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
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.
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.
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:
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.
Origins and Structure 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.
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
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:
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
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
Training in PRA Tools – Successes and
Constraints
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:
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:
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
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 resulted in only a handful of personnel receiving PRA
training after 1997. During 1998 no personnel were trained in the use of the
PRA tools and in 1999 only three were trained. By the end of 1999, more than
half of the RPA coordinators and a few personnel within the various divisions
had received some training in the use of PRA tools. The purpose of the training
was to prepare the researchers to interact with the farmers and to function
within the participatory appraisal teams. This training was all done by a local
NGO that was working in the agricultural development sector.
Unfortunately, follow-up training was not provided and only a
few of the coordinators actually used the PRA tools and techniques in their
work with communities. This meant that, when it came to technology transfer,
many used adaptations of the processes with which they were historically more
familiar and had experienced, such as lecturing. These processes are probably
not as effective as participatory approaches. When it came to technology
development, in some cases the team decided on the technology that was to be
developed and transferred, despite the fact that it was done on emerging
farmers’ farms or in their communities, i.e. it was externally initiated. In a
few cases, the technology development was based on the needs of the farmers
(see Case 2 below).
Another limiting factor in the application of the PRA tools was
that, although many of the division managers had been trained in the
theoretical and practical use of the tools, they did not promote it
extensively. In some cases, managers and personnel believed that the procedure
was unscientific and was neither valid nor reliable. These inflexible beliefs
and the lack of extensive promotion of a participatory approach to research and
development within the institute resulted in the very limited adoption and
application of these tools and of a participatory approach.
Because of various constraints in capacity, experience and
resources, the ARC Institutes of Infruitec and Nietvoorbij continued to rely
heavily on the information provided by local NGOs and other service providers
who were working in the rural and peri-urban farming communities. The ARC
researchers were never part of these appraisals that were done to identify the
needs, socio-economic circumstances, capacity etc of the rural communities.
Rather, the team initially relied heavily on second-hand information. This was
often incomplete because most of the appraisals were done as part of PRA
training courses, which gathered information only as a means for practical
application of two or three tools. While this was a far from ideal situation,
the Institutes had to make do with it. Gradually, after the two institutes
amalgamated to form ARC Infruitec-Nietvoorbij in 1998, the team began to make
its own contact with farmers outside of the areas in which previous partners
were working. This had a number of consequences:
These constraints that were and still are experienced by ARC
Infruitec-Nietvoorbij seem to have been common throughout the national ARC
structures. While discussing the general trend of providing the necessary
participatory training skills to the researchers in the ARC, Fowler (1998:124)
points out that until at least 1997:
|
…it is probable
that less than 1% of the researchers (and far fewer extensionists) in South
Africa are involved in FSA [Farming Systems Approach], and a dire need exists
for training at all levels, …[and that] many researchers are investigating
assumed components or priorities of these farmers [sic] systems, often with
little or no communication with the farmers themselves. |
It is possible that, in the intervening years, the number of
people who have received and are familiar with participatory tools and skills
has increased slightly within the ARC. However, the application of these skills
and their formal incorporation into research practice is still a concern,
especially with the establishment of a SRL Corporate Programme that is mandated
to work with emerging farmers.
Because of the increasing number of emerging farmers that were
being assisted by ARC Infruitec-Nietvoorbij after 1994, the institute’s
management actively sought black researchers in order to overcome cultural
barriers in terms of ethnic identity, language and customs. It was also
believed that this would increase the active participation of emerging farmers
in joint projects with the research teams. To some degree, this policy aided
the movement toward farmer participation. However, it must be remembered that
many of these new researchers had been trained in the same inflexible
approaches as their white counterparts, because they come from the same
tertiary institutions. The more positive effect of this strategy will probably
be realised only as the tertiary institutions themselves develop and the
researchers gain more exposure to other methods and approaches, especially
those of a participatory nature.
Some of the tertiary institutions have restructured or are
considering restructuring their agricultural and natural resource management
programmes so that they include familiarisation with “current development”
practices such as the use of participatory appraisal tools or at least
incorporate social scientific practices. This seems to be done in various ways[7]:
It should be borne in mind that many of the ARC researchers come
from traditional research faculties and departments such as chemistry, biology,
zoology, physiology, food technology, etc and it is uncertain as to what extent
these departments are incorporating participatory techniques into their
programmes.
Origins
of the ARC and some Changes within ARC Infruitec-Nietvoorbij and the National
ARC Structure
Establishment
and Maintenance of Demonstration Plot
With regard to PTD, the demonstration plot can be considered the
vehicle by which the SRL team at ARC Infruitec-Nietvoorbij currently carries
out participatory research and extension. While the activities and changes
described above were taking place, researchers who were part of the FIRS group
of coordinators at Infruitec in 1996 were starting to do training and research
with farmers. The concept of a demonstration plot was first introduced into the
institute’s activities with emerging black farmer clients in 1996 in the
Buisplaas community. The SRL team uses the demonstration plot for practical
training and research in communities[8].
The average demonstration plot is approximately one hectare in size, as this
was determined to be an economic unit in the Haarlem community on the basis of
the 1996 price of apples in the area. The black farmers in the Haarlem
community who had in fact contacted the ARC Infruitec-Nietvoorbij prior to 1996
owned farms of 1–2 ha. They could also lease land that was held in trust by the
council. Apples were chosen as crop because the microclimate of the area was
suited to its production. Most of the white commercial farmers in the area
produced apples and a few black farmers already grew apples for commercial and
household purposes.
