POFT activities and farmer-to-farmer
exchange visits;
■
to coordinate the overall activities of POFTs;
■
to disseminate results and findings of POFTs;
■
to monitor and evaluate POFT activities;
■
to liaise between farmers, researchers and technical
experts;
■
to participate in conducting POFTs.
An important
function of the FRGs has been to link between the farmers conducting trials,
other farmers, formal researchers and the local government (known as “Peasant
Association”). During the review, the farmers made clear that they strongly
believe in the need for the FRGs, but feel that some support should be provided
by outside professionals and government bodies.
Top Experiences and Progress made toward Institutionalisation
In the training
activities, much attention is given to practice in the field. In most cases,
participants (both professionals and farmers) are taken to the real situation
at farm level; in addition, farmers are sometimes brought to the training
venues to share their experiences.
Recently, two
important training events took place that laid the foundation for a wider
institutionalisation than had been originally envisaged by the Project. The
first was the inclusion of FPR methodology (the principles of participation,
PRA, problem diagnosis, POFT, ToT and PM&E) into a nine-month training
curriculum of field-level Development Agents (DAs). There are some 4000 DAs in
the Southern Region. In this particular training, 107 DAs were trained. The
second was the inclusion of FPR methods into the Research Methods component of
the BSc in Agriculture at the university covering the Southern Region (Debub
University). Most future BoA staff will be drawn from the University.
|
Box 3: Methods used in
Training to achieve Progress in Institutionalising FPR ■
Effective joint planning and implementation of training
and workshops with partner institutions ■
Interactive and hands-on training and workshop
events ■
Bringing in experiences of others (e.g.
International Institute for Rural Reconstruction) to help improve the quality
of training ■
Quick assessment of the training events before,
during and after the training ■
Technical back-up of project staff ■
Practical work to reinforce the class sessions ■
Development
and distribution of a set of training materials (hard and electronic copy)
for partner organisations |
Top Experiences and Progress made toward Institutionalisation
The knowledge acquired
during the training events is, in most cases, applied immediately in the
participatory diagnosis of problems and identification of alternative
solutions. The field practical during the PRA training is used both as a
training ground for those new to FPR and as a basis for creating mutual
understanding between communities and external agencies. In the process, POFTs
are initiated to address priority problems identified by farmers. In this way,
research and extension staff could learn from farmers and start to appreciate
their knowledge, preferences and decision-making criteria. Research and
extension staff see the potential of participatory problem diagnosis and POFTs
to improve the process of setting the research and extension agenda. However,
there is still a tendency for them to look only at those problems that are
amenable to study using plot-based on-farm trials and to suggest as treatments
only those technologies that are “on-the-shelf” in research stations. Greater
emphasis needs to be placed on enabling the farmers themselves to suggest ways
of addressing their priority problems, e.g. interesting local innovations as
alternative treatments, and encouraging the partners on POFTS to try these out.
Internal and
external evaluation of the experience in conducting POFTs revealed that, if
these were facilitated properly, they improved farmers’ abilities to test
alternatives, evaluate them and analyse the findings. During the process of
experimentation, more issues have emerged that have helped to fine-tune
research and extension plans. Some examples of POFTs are in mole-rat control in
Dita, Bonke and Konso Woredas; maize variety adaptation trials in Offa and
Bonke Woredas; addressing the problem of trypanosomiasis in Konso; cotton
variety and pest control trials in Humbo and Kindo Koysha Woredas; evaluation
of labour-saving and fuel-saving devices by women at numerous sites; and
composting in Chencha (FARM-Africa 1999a & 1999b).
Top Experiences and Progress made toward Institutionalisation
Findings from
the specific activities and from the experience in applying and
institutionalising FPR are disseminated to staff of the partner organisations
and others through workshops, visits and publications, including diagnostic
survey reports (16), technical pamphlets (21), proceedings (10) and monitoring
reports (6). Emphasis is given to bringing research outputs into a process of
extension and scaling-up in order to have a wider impact on the well-being and
food security of farming families. In addition to the above-mentioned radio
broadcasts, a FPR Newsletter was started. This is one of the few sources of
up-to-date information on FPR available to the DAs in the field. Facilitation
of farmer-to-farmer dissemination through cross visits and farmers’ workshops
is a key experience of the Project in disseminating findings of the POFTs.
