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 r