A plot of one hectare was seen as an economically feasible unit
for two main reasons:
The specific size of the demonstration plot in a community is
usually further influenced by the following factors:
Sometimes, the farmers select the type of crops and species they
want to grow and give the information to NGOs or other development facilitators,
who inform the ARC. In other instances, the ARC team selects the crops and
species after having analysed soil and water samples. The latter process is
more common when a new crop is being tried out or when the farmers are trying
to grow a crop that is uncommon to the area. If the farmers want a crop that is
considered to be highly inappropriate because of the physical environment, the
ARC still provides this plant so that the farmers can discover for themselves
that the crop is unsuitable. In these cases, smaller quantities of this
particular crop are provided to avoid excessive waste and disappointment. The
ARC team and the farmers plant the crops on the plot together. The farmers are
responsible for maintaining the plot. The ARC provides the other necessary
inputs such as the plants themselves, fertilisers, pesticides, herbicides and
training. In some instances, the ARC team has assisted with the irrigation
system. However, it is understood (as is the case for all inputs) that the
farmers must be able to afford and establish their own system if this is
required; otherwise, there is no point in including these inputs in the
demonstration plot. Usually, the farmers appoint one person from within their
group to coordinate plot maintenance and to liaise with the ARC team
coordinator. It is preferable that 2–4 other farmers assist this farmer. This
ensures that the maintenance is done properly and that the information reaches
the rest of the farmers and other interested community members. Community members
appoint a person, usually one of the above, to monitor the growth and
development of the crops in the plot and to notify the ARC team coordinator of
any interesting observations, such as radical changes in the weather, the
presence of diseases or insects, and other negative or positive changes in
plant growth.
Use
of Demonstration Plot in Research and Extension with Emerging Black Farmers
From a training perspective, the plot is used to demonstrate
what types of crops can grow in the area and to provide a practical setting in
which technology can be transferred to farmers by means of practical training,
complemented with theoretical training. Both types of training are not confined
to production activities but also include basic nursery practices, so that the
farmers can propagate their own plant material. Where nursery activities are
requested, the ARC usually assists financially in establishing the nursery
structure, if a suitable structure does not already exist.
Depending on the stage of crop growth in the demonstration plot
and the type of crop, the practical training is done on a monthly or
two-monthly basis and normally continues for five years. All community members
are encouraged to attend but the reality seems to be that only those with a
very strong interest in the planted crops come. The training is planned
together with the farmers and, on account of the seasonal nature of deciduous
fruit and vine agriculture, it usually has to take place at specific times of
the year.
Use
of Demonstration Plot in Research and Extension with Emerging Black Farmers
From a research perspective, the plot is used to determine how
well various crops grow in the area and the suitability of the microclimate and
physical environment for this growth. It is also used to develop new technology
with local farmers. Such technology development can be prompted by the request
of the farmers or by the suggestion of the ARC Infruitec-Nietvoorbij team.
These on-farm comparative studies are often conducted in different communities
using the same species in order to determine the suitability of a crop across a
range of environmental settings. When research is being carried out, the ARC
normally bears the cost of the analyses that are required such as soil, water,
pests and disease identification. Based on the farmers’ and the ARC team’s
joint observations of the plants on the demonstration plot, the ARC team gives
immediate recommendations, where possible. If this is not possible, the
information from the demonstration plot is used to inform further research.
This information is also used to develop training programmes with the farmers.
Information obtained in one area is used by the team in other areas, where it
is applicable. This process does not include direct farmer-to-farmer exchange
because of the long distances that have to be travelled between areas. The ARC
Infruitec-Nietvoorbij has organised a few formal and informal opportunities for
exchange between farmers. However, such visits are extremely costly and it is
uncertain how much technological exchange actually takes between the farmers.
The local person appointed to do the monitoring informs the ARC
team, usually the team leader, and the farmers what s/he has observed about
plant growth and condition, the presence of pests and diseases, etc. Sometimes,
samples of pests and diseases are sent to the institute via an NGO, team member
or somebody travelling to the institute. The ARC team’s experience with regard
to community or farmer monitoring has been both good and bad. Sometimes, it is
done regularly; at other times, it is done intermittently and often falls away
completely after a while, making the research activity extremely difficult. The
success of the monitoring seems to depend on the individual who is appointed to
do this, especially their motivation and consistency with regard to observing
and recording observations. It is also likely that the system for sending
samples and providing subsequent feedback is not perfect. The farmers are not
always encouraged to suggest what they want to observe and how they want to
record it.
Sometimes, the research methodology that is adopted when the
demonstration plot approach is used is the same as that which would be adopted
if this activity were carried out on the research station. However, in many
cases, the researchers consider this impractical and a more flexible approach
is adopted which is more suited to the circumstances than trying to achieve
complete accuracy. This has resulted in criticism from scientists in other
divisions and, in some cases, from the national ARC structure as being
“unscientific”. In many cases, there has been an explicit unwillingness to
acknowledge the usefulness of this flexible approach. All this is despite the
fact that most institutes in the ARC have been using a similar approach while
conducting on-farm research with white commercial farmers (Fowler 1998).
While some research has been carried out on the demonstration
plots since their inception in 1996, the primary activity on the plots has been
informal and practical training. A case study of the first use of the
demonstration plot in the Buisplaas community indicates that, although the
primary purpose was to transfer existing technology in a participatory manner
and practical setting, an element of participatory research emerged and was
carried out at the request of the participating farmers.