However, there
is still a problem in terms of farmers’ access to the inputs needed to adopt
the technologies identified through POFTs as being promising. This problem has
various dimensions: a) lack of a clearly understood mechanism through which
farmers can access inputs via the BoA; b) lack of capacity of the government
organisations to meet farmers’ input demands; c) inability of the
farmer-to-farmer dissemination mechanism (although increasingly supported by
outside agencies) to meet the demands (in some cases, for technical reasons,
e.g. the supply of hybrid maize seed; in some cases, for social and economic
reasons).
Top Experiences and Progress made toward Institutionalisation
During the mid-term
review of the Project, the evaluators and the Project team identified the
following lessons that have been learnt thus far during implementation of the
current institutionalisation project and that could be applied to future
projects of this kind (Waters-Bayer et al 2000):
a. Benefit
of previous project
The Project benefited enormously from the previous
Farmers’ Research Project in a number of ways:
■
the experience gained in conducting FPR
■
the credibility this experience gave the team
■
the experience gained in training and evaluation
■
the development of a network of FPR “champions” in
various organisations;
b. Need for project start-up period
During project
planning, it had been assumed that the project would be “up and running” from
the first day of fund disbursement. The reality is that a substantial period is
required to initiate project implementation, such as for procuring required
items, developing working procedures and allocating human resources. Future
projects should consider such realities and incorporate preparation time into
the project design.
c. Need to allow for unforeseen
developments
It is not easy
to anticipate problems and additional activities in process projects of this
sort, which pioneer new approaches. Sufficient contingency allocations need to
be considered in budgeting, and allowance needs to be made for their use, where
justified, in project procedures.
d. Slow change in attitude
Working norms,
attitudes and self-confidence levels take a long time to change. It should be
expected that changes will be slow at least at the beginning and gain momentum
with time and experience. Project plans need to consider such realities in
project design.
e. External reviews
The value of a
participatory, external mid-term review, which gives all participants an
opportunity for reflection and for recognising ways to improve the project,
should not be underestimated. Such a review should come as early as practicable
so as to indicate problem areas that need to be resolved before much time and
resources have been expended.
f. Establishment of support structures
This project
recognised the need for establishing coordinating bodies at various levels
(policy, technical and local implementation) to assist in dealing with policy,
technical and operational issues that can militate against successful project
implementation. Establishing the Steering Committee, Technical Team and Farmer
Research Groups was a sound decision that has proven its worth within a short
period of time, and has sustainable potential beyond the project period.
g. Financial sustainability
Institutionalisation
projects should pay special attention to the financial sustainability of
activities at project end. One way to assist this process is to negotiate
cost-sharing with stakeholders in such a way that, over the project period, the
project’s (external) share of costs decreases and the local stakeholders’ share
increases, thus ensuring that essential costs are included in local budgets
before the end of the project.
h. Changing roles
There was a
tendency among other project stakeholders to depend on FARM-Africa staff to
initiate activities. This was addressed by discussing this fact in
participatory workshops and suggesting ways in which FARM-Africa’s functions
could be subsumed into those of partner institutions. This recognition of the
need for changing roles at different stages of an institutionalisation project
is an important lesson for other projects of this nature.
i. The time frame
Fundamental
institutionalisation of participatory approaches is a slow process!
Top Experiences and Progress made toward Institutionalisation
Thus far, the
Project has gained practical experiences that show the potential of FPR in
addressing the constraints that farmers face in agriculture. However, the
process of institutionalising FPR needs a long time and very high commitment
from the key actors involved. There is a need to allocate resources to enhance
the knowledge and skills of the researchers, including the senior
professionals, and to give more support to undertaking FPR as part of the
overall research system. The current efforts in Ethiopia, which are fragmented
and short-term, should be supported to sustain impact. Some of the challenges
linked to the institutionalisation of FPR in Ethiopia are the following:
■
FPR and farmers’ priorities cannot be adequately dealt
with through surveys, short visits or short participatory exercises. It is,
rather, a process that requires time, effort, appropriate communication
methods, a change in attitude and behaviour as well as some visible
improvements for the farmers, which can only be assessed in longer-term
interactions that have impact at farmer level. However, with the existing
procedures in government institutions for priority setting, research planning
and implementation as well as the staff reward systems, the initiative to
undertake FPR is limited to projects and individuals rather than widely spread
within the institutions. A three-year project period is too short to bring
about these changes. Moreover, integration among several of such small projects
helps to push the institutionalisation process from different directions.
