Transforming the Agricultural Research Council Focus from only supporting Commercial Farmers to supporting Black Smallholder Farmers by means of PTD

A Case Study from the Deciduous Fruit Sector of South Africa

Tim Hart and Joyene Isaacs[1]

 

Abstract

Introduction

An International Understanding of what is meant by PTD

Origins of the ARC and some Changes within ARC Infruitec-Nietvoorbij and the National ARC Structure

Use of Demonstration Plot in Research and Extension with Emerging Black Farmers

CASE 1: The Buisplaas community – the first use of the demonstration plot

CASE 2: The evaporative cooling storage unit at Montague

CASE 3: Attempts to incorporate PTD into Honeybush Demonstration Plot Project

The Intended Way Forward with PTD

Conclusion

Questions for Debate

References

 

Abstract

 

Since the inception of the South African Agricultural Research Council (ARC) in 1992, one of the institutes, ARC Infruitec-Nietvoorbij, has tried to institutionalise Participatory Technology Development (PTD) within its activities with smallholder farmers. To some extent this has paralleled a similar process at the national level. During the 1990s, a small group of personnel within the institute realised the need to change existing practices and to include previously disadvantaged black (“emerging”) farmers in their client base. This was influenced by changes in the national ARC structure and also changes in the national agricultural policy from 1994 onwards. By 1995 the need to employ a coordinator to manage and drive this process was identified and the current programme manager was appointed. The subsequent development of a matrix system allowed the participating team members of the Resource-Limited Producers Programme (RLP) to ensure that the various types of agricultural research disciplines were available for the smallholder farmer programme while still continuing their work within their divisions.

 

A number of the team members, some technicians, researchers and research managers were trained in Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA) tools and principles. However, there was very little practical application of these tools by team members and the others trained. Often very little support was given to team members for their activities relating to emerging agriculture from managers and divisions where team members are permanently based. It was soon realised that the dynamics of emerging farmers and the rural communities were more complex than that of the institute’s historical client group: white commercial farmers. A social scientist was appointed to assist in understanding the socio-cultural and socio-economic context in which emerging agricultural activities occur. This person also supports and assists the team with the implementation of the PTD and dissemination process. The intention is to change the historical process to become one of participatory development and exchange of technologies, resulting in the empowerment of all involved.

 

One of the latest projects of RLP (the name was recently changed to Sustainable Rural Livelihoods Programme) within the institute ARC Infruitec-Nietvoorbij has been reformulated to actively include farmers in the processes of technology development, planning, monitoring and evaluation, and thereby encourage their participation in the project. While the project was not entirely conceived by participating farmers, it is based on solving the identified needs of farmers and it encourages them to conduct the research in conjunction with the institute’s scientists and technicians.

 

A similar process has been developing to a greater or lesser degree within the national structure of the ARC and, at times, these parallel processes influence one another. Both the larger process and the process at institute level are constrained by the unwillingness of some personnel to work with the new clients and also the inability of some of those who are willing to work with this new client group to change their habits and attitudes and listen to the dreams, needs, experience and knowledge of the emerging farmers. There is also sometimes an inability to adapt previous approaches (training-and-visit, and lecturing) so that they are suitable for the new clients. While other institutes and some government departments of agriculture at the national and provincial level have received assistance from overseas agencies in the form of specialist advisors and exchange programmes, this institute has not and has had to evolve its strategy as information is obtained from literary and other sources. Where individuals have overcome many of these constraints, much ground has been covered in moving towards PTD.

 

This case study looks at the chronology of events that have been undertaken by one institute and the successes and constraints that it has experienced while being part of a national Agricultural Research Council that is transforming from an organisation that did not serve emerging black farmers to one that is attempting to provide services to these farmers by utilising PTD, participatory extension and similar approaches. The strategy is multi-pronged in that different but related activities have to be carried out at various levels in order to achieve this shift. This process is now discussed. In 1996 the RLP Programme at ARC Infruitec-Nietvoorbij started with one full-time staff member and approximately six part-time specialists drawn from other divisions. By 2001 the division had five full-time personnel and an average of twelve part-time specialists drawn from the other divisions.