The community of Buisplaas is a remote inland settlement
situated on the bank of the Gouritz River in Western Cape Province. Since its
establishment, the community has not received any basic facilities from the
local government and has had to rely on the initiative of its members to
survive. In 1986, the 56 families of Buisplaas formed the Buisplaas Residents’
Association (BRA) to address the following development issues:
An integrated development approach was followed to address these
issues. Initially, this approach caused conflict within the community and the
BRA requested the Southern Cape Council of Churches to mediate in order to
resolve this conflict. The reasons for the conflict were unclear, but the
mediation worked. Agriculture was a priority after potable water, housing and
land ownership. Consequently, the community sought out various external role
players who were working in the vicinity to address these issues in the order
of their priority.
In 1993 BRA entered into an agreement with an NGO, the Land
Development Unit (LDU), to facilitate an overall agricultural plan together
with the community. When the LDU started work in Buisplaas, only four
homegardens existed but, three years later, 46 families had gardens with a
variety of vegetables and some fruit trees. In 1996 the LDU realised that, to
fulfil the objectives of the plan and especially in terms of the fruit
production needs of the community, they had to facilitate new partnerships with
other organisations.
The LDU approached ARC Infruitec-Nietvoorbij to assist the
Buisplaas farmers with technical and crop management skills related to
deciduous fruit production and processing. A team was established in the
institute to cover these aspects and held discussions with the BRA, interested
farmers and other residents. The BRA convened a community meeting with all the
Buisplaas community members (including those not permanently residing in the
community) and the new project was put on the table for all those present to
discuss. The ARC team attended the meeting to present the concept of the
demonstration plot and to explain the objectives of the plot and such a
project. The team pointed out that, while it would mainly involve training,
there would be an element of research because many of the selected crops were
new to this particular area. The possibility existed that the microclimate and
local environment might influence the cultivation of the crops, so there was a
need to monitor the production process carefully. The executive members of BRA
then appointed one person in the community to visit all the households in
Buisplaas and obtain the names of individuals interested in fruit production,
in the event that this number was more than the original group who requested
fruit crops at the meeting. From this point onwards, the process was an
internal affair in which liaison persons were identified. The identity of the
selected residents who would coordinate the demonstration plot activities with
the ARC and the names of additional residents who were also interested in fruit
production were orally communicated to the ARC team. The BRA was very well
organised, so a site for the demonstration plot was identified and fenced already
in early 1996. In July 1996, part of the plot was planted with fruit trees.
The environmental conditions, i.e. a high saline content in the
soil and the water, the extremely dry conditions at the time and a scarcity of
organic matter, required that the soil preparation process be adapted. Trenches
rather than holes were dug and filled with compost to ensure that the trees
would survive. However, this method proved to be too labour-intensive and the
BRA chairperson requested the ARC team, through the LDU, to use the other half
of the plot for comparison purposes by digging holes, as is the usual practice
of commercial farmers. Tree growth on the plot under the different planting
methods was compared. The rains fell in 1997 when the holes were being dug,
making the establishment of the second half of the demonstration plot less
labour intensive.
The ARC team monitored the tree trunk circumference by measuring
and the nutrient balance by sampling soil and leaves on a regular basis.
Through these activities, the different soil preparation and planting methods
were analysed and the ARC team disseminated the results to other communities
having a similar environment. Normally, when the tree trunk circumferences were
measured, the appointed community coordinator accompanied the ARC team
coordinator. The monitoring of diseases and pests was done using different
traps and the appointed local person, who was sometimes accompanied by other
farmers, received on-the-spot advice from the ARC team when the results of the
monitoring were discussed. The information from the monitoring was also used
during the regular, more formal training sessions that were often attended by
other community residents.
Several training courses were given during 1996 and 1997 to the
participating farmers and the broader farming group. These courses included
soil sampling, soil preparation, the grafting of trees, pest identification and
control, pruning and irrigation systems.
During the 1997 annual evaluation, a survey of the agricultural
activities in Buisplaas revealed that, with the exception of three households,
every household had planted 3–5 fruit trees in their homegardens and one farmer
had actually established an orchard. Local residents said that this was a
result of the information derived from the training programme. The BRA also
indicated that a community garden would be established and 0.5 ha would be
planted with fruit trees in order to raise money for community projects.
However, because of the following obstacles, this has not yet materialised:
The farmers and the ARC team decided in 2000 that, from 2001
onwards, the ARC would make only two visits a year to the community unless the
farmers required more advice from the team. The demonstration plot and the
homegardens with fruit trees continue to develop and to be harvested; the
orchard of the one farmer is the largest producer of deciduous fruit in the
community. Those trees in the homegardens that are tended better than others
are bearing fruit of a better quality. This is probably a result of the owners
having more time and having attended the training courses.
Increased awareness of the dynamics of
the emerging farmer sector
Identification of need for a social
scientist to support the team
By 1997 the ARC team was becoming increasingly aware of the
constraints facing the farmers with whom they had contact. They had attended
different workshops and meetings in a number of communities throughout the
Western and Northern Cape Provinces. The team members were also expanding their
networks with other stakeholders (NGOs, community-based organisations,
government departments etc) and were obtaining information based on the
experience and lessons they had learned. At this time, a number of documents
related to the early experience and the national policy on emerging farmers
were being published. The national government had asked the RLP Programme
Manager in ARC Infruitec-Nietvoorbij to assist in formulating policy in this
regard. These documents stressed the inappropriateness of much existing
technology and the need for the development of alternative options for emerging
black farmers. Many of these recommendations were based on the concept of the
Farming Systems Approach and hinted at the existence of both on-farm and
off-farm livelihood options and a variety of activities within these two
options. Given the constraints faced by emerging black farmers with regard to
accessing both finances and land, it became increasingly important to consider
the need for more than one farming system on a particular farm. The ideal would
be to have a number of integrated systems; however, various complementary
systems were also considered. This was largely a result of the fact that the
ARC team increasingly encountered farmers who stressed that fruit was too
expensive to establish and was therefore costly to produce. They also pointed out
that they would receive no income from the fruit for at least the first three
years and that they could not accommodate this. On the other hand, the farmers
pointed out that vegetables were usually cheaper to establish and could
generally be harvested and sold within three months of planting. Generally the
yield produced by these smallholder farmers is relatively low (often related to
the size of land available and lack of suitable inputs), consequently they had
difficulty tapping into lucrative markets. Transportation of inputs and
products was a further problem that largely depended on finance.