■
Participatory research requires the joint effort of
all actors who are involved in technology generation and extension. However, in
the current institutional set-up, although various institutions are working
together to implement this particular project, there is still a high tendency
to work in isolation, because of the physical and functional separation of the
institutions. The efforts towards closer collaboration are affected by personal
attitudes, institutional mandates etc and are subject to the good will of
individuals. There is a need to put better mechanisms in place to improve the
linkages and a need for a larger number of FPR-skilled professionals,
especially among those who influence the institutional environment.
■
Given the current situation with regard to farmer
organisation, representation of farmers at higher levels – woreda and above –
is another problem, which has implications for their views and decisions as
well as for their roles in the research reviews. Since the professionals carry
out the research reviews and make decisions at these higher levels in the
absence of farmers, can we really talk of genuine FPR?
■
As project implementation involves the interaction of
the stakeholders, it demands not only technical integration but also some
financial and administrative changes. In this regard, the challenges relate to:
o
lack of effective communication mechanisms to share
and exchange views on the progress of project implementation and related
activities in the institutionalisation process;
o
different financial procedures in the various
institutions involved and delays in accounting;
o
less emphasis being given to looking into the impacts
and the process of institutionalisation in the respective institutions
(ineffective monitoring and evaluation);
o
less attention being given to initiatives to play
leading roles in project implementation. This relates to the slow progress in
shifting roles from FARM-Africa to the respective institutions, as envisaged in
the project document, because commitment is growing only gradually.
■
More targeted action is required at all stages of the
FPR and extension process (from the diagnostic studies onwards) in order to
understand and act on the needs and criteria of women and the poor.
■
Over the life of the project, there will be a need to
expand the research horizon, i.e. to look more widely than at technical “fixes”
from “on-the-shelf” technologies as the only solutions for farmers’ problems.
This will require a wider definition of “research” than is currently held by
most technical staff.
Top Experiences and Progress made toward Institutionalisation
The involvement
of farmers in research planning, implementation and evaluation has been seen to
date as a means for improving the relevance of research outputs to farmers’
circumstances and improving uptake through linkage to the PADETES (technology
demonstration) system. Less emphasis has been placed on empowering farmers to
assume some of the functions of the formal research and extension institutions.
At present, FPR
is driven by agencies external to the community. Little attention is given to
intra- and inter-community communication pathways as major conduits for the
spread of research experiences or for the training of community members in the
principles of experimentation. This was understandable while there was still
little in-country experience of working in partnership with farmers. However,
that situation is changing, and it may be time to consider complementary
R&D models that recognise the following:
■
The Research Centres have limited human capacity and
facilities (e.g. transport);
■
The BoA and other institutions suffer from high staff
turnover, with serious implications for the sustainability of a process
dependent on the accumulation of skills and expertise;
■
Formal institutions have procedures that make it
difficult to implement activities that are responsive to local or immediate
needs;
■
There is often a break between farmers’ identification
of preferred varieties in POFTS and the availability of planting materials and
other inputs;
■
Farming communities are comparatively stable;
■
Experience from other countries (e.g. East and West
India Rainfed Farming Projects; Promoción e Investigación de Productos Andinos
[PROINPA] in Bolivia; Campesino-a-Campesino in Central America) suggests that,
where appropriate facilitation, training and support are given, farmers and
local institutions are capable of planning and conducting research, organising
and implementing the local dissemination of technical knowledge, and
multiplying or acquiring the necessary inputs.