 

Top

 

Introduction

 

Since its inception as a parastatal in 1992, the Agricultural Research Council Infruitec-Nietvoorbij (ARC Infruitec-Nietvoorbij), which was until 1997 two separate institutes within the ARC framework, has attempted to move from a less participatory to a more participatory approach to developing technology with smallholder farmers in the emerging agricultural sector in South Africa[2]. The changes that have taken place during the last decade from 1990 to 2000 are significant and indicate an enormous paradigm shift in the definition of farmers and in the delivery of services to farmers. This shift, which is not yet complete, was not without various obstacles and constraints. Some of these include the fact that this particular institute did not benefit from the onset of democracy in the 1990s as directly as, say, various government departments and non-government organisations, which were immediately targeted by international aid, cooperation, development and technology organisations. This and other constraints will be discussed and reasons will be suggested why the changes have not been as fast as is desirable. Some examples of the work being done in conjunction with smallholder farmers will be noted to indicate the gradual paradigm shift that is taking place within the institute. That this process is incomplete will become evident and possible ways forward will be discussed at the end of the document. These refer primarily to the institutionalisation of PTD within the institute, the ARC and South Africa.

 

Top

 

An International Understanding of what is meant by PTD

 

In order to place the activities of ARC Infruitec-Nietvoorbij and the national ARC structure into a context of participatory technology development (PTD), the current international understanding of this term needs to be considered. This is important because there is no real understanding or awareness of PTD among researchers within this institute and the national ARC structure. In effect, the activities discussed have developed in isolation and despite a lack of awareness. A brief literature review of work being done on PTD in various parts of the world, including activities in both the Northern and the Southern Hemispheres generally describe PTD as a process that encompasses “… all forms of interaction that combine the knowledge and skills of farmers with those of outside facilitators in creating sustainable improvements in farming systems” (van Veldhuizen et al 1997: 13). Accordingly, they describe a PTD framework that has the following basic activities:

  1. Getting started which has the purpose of establishing contact, allowing the collection of basic information, the clarification of an agenda for and agreement on future collaboration;
  2. A situation analysis that allows a combined and common understanding of the local constraints and available resources;
  3. Identification of activities whereby both the outsiders and the farmers look at options to try out or research. This entails the identification of promising solutions or new opportunities for improving agricultural practices;
  4. Activities related to trying out or experimentation. These involve experimenting with and adapting new ideas, which are planned and implemented by farmers who are supported by outsiders. These experiments are designed and evaluated jointly by both the farmers and the outsiders according to previously agreed criteria;
  5. The sharing of results both locally and further a field with other farmers, research scientists and development workers. This is important in that it lets others know what was achieved and how this was done. The sharing process is done largely by means of workshops and farmer-to-farmer exchange.
  6. Activities important to sustaining the process that include stimulating local farmer organisations, linkages with farmers and agricultural support services to ensure that the farmer-initiated and -directed agricultural improvement is able to continue without the direct support of external facilitation (ibid).

 

On the one hand, van Veldhuizen et al (1997) stress that PTD is a collaborative research effort between farmers and outsiders (including researchers, extension officials and development workers) that is led by farmers (internally initiated), is based on what is important to them and is done in a participatory manner that ensures sustainability and the sharing of the results. However, they (1997:19) also point out that sometimes PTD is externally initiated and can have a somewhat top-down appearance. Rather than repudiating this approach outright, van Veldhuizen et al (1997) suggest that it can be used as an entry-level activity with the purpose of moving towards farmer-led research. They point out with a note of caution that, in these cases, the initial research activities must be:

 

… clearly defined, well focused and carefully managed [and that] with time, however, if the interaction continues to be led by external researchers, the collaboration can become extremely complex and time-consuming, and can expose farmers to unacceptable levels of risk. During the later stages of an externally initiated PTD process, it is primarily the farmers who will have to judge what level of risk they are prepared to take. They are the ones who will assume the ultimate decision-making responsibilities for the research in their fields and herds (van Veldhuizen et al 1997, p19).

 

The implication is that initially the external initiators must carefully facilitate the interaction between the outsiders and the farmers so that the process is participatory and sustainable. The farmers must at all times be aware of the risks involved and determine how the increase in risk will affect them.

 

Based on the discussion of van Veldhuizen et al (1997) it seems that PTD practitioners currently understand it as a process in which researchers and farmers combine their skills and knowledge to develop technology that sustainably improves farming systems. According to van Veldhuizen et al (1997) it is preferable that this process is internally initiated but, if it is carefully implemented, it can be externally initiated as long as it is participatory, empowering and ensures sustainability when the outsiders have reduced their level of involvement.