These factors fostered an increasing awareness of the need for
participatory research with the farmers. As mentioned above, this was initially
attempted by training the coordinators, their division managers and other
personnel in the divisions in the use of PRA tools, but this training had not
been as successful as was initially hoped. PRA is a set of tools and their
adaptability and flexibility, which allow them to be used in diverse situations
and contexts, were often not emphasised during the training. Moreover, the
impression was created that certain situations required certain tools and that
there were no tools available for other situations. The purpose of the training
was to enable the researchers to interact with the farmers and to be part of
participatory appraisal teams, but the principle of participation and the
underlying components of capacity building and empowerment were not stressed.
As a result, the tools were used little and/or ineffectively and did not
produce the results that had been expected. The managers and many of the team
members therefore lost confidence in the tools, less information was obtained
and participation by community members in the project decreased. The criticism
levelled at the PRA tools then became even stronger. It was easier to blame the
tools than the users.
Some personnel did train various community members in using the
tools but seldom applied them. Most ARC personnel had little opportunity for
application because they were not included in the participatory appraisal teams
that were set up by the other organisations working with smallholder farmers.
Personality differences and conflicts in the field played a significant role in
this lack of inclusion in the teams. These same organisations later requested
technical assistance from ARC Infruitec-Nietvoorbij, even though they had
denied the need for them to be part of the process from the outset. As a
result, the ARC team personnel sometimes ended up relying on poor data that was
obtained by other organisations.
The participatory appraisals were, until recently, done by NGOs
and looked at agriculture per se.
Consequently, farmers were under no obligation to become involved in fruit
production and the ARC was only called in to assist if the farmers had
indicated that they were interested in fruit production or were experiencing
problems in this line.
CASE 1: The Buisplaas community – the first use of the
demonstration plot
While the researchers were becoming more exposed to the context
in which their new clients farmed, a number of events occurred within the ARC,
at both the national level and at the Institute ARC Infruitec-Nietvoorbij,
which reinforced the need for an input by a social scientist.
In 1997 the South African Government’s Department of Arts,
Culture, Science and Technology organised an independent review of all the
South African Research Councils. The review of the entire structure and
functioning of the ARC, including the various institutes, led to a draft report
in November 1997 with the following key points related to working with emerging
black farmers, implicitly indicating that the national RPA Programme was
fragmented and lacked social dimensions:
Based on their experience in the 1994–99 period, the ARC
Infruitec-Nietvoorbij management had realised the need to include a social
scientist as part of their RLP Programme on a permanent basis, for the
following reasons:
In January 2000 a social anthropologist was appointed to the ARC
Infruitec-Nietvoorbij RPA team to assist the coordinators in their work with
the communities. The Honeybush Demonstration Plot project, described below, is
the first project that the ARC Infruitec-Nietvoorbij SRL undertook to carry out
research on a recently identified crop with emerging farmers in an on-farm
participatory manner. It is also the first project that the social scientist
became actively involved in. Prior to this project, some inroads had been made
in consulting with farmers to find out what type of technology they wanted the
ARC to investigate.
The evaporative cooling facility in Montague, described in Case
2, is an example of how researchers began to move towards doing research based
on the request of the emerging farmers and also to move towards an element of
incorporating the participation of the farmers in the research process.
CASE 1: The Buisplaas community – the first use of the
demonstration plot
In 1996 a group of three emerging farmers, members of the
Goudmyn Farming Trust in the Montague deciduous fruit producing area, asked ARC
Infruitec-Nietvoorbij to assist them with developing some means of storing
produce for an extended period. For various reasons, including lack of funds,
low production output and the inability to join cooperatives because their
small land size was seen as an impediment, these farmers did not have access to
the larger cold storage facilities that were available to the local commercial
farmers. Access to electricity was considered to be a problem and costly in the
long term, so the farmers required a cooling facility that did not rely on
electricity. Based on discussions with the farmers, the ARC Infruitec-Nietvoorbij
RLP team decided to develop and evaluate an evaporative cooling unit that could
be used by the farmers. Despite the restrictions they faced, this small group
of farmers realised that they might have a financial advantage if they had
access to a cooling unit that would allow them to store the fruit for several
days before transporting it to the market.
In 1997, with the assistance of the ARC Institute for
Agricultural Engineering, ARC Infruitec-Nietvoorbij started designing,
building, evaluating and improving an evaporative cooling unit. The design and
principles were based on “evaporative cooling cupboards” used by rural
inhabitants in the Northern Cape Province. After on-station trials, an
agreement was reached with the Goudmyn farmers that one such facility would be
built on one of the farms, identified by the farmers, and that the farmers
would collaborate with ARC Infruitec-Nietvoorbij in carrying out the on-farm
trials relating to the use of this facility.