The Project
operates in only a few woredas. It is timely to consider whether the present,
resource-intensive way of conducting FPR is replicable throughout the Southern
Region, or if it is feasible to decentralise and give farmers a greater role in
R&D activities, and to modify the roles of researchers and DAs so that they
support this process. If such a radical stance is not taken, then the uptake
(institutionalisation) of the FPR “package of practices” promoted by the
Project may turn out to be somewhat analogous to the uptake of the technical
packages of practices offered by the BoA to farmers. Just as farmers pick and
chose those components of a package that suit their interests and resources,
and build on their present practices, so the BoA and others may adopt those
aspects of FPR that are within their capacity and resources and that do not
require radical changes in procedures.
Top Experiences and Progress made toward Institutionalisation
While research,
extension and training institutes worked together well for the implementation
of the one joint project, how can this collaboration continue, become part and
parcel of their operations after the project ends? Are recent experiences
available? Constraints are differences in administrative procedures, finances,
leadership and ownership of the collaboration.
Over and over
again, evidence confirms that developing effective PTD approaches and
institutionalising these requires long-term commitments and time frames. How
can we create sufficient time to this end? Is reduction of our dependency on
external donor funds a way forward? Or should we change donor funding
conditions? Where did this work?
Biggs S. 1989. Resource-poor
farmer participation in research: a synthesis of experiences in nine national
agricultural research systems. OFCOR Comparative Study 3. The Hague: ISNAR.
CIA. 1999. The
world factbook 1999 – Ethiopia.
http://www.odci.gov/cia/publications/factbook/et.html
FARM-Africa Farmers' Research Project. 1999a. Incorporation of Farmer Participatory
Research in the Southern Region of Ethiopia: Proceedings of a workshop held
in Awassa, 18th–19th March 1998. FARM-Africa & Institute for Sustainable
Development, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
FARM-Africa Farmers' Research Project. 1999b. Review of Experiences with Participatory
On-Farm Trials in the Southern Region of Ethiopia: Proceedings of a
workshop held in Soddo, 17th–22nd May 1998. FARM-Africa & Institute for
Sustainable Development, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
Misgana LO. 1998. Critical
review of the extension package popularisation programme of Ethiopia with
reference to Oromia Regional State. Dissertation, MSc in Agricultural
Extension, University of Reading.
Percy R. 1997. Gender
and participation in agricultural development planning: lessons from Ethiopia.
Working document. Rome: FAO Women in Development Service.
Sandford S & Reece A (eds). 1992. Proceedings of the workshop on farmers’
participatory research held in Addis Ababa, February 17–19,1992. Addis
Ababa: FARM-Africa.
Sandford S. 1999. Final
report of the Farmers' Research Project in the North Omo Zone and Derashe and
Konso Special Woredas of the Southern Nations, Nationalities and Peoples
Regional State of Ethiopia. Internal report of FARM-Africa. Addis Ababa:
FARM-Africa.
Sutherland A. 2000. Challenges in Institutionalising Farmer Participatory Research (in the
context of a more participatory agricultural research and extension system).
Paper prepared for the Second Farmer Participatory Research Forum, 29 June – 1
July 2000, Awassa, Southern Region, Ethiopia.
Waters-Bayer A, Seme Debela & Pound B. 2000. Mid-term review of the project
“Institutionalisation of Farmer Participatory Research in the Southern Nations,
Nationalities and Peoples Regional State”, Ethiopia, 10–21 July 2000.
Leusden: ETC Ecoculture.
[1] The project for “Institutionalisation of FPR in the SNNPRS” is financed
by the European Union (EU). The authors of this case study appreciate the
support of the Commission to implement this project. The opinions expressed
here do not in any way reflect the views of the European Union.
[2] A “woreda” is an administrative unit equivalent to a district.
[3] For details of these publications, please contact FARM-Africa at the
address given at the end of this paper.
[4] Uptake environment refers to a set of conditions that need to be in
place before an uptake of the technology can be assured. The composition of
that “set” depends on the technology and on the community for which it is
meant. Included are the technical conditions, marketing opportunities, a
supportive policy and institutional environment, and access to technical
advice.
[5] Awassa and Areka Research Centres are part of the Ethiopian
Agricultural Research Organisation (EARO).
[6] Awassa Agricultural College is part of Debub University.