 

Top

 

Origins of the ARC and some Changes within ARC Infruitec-Nietvoorbij and the National ARC Structure

 

Origins and Structure of the ARC

Clients of the ARC

Local and National Restructuring to Support Emerging Black Farmers

Activities at ARC Infruitec-Nietvoorbij

 

Many of the events that occurred at both the national level and the local institute level influenced the direction in which these structures developed and attempted to focus their services towards emerging black farmers. Therefore, these two parallel processes are discussed together rather than separately and are summarised in Table 1.

 

Origins and Structure of the ARC

 

The agricultural research components separated from the Department of Agriculture in 1992 and became a separate legal entity in the form of a parastatal receiving limited financial support from the government. Prior to this, the agricultural research activities were carried out under the auspices of the Department of Agriculture. A number of research institutes and organs were already in existence and in 1992 they became the institutes of the new ARC. From 1992 onwards, the ARC was given the mandate to carry out research (technology development) and some extension activities (technology transfer). Previously, when the research activities had been carried out within the Department of Agriculture, the researchers were responsible only for research, and other directorates such as extension, land-use planning, communication were responsible for other services. From 1992 these directorates still carried out extension activities although technology transfer functions were now added to the mandate of the ARC.

 

With the separation from the Department of Agriculture, two separate research institutes were established in Stellenbosch: the Stellenbosch Institute for Fruit Technology (Infruitec) and the Nietvoorbij Institute for Viticulture and Oenology. This distinction was based on the historically separate commodity-orientated research activities of these two institutes when they were under the auspices of the Department of Agriculture. In 1997 the decision was taken to amalgamate the two institutes into one in order to provide a one-stop service for farmers in the deciduous fruit industry. This new Institute is now known as ARC Infruitec-Nietvoorbij and consists of two campuses: Infruitec Centre for Fruit Technology and Nietvoorbij Centre for Viticulture and Oenology. Prior to 1997, each institute had approximately seven technical divisions that were arranged according to specific scientific disciplines. These divisions included the following: Post Harvest; Pest Management; Soil Science, Biotechnology; Disease Management; Wine and Fermentation Technology; Table and Dried Grapes; etc. Some of these divisions are generic in that they were in existence in both the institutes when the two institutes amalgamated to form ARC Infruitec-Nietvoorbij in 1997. These duplicated generic divisions were, where possible, also combined in order to rationalise the new structure. This rationalisation process is still continuing.

 

Origins of the ARC and some Changes within ARC Infruitec-Nietvoorbij and the National ARC Structure

Top

 

Clients of the ARC

 

Prior to 1992, both Institutes had historically directed their services towards the established white commercial farmers in the deciduous fruit sector of the Western and Northern Cape and other more scattered areas of South Africa where the microclimate was suitable for growing deciduous fruit and vines. With the democratic election in 1994, the mandate of both institutes was amended to reflect the changes in national agricultural policy, i.e. the provision of services and assistance to all farmers, with a special emphasis on the emerging black farmers, who are acknowledged as being resource-limited in most cases, and the facilitation of their access to appropriate information and technology relating to agricultural production systems. The inclusion of black farmers was a new phenomenon for the ARC personnel at both institutes. The ARC researchers, technicians and other personnel were predominantly experienced in working with educated and very often wealthy white commercial farmers who had access to a diverse range of resources, and who predominantly came from the same ethnic group and therefore had a similar cultural and social background to the researchers. With the change in policy, they were now required to work with farmers who are often different from their previous clients and who generally face a number of severe constraints as a result of their being historically neglected by the agricultural research and extension services and restrained by various government policies. Based on her personal discussions with emerging black farmers in the Western and Northern Cape Provinces, Isaacs (1996:2) identified the following factors as constraining the participation of black farmers in “mainstream” agriculture:

  1. Discrimination because of race and gender;
  2. A lack of access to land for farming;
  3. A lack of provision of and access to water;
  4. A lack of access to markets;
  5. Illiteracy and related problems;
  6. Minimal access to financial assistance;
  7. Minimal access to cooperatives and marketing organisations, especially membership in such bodies;
  8. A lack of access to appropriate information, technology and extension services; and
  9. A lack of access to agricultural education and institutions.