The cooling facility was built on the farm in August 2000. In
November and December 2000, the farmers were trained in its use as well as in
the most appropriate post-harvest handling techniques for fruit and vegetables.
They were also trained how to monitor the produce in the facility and to record
observations. The farmers are now doing the monitoring and record keeping. The
ARC team visits the farmers monthly to make observations of the stored produce
and examine the farmers’ records. The farmers have also been involved in
evaluating various materials for the structure in order to determine their
suitability and cost effectiveness. The trials will continue with these farmers
for about one more year. During this time, the farmers and ARC team will
mutually learn about the technology from the results of the on-farm trials.
Then the project will continue for another year in order to disseminate the
technology to other farmers.
Until May 2001, whenever the researcher started presenting the
process she undertook and the results of her work in public, very little
interest was shown in this project by those not directly involved. However,
this has now changed and her colleagues within the ARC have started to pay
close attention to this project. This interest seems largely due to the fact
that more technology had been developed than using traditional research
methods. Extension officers from the Provincial Departments of Agriculture have
also started to show interest in the project. Interest from both quarters has
largely been on the process and especially on the way forward in order to
transfer the technology to other communities. The rate of adoption of this
process by service agents and farmers alike will have to be monitored carefully
to determine if this approach will become more common in the future.
The above case indicates that some of the researchers in ARC
Infruitec-Nietvoorbij working in the SRL Programme became aware of the idea and
importance of doing research together with farmers. However, this was not
identified as or termed “PTD”, mainly because the term is unfamiliar to the
researchers in the team and also probably because much of the work initially
took place on-station and the initial participation of the farmers was
considered minimal. Only after the arrival of the social scientist in 2000 was
the concept of PTD introduced to the team. In a sense, a label was given to a
practice that started with the establishment of the first demonstration plot in
1996 and was followed with the joint research by farmers and scientists on the
evaporative cooling unit. This new term is not widely used within the team.
Team members and other researchers within the ARC probably regard the research
on the evaporative cooling unit to be more closely related to the concept of
PTD than the demonstration plots. The activities related to the latter are
regarded as placing more emphasis on training than on research. In the case of
the evaporative cooling unit, statistical and highly technical research has
been carried out largely on station. Despite the on-farm component to this
project, it contains numerous elements of “traditional research” that make it,
in the view of the authors, more acceptable to researchers. Many of the
researchers still do not regard either of these two types of on-farm trials to
be pure scientific research. This remains the case, despite the attempts to
incorporate PTD into the development of honeybush cultivation discussed below.
During 1997, while some divisions carried out a number of
research projects related to the cultivation and processing of honeybush (Cyclopia species) at the request of
industry and commercial farmers, the SRL Programme of ARC Infruitec-Nietvoorbij
realised that this plant might have potential as a commercial crop for emerging
farmers in the Western Cape. The honeybush plant costs considerably less per
hectare to establish than deciduous fruit yet it seemed, based on independent
trials undertaken by commercial farmers, to have the potential to provide an
extremely good rate of return. Honeybush is currently harvested in its natural
habitat, processed and sold locally and internationally as a herbal tea. The
international demand for the processed product outweighs the current local
supply more than threefold. Consequently, there is a strong possibility that
the increased demand could lead to increased harvesting of this plant in its
natural habitat, resulting in its extinction. These factors encouraged researchers
in the SRL Programme to consider doing research related to this crop with
interested emerging farmers in areas where this crop grows in its natural
habitat.
To determine the interest of smallholders in cultivating this
crop and in participating with the ARC Infruitec-Nietvoorbij SRL Programme in a
research project, a number of workshops were held during the first five months
of 1998. At this time, very little was known about the cultivation requirements
of honeybush in a commercial setting and in the various areas where it occurs
naturally in the Western Cape. ARC Infruitec-Nietvoorbij had begun a number of
on-station research trials and a small group of commercial farmers were doing
some trials. However, none of these on-farm trials had been carefully
researched. The purpose of the project with the emerging farmers was to conduct
research on the cultivation of some market-desirable varieties of honeybush and
to transfer this knowledge and that obtained from the parallel on-station
research trials to these and other farmers.
A number of smallholder farming communities showed interest in
cultivating honeybush. In late 1998 and early 1999, the SRL Programme began
discussing the possibility of planting honeybush with farmers in five
communities (Genadendal, Rietkuil, Haarlem, Karwyderskraal and Friemersheim) in
the Western Cape Province. These are all located in areas where the five main
commercially suitable species of honeybush are known to grow on the mountain
slopes and in the ravines. By June 2000, the interested farmers in the Haarlem
community were working with the ARC Vegetable and Ornamental Plant
Institute-Fynbos Unit (ARC VOPI-FU) and those in the remaining four communities
were liaising with researchers from ARC Infruitec-Nietvoorbij. At this time,
only the interested farmers in the communities of Friemersheim and Rietkuil had
agreed to participate in the proposed PTD project.
Attempts had been made in 1998 and 1999 to carry out research on
honeybush in Rietkuil and Friemersheim, respectively. Participation of local
farmers was heavily reliant on the activities of one or two individuals in each
community. A number of problems were encountered with regard to local participation
and interest in honeybush cultivation in the two communities. The programme
manager and the project leader, with assistance from the social anthropologist,
identified these problems and summarised them into four main areas:
In July 2000, the SRL programme manager and project leader asked
the social scientist to put together a team, examine the process to date and
make recommendations that would, where possible, ensure the improved and
continued development of the project in the two communities and encourage the
participation of the local farmers and community members interested in growing
honeybush. This involved two processes: participatory community appraisal and
participatory planning with both the research team and the community members
interested in honeybush cultivation in Friemersheim and Rietkuil. The emphasis
of these two processes was on the successful establishment of honeybush
demonstration plots.
