Institutionalisation of Farmer Participatory Research in Southern Ethiopia[1]

A Joint Learning Experience

Ejigu Jonfaa , Barry Poundb, Endreas Getac, Ousman Sururd and Furgassa Bedadae

 

Abstract

Introduction

Context

Historical Development of FPR in Ethiopia

The Initial Project: Farmers’ Research Project

The Follow-On Project: “Institutionalisation of FPR in the SNNPRS”

Questions for Debate

References

 

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

 

Abstract

 

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.

 

Top

 

Introduction

 

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.

 

Top

 

Context

Geographical Context

Agricultural Extension

 

Geographical Context

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.

 

Top       Context

 

Agricultural Extension

 

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.

 

Top       Context

 

Historical Development of FPR in Ethiopia

 

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

 

The Initial Project: Farmers’ Research Project

Research Studies

Training Activities

Participatory On-Farm Trials

Lessons Learned from the Farmers’ Research Project

 

Research Studies

 

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

 

Training Activities

 

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

 

Participatory On-Farm Trials

 

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

 

Lessons learned from the 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

 

The Follow-On Project: “Institutionalisation of FPR in the SNNPRS”

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”

 

What is Institutionalisation of FPR?

 

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”

 

Experiences and Progress made toward Institutionalisation

Creating Awareness

Institutional Linkages

Provision of Practical and Field-Based Training

Participatory Problem Diagnosis and POFTs

Dissemination of Findings

Lessons and Challenges

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

 

Creating Awareness

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

 

Institutional Linkages

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

 

Provision of Practical and Field-Based Training

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

 

Participatory Problem Diagnosis and POFTs

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

 

Dissemination of Findings

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

 

Lessons and Challenges

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

 

Challenges within the Formal Institutions

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

 

Decentralising Research and Extension

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

 

Questions for Debate

 

Inter-institutional forms of collaboration beyond the projects

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.

 

Time-frames

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?

Questions for Debate

Top

References

 

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.

 

Top       References



[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.