 

According to Isaacs (1996), these constraints continue to affect the current research and extension agenda. An example illustrates the problem: The current trend for successful fruit farming for the purpose of exporting produce is based on the use of diverse spraying programmes that must conform to the requirements of the specific markets. It is vital that emerging farmers are aware of these requirements if they intend selling their produce to these markets. The emerging farmers suffer a number of constraints such as illiteracy, a lack of access to information, to marketing information and organisations. In this context, the existence of these requirements, rules, regulations and guidelines and the emerging farmers’ limited awareness of them are daunting obstacles to their entry into and progress in the commercial agriculture sector.

 

From 1994 onwards, the researchers based at the ARC Institutes of Infruitec and Nietvoorbij in Stellenbosch had to attempt to overcome these issues in order to provide relevant services to their new clients. This was a task considered daunting by many researchers. In order to begin implementing the new policy, the researchers started by establishing links and interacting with a number of emerging black farmers in the Western and Northern Cape Provinces. This was done on an ad hoc basis through means of various non-governmental organisations (NGOs) that were already working with some of these communities (ARC Annual Reports 1994, 1995; Isaacs 1998b). The NGOs would identify the predominantly agricultural needs of the community and would then approach the relevant service provider to deliver the required services. The bulk of these activities that included the ARC researchers were related to technology transfer for merging fruit producers, especially because the institutes had developed much research information and technology since their inception in the Department of Agriculture more than 60 years ago. The technology transferred included basic principles, such as soil preparation, water management and some horticultural aspects. However, some of this technology had to be adapted to suit the local circumstances. In the case of soil preparation, for example, often the farmers did not have modern ploughing equipment or used animal traction, so the basic principles had to be adapted to these circumstances. Similarly, the application and measurement of irrigation scheduling had to be adapted. The process of adaptation implies PTD, but it was not immediately recognised as such. In this manner, the two Stellenbosch-based institutes of the ARC became involved with the emerging black farmers.

 

Origins of the ARC and some Changes within ARC Infruitec-Nietvoorbij and the National ARC Structure

Top

 

Local and National Restructuring to Support Emerging Black Farmers

 

During 1994 and 1995, the management at the two institutes became aware that, for the institutes to fulfil their mandate and serve the new clients effectively and efficiently, the existing organisations would have to be restructured. This realisation was largely influenced by the activities of some researchers and especially by the activities that were taking place within the national ARC structure and the Farming Systems Research and Development (FSRD) strategy of Dr Burger, which is described below. During this period, the only indication of involvement with the new clients was the annual budget allocation of resources to this end. During 1994 and 1995, this allocation was less than five percent of the total budgets of the two institutes. The structure of the institutes prior to 1996 did not allow for multidisciplinary research with emerging farmers nor did it allow multi-commodity research[3]. The research agenda applicable to resource-poor or emerging farmers was non-existent, and researchers had difficulty interacting with these new clients because of this and also for the socio-economic reasons listed above. The Institute for Fruit Technology (Infruitec) led the way in restructuring its organisation in order to address the identified internal problems and, in April 1996, the management appointed an Institute Coordinator FSRD. This coordinator was responsible for setting up a support programme for emerging black farmers. This programme was initially known as the Fruit Information and Research Service (FIRS) and was the original precursor of what is now known as the SRL Programme.

 

During 1994 the ARC Central Office embarked on a process to establish coordinators in FSRD in most institutes of the ARC in order to advise the institute directors with regard to working with emerging black farmers[4]. Dr Burger of the ARC was tasked with establishing the FSRD coordinators and a corporate FSRD Programme. He described the purpose of this programme as: “to encourage participatory research, development, evaluation, demonstration and transfer of technologies applicable to integrated farming systems appropriate to small farmers” (quoted in Fowler 1998:119). This proposed structure was to have a provincial coordinator in each province, who was to have enough "clout" to draw in any ARC personnel from within the province for the projects with emerging black farmers. This process was not very successful because, in 1996 and 1997, the various ARC institutes were trying to establish their own individual identity, and cooperation as envisaged by Dr Burger was not high on their list of priorities. The ARC’s Multi-Institutional Project Initiative (M-IPI) later replaced this structure. By 1998 the M-IPI was also abandoned after the multidisciplinary project in Mthiza failed, and when the Western Cape Province coordinator resigned and Dr Burger retired. It is believed that this initiative failed for a number of reasons:

 

The attempts to work in a multidisciplinary manner that followed on from these early attempts have evolved so that only the last three points still remain as obstacles. However, it must be stressed that some positive inroads have been made in these three areas. For example, some joint planning does take place.