The two processes had the following purposes:
In February 2001, it was decided to terminate the project in
Rietkuil and to continue with the process of technology development along more
participatory lines in Friemersheim. The decision to stop the project in
Rietkuil was for a number of reasons, the main one being a growing lack of
interest by most of the participating farmers. The farmers attribute this to:
The participatory appraisal that was undertaken after the plot
was started indicated that the farmers were “traditionally” smallholder grain
and livestock farmers. It is believed that the farmers were not accustomed to
the physical effort required to maintain the plot and that this was compounded
by the fact that all the farmers were pensioners in their sixties or seventies.
The process in Friemersheim is still under discussion with the
community participants and planning for the way forward is being done with
them. The current changes to the project include the following:
Many of the processes and changes described above with regard to
the honeybush demonstration plots are unfamiliar to both the researchers and
the farmers. Both groups have had their historical roles and also their
relationships with one another significantly altered by the adoption of a
participatory approach. Only time and continual monitoring will indicate the
success and benefits of this process to both groups. An important factor that
will have an effect on the way in which this process develops is that neither
the ARC team members, the farmers nor anybody else directly or indirectly
involved in this project has significant hands-on practical experience in this
type of research in agriculture. It is a learning experience for both the ARC
SRL team and the farmers, in which we hope that the empowerment of all
participants will be realised.
At present, a small group of team members are carrying out a
weed management trial with the farmers who are cultivating honeybush in
Friemersheim in order to develop and test various local and scientific methods
to manage weeds. This is a serious problem in virtually all crops grown in the
community. The idea to do this research can be directly linked to the continual
discussions that took place between farmers and researchers during the
appraisal phase of the honeybush project. These discussions and the observation
that weeds are a serious threat to the communities’ farming arose from the
interaction and empowerment developed during the PRA process and the
participatory monitoring carried out by the farmers and researchers. This is
the first time that PTD in this form has been considered as a serious option
and this is probably due to the fact that the trial includes the use and
development of both indigenous and scientific knowledge on the same
experimental site. To some extent then, there is already awareness, albeit
minimal, that doing research with farmers might have serious merits. There is
an impression, based on the increasing interest shown by farmers in the work
facilitated by the ARC in this community, that more of the local farmers are
approving of the new research approach. This is probably because the weeds
affect them all, irrespective of the type of crop they are cultivating. We hope
that this trial and its subsequent reporting will increase the awareness and
strengthen the acceptance of PTD as a research method within the ARC.
CASE 3: Attempts to incorporate PTD
into Honeybush Demonstration Plot Project
As part of the Honeybush Demonstration Plot Project, the ARC
team contacted a third community, Karwyderskraal, and started a participatory
appraisal with the interested community members and farmers. After a number of
problems arose related to participation of community members at workshops and
meetings and long delays in putting plans into action, one of the farmers
pointed out in January 2001 that it was unfair that the community must be part
of a research project in the form of an on-farm trial that might or might not
succeed in improving their situation. He indicated that it would be more
important if the ARC team offered a project that was based on existing research
results and where only a minimum of further research was required. The
indication here is that some farmers are currently not interested in being part
of PTD strategies or would rather be involved only where less research is
required. This contrast to the interest shown by the other groups could be
explained by the following:
Two other possible explanations for this lack of interest in PTD
are based on the general situation in South Africa:
CASE 3: Attempts to incorporate PTD
into Honeybush Demonstration Plot Project
This case study and the examples of the work being carried out
suggest that the ARC Infruitec-Nietvoorbij’s SRL Programme has a similar
understanding of the concept of PTD as that of van Veldhuizen et al (1997), which was outlined at the
beginning of this discussion. However, in this regard, three important points
need to be stressed:
The reasons for this current state of affairs is illustrated in
this case study in the process of unravelling the restructuring of the
institute and the ARC nationally and the development of activities to provide
services to emerging smallholder farmers. Although one of the key components of
the FSRD Programme from 1994 was to encourage participatory research with black
farmers, this was not completely realised during the subsequent seven years as
is shown by the understanding of the current ARC Infruitec-Nietvoorbij research
practitioners. In the national ARC structure, only a small number of personnel
have actually been actively involved in this type of research methodology and have
often not considered it to be “real” research. Reasons why a small group of
researchers has been able to adopt this approach to some extent and gradually
move from a less participatory to a more participatory process of research can
be drawn from this case study and include the following:
In summary, prior to 1996, no real structure existed to
coordinate service delivery to emerging black farmers. Since the establishment
of such a structure, the SRL Programme, the current manager and her team have
attempted to develop and disseminate technologies in a participatory manner,
while often being consciously unaware that this was in fact what was occurring.
There is an indication that parallel events within the ARC at the national
level have influenced this and that the trend is gradually developing in other
institutes.
Introducing a new approach into any structure, especially one
the size of the ARC (13 Institutes, one central office, 36 specialist
researchers, 397 researchers and 478 technicians – pers. comm., Francois van
Baalen, ARC Central Office, July 2001), is problematic. This is largely a
result of the common human tendency to avoid change at any cost in an attempt
to remain in the perceived “comfort zone”. In the central office, the attempt
was made from 1994 to 1997 to introduce participatory research practices. That
this was not a widespread success was pointed out during the review of the ARC
in 1997. Possibly, there was too much emphasis at the time on the desire to
change towards this approach by a top-down and centralised movement from the
central office, which might have largely ignored the frame of reference of the
individual researchers. Their frame of reference needs to be seriously
considered if they are expected to participate in such an approach. There is
also a need to present and publicise the overall successes of using a
participatory approach, before others can be expected to immediately follow
such a “radical” change in methodology. Different facets of the merit and
peer-reward systems will have to incorporate recognition of this approach if it
is to become widespread. Participation is an unfamiliar and often ill-defined
practice and concept to many of the researchers, who are the products of a
strong hierarchical and bureaucratic system. Their participation has seldom
been requested and, when it was, this was to agree to or implement the ideas of
others. It was pointed out above that the ARC is trying to overcome the
individualistic culture that started to develop between and within institutes
in the 1990s. One possible way to overcome this is to include members of other
institutes in the PTD and other participatory projects and the subsequent
evaluations.
The authors suggest that the intended way forward should
necessarily and, where possible, address all these aspects simultaneously at the
division or team level. At the same time, it can gradually influence the
institute and corporate spheres by communicating plans and ideas with
colleagues. The successes and lessons that are learned, including painful ones,
can be communicated as they occur. This broader dissemination process would
have to proceed carefully in many contexts because of the aversion that has
been encountered in some quarters. The ideal will be to bring like-minded
people together, including those who are not necessary practising any form of
PTD but who are interested in doing so. This process is developing and recently
a number of requests have been received for advice and support from other
institutes with which there are closer ties. Several of the research activities
described in this case study have been presented at local, national and
international conferences and workshops and a number of popular articles have
been published. However, most of these forms of dissemination have emphasised
the results, i.e. the technology that is developed, as opposed to the processes
involved in this research. In the future, more emphasis will have to be placed
on the research process, as this is important in achieving the desired
long-term development results.
Based on their experience in working with farmers and the
various contexts in which the team functions, the ARC Infruitec-Nietvoorbij’s
SRL Programme has made a number of important decisions and realisations with
regard to its approach to working with emerging black farmers and attempting to
institutionalise PTD. Members of the team and the SRL Corporate Programme are
now implementing some of these, while other points are recommendations for a
way forward that it is hoped will increase the institutionalisation of PTD and
other participatory practices in the ARC and South Africa.
Steps that are currently being taken include the following:
Recommendations and steps that still need to be taken:
The key to realising much of the above is based on two primary
steps. Firstly, it must be ensured that the process, the development results
and the technology results of the projects are recorded and evaluated. All this
information must be presented and discussed with colleagues and others involved
in the field. While this is being done, there is a need to ensure that
over-exposure of one project in which only a few community members participate
does not result in their being ostracised by the other farmers in the community.
Secondly, colleagues and others involved in agricultural development should be
invited and encouraged to take part in these projects. Initially, they might
prefer to be guests but it is intended that they will play a greater role or
start their own initiatives based on this approach. The likelihood of
institutionalisation of participatory approaches will depend largely on trust
and cooperation between individual researchers, extension officers and
participating organisations. Leadership by example at all the various levels
will be vital, as will the patience and perseverance of those involved in
agricultural development in South Africa.
The research team realised that, despite having been trained in PRA
tools, it was unfamiliar with the concept of PTD and had no exposure to it.
This is largely due to the fact that this ARC team within the SRL Programme at
Infruitec-Nietvoorbij is not involved in any programme with local, national or
international partners that foster and promote this approach. The team has
received no real influence from outside practitioners except for the contact
made at conferences and the influence of the Farming Systems Approach. Most of
the information that is currently available on PTD and other forms of
participatory research and extension is obtained from contacts made at
international conferences and from the Internet. Until recently, the bulk of
the on-farm work with emerging farmers was primarily emphasised as a process of
technology transfer as opposed to technology development and, to a large
extent, this emphasis still remains. This is largely due to the fact that the
nature of the PTD methodology is not considered to be scientific and therefore
does not constitute research per se.
The team further realised that the NGOs that had been providing
the ARC with the community profiles also had little awareness of this process,
although they had greater contact with international aid agencies that were
promoting the idea of participatory research. This seemed to be evident from
the manner in which the training was presented and structured. Currently, the
SRL team members are developing their skills by means of their practical
activities within the Honeybush Demonstration Plot Project that is providing a
context for PTD. This first-hand practical experience is being complemented by
means of the circulation of current literature and the sharing of knowledge,
limited experience and ideas relating to participatory research within the
team.
Despite this and the fact that these activities are still in
their early stages, it is becoming clear that the team is making inroads, at
the local level, into this type of research. Other teams within the ARC have
members who have had exposure to this type of research in other countries and
have undergone training with international practitioners of participatory
research. It is believed that two of these teams are following an approach
similar to that currently being used by this team. On account of weak
networking between the various institute coordinators and teams,
individualistic behaviour and preferences, it is uncertain exactly how many
teams and projects are attempting to follow this approach. However, recent
strengthening in relationships has resulted in a number of other projects in
other institutes seeking out advice on PTD from the ARC Infruitec-Nietvoorbij
team. As communication and exposure improves, it is likely that this demand
will spread and increase in intensity. Nevertheless, the predominant national
view still seems to place the emphasis on technology transfer rather than
technology development with emerging farmers. This gives some measure of the
huge challenge that is facing South Africa if appropriate forms of research and
technology are to be developed for this sector.
As previous one-off training
proved less effective, have more structured training systems for PTD or
participatory research in general now been developed in which training, field
application and support/coaching are linked systematically? If so, how do these
work?