 

For most of 1998, there was a lull in central coordination of small-scale farming research activities and most of the institutes worked fairly independently. Towards the end of 1998, Dr Hennie van Zyl was asked to coordinate a discussion group of small-scale farming coordinators from all the ARC Institutes in order to restructure the entire approach. A consultant was appointed to help this process along. Each institute within the ARC was requested to nominate a coordinator to be part of this panel/forum, which was known as the Resource-Poor Agriculture Programme. By 2000 a “virtual” Institute was established, which was called the Sustainable Rural Livelihoods (SRL) Institute and was mandated to coordinate the national SRL Programme of the ARC in all its institutes. This virtual institute had an acting director, Dr Amie Aucamp, and a team of coordinators from each of the ARC institutes. These coordinators met every 6–8 weeks and some members served on the Day Management Team of the SRL Institute. While this strategy was emerging, a parallel transformation was taking place within the national structure of the ARC regarding its other activities relating to research and extension. The ARC started moving away from institute-based activities to a more integrated programme approach, which is intended to increase the collaboration between institutes and thereby provide more holistic services to all the clients of the ARC. Since late 2000, the SRL Institute was called the SRL Corporate Programme and, from April 2001, it has a permanent Director, Deputy Director and Secretary. In 2001, the meetings and management take place along the same lines that they did in the previous year.

 

Table 1: Chronology of events relating to restructuring of ARC Infruitec-Nietvoorbij and ARC Central Office in order to deliver development services to emerging farmers[5]

 

Period

Institute ARC Infruitec-Nietvoorbij

Central Office Corporate Programme

1992

Infruitec Centre for Fruit Technology and Nietvoorbij Centre for Viticulture and Oenology are established as institutes of the new national ARC.

ARC is established out of Dept of Agriculture’s research system but no smallholder farmer research programme exists.

1994

Both institutes consider working with new clients of ARC: emerging black farmers.

ARC adopts mandate to assist all farmers irrespective of race and to give increasing attention to emerging black farmers.

1994–1995

Personnel from both institutes work with emerging farmers, but activities are generally loosely coordinated in each institute.

FSRD Programme is initiated and coordinators are set up in the provinces to coordinate institute activities at provincial level.

1996

Infruitec Centre for Fruit Technology appoints Institute Coordinator FSRD from outside the Institute to coordinate interaction with small-scale farmers; programme becomes known as FIRS Programme. Nietvoorbij Centre for Viticulture and Oenology appoints Institute Coordinator from within the Institute.

FSRD Programme continues and awareness is created of the inability of provincial coordinators to mobilise personnel as a result of informal structure in institutes and the increasing competition between institutes.

1997

Two institutes combine to become ARC Infruitec-Nietvoorbij and the two separate programmes become the RLP Programme, which has posts for one manager and two coordinators, one at each campus.

ARC’s M-IPI replaces FSRD Programme in attempt to reduce effects of growing individualism and striving for own identity by most of the institutes.

1998

Institute Coordinator of Infruitec becomes manager of RLP Programme. The programme takes on the form of a division within the institute and has 4 permanent staff.

ARC’s M-IPI fails, key personnel retire or leave and there is subsequent lull in initiatives by ARC Central Office. Towards end of year, a discussion group is established to restructure the approach.

1999

RLP becomes RPA Programme in response to changes in Central Office, which gives permission to appoint social scientist to help increase awareness of social aspects of agricultural development.

The institutes of ARC identify and nominate coordinators who attend this discussion group. From this a panel develops and becomes known as the ARC RPA Programme.

2000

A social anthropologist is appointed to the RPA Programme. The permanent personnel component remains at 4 because one institute coordinator retires.

The idea of a “virtual” SRL institute is conceived early in the year and, by the end of the year, it is known as the SRL Corporate Programme.

2001

RPA Programme/Division is now known as the institute’s SRL Programme and the number of permanent staff is increased to 5.

A Director, a Deputy Director and a Secretary are appointed permanently to SRL Corporate Programme and are based at ARC Central Office.