The Sustainable Lively Hoods
programme, the main mover of PTD, is not organised as a separate department or
unit, but as a network of collaborators/coordinators from the 2 main institutes
and their departments. How effective is this arrangement proving to be to
institutionalise PTD in the institute? To what extend do the key collaborators
influence their departments towards PTD?
Beyond the own institute, others
are pioneering PTD type of approaches towards agricultural research in the
country. Have links with these, with ARC at the central level, been
strengthened? What does support or prevent sharing of experiences at such
levels?
ARC. 1994. The Annual Report
of the Agricultural Research Council 1994. Pretoria: Colorpress.
ARC. 1995. The Annual Report
of the Agricultural Research Council 1994/1995 & the contribution of the
ARC to the RDP. Pretoria: Business Print Centre.
Burgess RP & Isaacs JS. 1999. The factors affecting the success or failure of a specific development
initiative. Paper presented at the AFSRE 15th
International Symposium Proceedings, 29 November–4 December 199, Pretoria,
South Africa.
Republic of South Africa Department of Arts, Culture, Science
and Technology (DACST). 1997. The National
Review of Science, Engineering and Technology Institutions: the review of the
Agricultural Research Council. Volume 1: Draft Main Report ,
November 1997.
Fowler R. 1998. Institutionalisation of Farming Systems Approach
in South Africa. In: Anandajayasekeram P & Stillwell T (eds), Institutionalisation of Farming Systems Approach in
Eastern and Southern Africa (Mbabane: Southern African Association
for Farming Systems Research and Extension), pp 113–136.
Isaacs J. 1996. A profile of
resource-poor farmers and research opportunities to address their needs.
Paper submitted to the South African Embassy, France.
Isaacs J. 1998a. The role of
the demonstration plots in training for small-scale farmers in South Africa.
In: 6th SAAFSRE Symposium Proceedings, 31 Jan–6 Feb 1998, Lusaka,
Zambia (Mbabane: Southern African Association for Farming Systems Research and
Extension), np.
Isaacs J. 1998b. The
rationale for restructuring a research institute to service resource-poor
farmers in South Africa. In: 6th SAAFSRE Symposium
Proceedings, 31 Jan–6 Feb 1998, Lusaka, Zambia (Mbabane: Southern African
Association for Farming Systems Research and Extension), np.
Veldhuizen L van, Waters-Bayer A, Ramirez R, Johnson DA &
Thompson J. 1997. Farmers’ research in
practice: lessons from the field. London: Intermediate Technology
Publications.
[1] Agricultural
Research Council Infruitec-Nietvoorbij, Stellenbosch 7599, South Africa
[2] The emerging agricultural sector in South Africa is currently comprised
of black farmers and potential farmers who are currently farming or intend to
farm relatively small areas of land, usually less than 5 ha per farmer/farming
household. These farmers are often considered to be resource-poor because the
primary research and extension arms of the government previously ignored them.
This resulted in their not receiving the latest agricultural technology and
information such as the market demands. Hence, the emerging agricultural sector
is also sometimes known as Resource-Poor Agriculture. In the South African
context, the term small-scale farmer or smallholder usually refers to black
farmers in the emerging agricultural sector, regardless of whether or not they
are farming on a subsistence or commercial basis. The term commercial farmer
usually refers to white farmers who are farming on a commercial basis
irrespective of the size of their land and agricultural operation. To a large
extent, the distinction is a historical and racial one in which the type of
operation and size of land are largely related to racial classification and
previous government policies. In this case study, the terms smallholder,
small-scale, emerging and resource poor are used interchangeably and refer to
black farmers, the majority of which are farming largely for domestic purposes
while selling or exchanging surplus where appropriate.
[3]
Multidisciplinary research was and still seems to be largely understood within
the South African agricultural context as involving researchers from the
various natural science and agricultural disciplines. Only recently has there
become a growing awareness of the specialist roles that agricultural economists
and social scientists have in the research process.
[4] In the context
of the ARC in South Africa, Farming Systems Research Development refers to
activities of research and development that are done for and with black
small-scale farmers, i.e. farmers who are considered to be resource-poor. There
is an understanding that white commercial farmers also have farming systems but
the ARC researchers usually work with only the component of this system in
which their specialist knowledge is applicable.
[5] Acronyms relating to Table
1: ARC - Agricultural Research Council; FSRD - Farming Systems Research and
Development; FIRS – Fruit Information and Research Service; RLP –
Resource-Limited Producers Programme at ARC Infruitec-Nietvoorbij; M-IPI –
Multi-Institutional Project Initiative; RPA – Resource-Poor Agriculture
Programme; SRL – Sustainable Rural Livelihoods Programme.
[6] Informal
training refers to short courses that are not undertaken for degree or diploma
purposes. Certificates of attendance and competence are usually awarded.
[7] This
description is very subjective and is based on differing degrees of contact
with three universities. Specific research on this topic might show a different
trend. This account merely gives the reader an idea of what is taking place to
some extent in South Africa.
[8] While
researching this case study, we became aware that often the RPA team members
did not consider their activities to be “real” research. This perception seems
to be largely influenced by their “home” divisions and has the unfortunate
result that some personnel do not record data efficiently, despite the fact
that often the plot establishment process is discussed with statisticians prior
to planting. This reluctance to regard it as research may be associated with
the name “demonstration plot” as opposed to “experimentation plot”, especially
as the primary purpose is considered to be to demonstrate technology.
[9] This figure
was based on a combination of the price that apples fetched, the agricultural practices
of Haarlem farmers and the conditions of local white commercial farmers.