 

Origins of the ARC and some Changes within ARC Infruitec-Nietvoorbij and the National ARC Structure

Top

 

Activities at ARC Infruitec-Nietvoorbij in its work with emerging black farmers

Identifying Personnel

Training in PRA Tools – Successes and Constraints

 

Identifying Personnel

 

In 1996 the role of the newly appointed Institute Coordinator: Farming Systems Research and Development at ARC Infruitec was to create the necessary links with the different role-players in the South African agricultural development arena. However, to do this, two issues had to be addressed almost simultaneously:

  1. the establishment of an effective structure to implement the development and transfer of technology; and
  2. the actual development and transfer of information and technology to the new clients.

 

In order to establish an effective structure, given the history of the institutes and the demands of the new clients, the most suited individuals within the various technical divisions had to be identified to ensure their sustained cooperation and participation. Because the Institute Infruitec took the initiative in employing a coordinator to drive this process, this institute was the first to develop such a structure. The coordinator approached the division managers to select candidates to participate in developing this new structure. Isaacs (1998b:4) drew up the following criteria as basis for determining the suitability of candidates:

  1. A specific technical expertise;
  2. Ability to communicate easily;
  3. Willingness to travel and to stay in rural communities;
  4. Willingness to undertake (the) required extra training.

 

Initially, six people were selected (one from each of the six technical divisions that existed within ARC Infruitec at the time) and a meeting was held to discuss the role of the division coordinators and a framework for the programme. This framework acknowledged the inexperience and different approaches required to fulfil the overall aim of the new programme, that became known initially as the Fruit Information and Research Service (FIRS) and later as the Resource-Limited Producers (RLP) Programme when the two institutes amalgamated. In 1998 it became known as the Resource-Poor Agriculture (RPA) Programme. By late 2000, there was a movement to rename it the SRL Programme in accordance with the name of the new SRL Corporate Programme that is tasked with coordinating the sustainable rural livelihood activities within all the institutes. This was finalised in April 2001. The role of the coordinators from each of the divisions was (and still is) to design and coordinate the implementation of the required activities in the farming communities and to inform their respective technical divisions of research opportunities that were emerging from the new agricultural clients. The coordinators stay in their respective divisions but their time allocation to this programme is negotiated annually and ranges from as little as 20% to as much as 90%. Following the inroads made by this structure with regard to the new clients of ARC Infruitec, ARC Nietvoorbij applied a similar structure within its organisation. This facilitated the transition when the two institutes amalgamated in 1997.

 

After the amalgamation in 1997, the Institute Coordinator at ARC Infruitec became the programme manager for the RLP Programme of the newly amalgamated institute in 1998. This programme received the status of a separate division of ARC Infruitec-Nietvoorbij. This resulted in the two centres (Infruitec and Nietvoorbij) each having their own centre coordinators. Together with the programme manager, these two coordinators had the responsibility of coordinating the activities of the division coordinators from the specialist divisions. The post of the coordinator at the Infruitec campus remained vacant until January 2000, when it was filled with a social scientist. In March 2000, the post of the coordinator at the Nietvoorbij campus became vacant, because the coordinator retired, and remained so until April 2001. The decision was taken in 1999 to have a technical coordinator and a social development coordinator, rather than two technical coordinators, for the institute to coordinate and support the team. This was finally implemented at ARC Infruitec-Nietvoorbij in January 2000 and, to date, this is the only institute in the ARC structure that has these two positions within its programme for emerging black farmers, although another institute, the ARC Range and Forage Institute, makes use of a social scientist in the Eastern Cape Province.

 

Activities at ARC Infruitec-Nietvoorbij

 

Training in PRA tools – successes and constraints

 

As soon as ARC Infruitec-Nietvoorbij was given the mandate to incorporate emerging black farmers into their client base and to assist these farmers in terms of developing appropriate agricultural technology, those involved became aware that the personnel needed new and supplementary skills. Therefore, the first group of ARC Infruitec-Nietvoorbij researchers was trained in PRA tools in 1995. More researchers and technicians were trained during 1996 and 1997. In 1997 a number of division managers were also trained in the use of these tools to ensure that they knew what was expected from their personnel. Drastic cuts in the ARC budget in subsequent years resulted in almost total cuts in the informal training of personnel[6]. The cost of the PRA training was covered by the informal training budget, so cuts in the budget r