PTD in Kyrgyz Republic

Outputs, results and impact

Questions for Debate

Annexes

Acronyms

Abstract

The Rural Advisory and Development Service (RADS) in Jalal Abad understands Participatory Technology Development (PTD) as a farmer-driven activity to find out new things that work. Farmers define together with researchers and advisors the research needs and they design, implement and evaluate the programmes (“experiments”). The main players and their motivations are: 1) the farmer, who is looking for improved ways to make a living out of farming, 2) the researcher, who is gaining additional salary (in cash and time) and the possibility to stay in contact with reality, and 3) the agricultural advisor, who has a concrete advisory topic (tangible result).

PTD methodology was introduced into Kyrgyzstan mainly by the Swiss (Helvetas)-funded advisory projects, Kyrgyz Swiss Agricultural Project (KSAP) Kochkor-Jumgal (1997–98) and the current KSAP in Jalal Abad (JA) and Naryn (NA), that provide technical assistance and co-finance the RADS in three of six oblasts (districts). Four years of activities have shown that PTD methodology is a concrete approach that contributes to developing new practices in production, processing and marketing and generates income. By the end of 2000, staff of RADS JA could carry out PTD weeks on their own.

An example of a successful PTD venture is cheese production in Naryn. Factors leading to success were:

farmers’ initiatives were used as starting point,
cheese production is a women activity;
collaboration with local research institutes was sought from the very beginning;
a commodity approach oriented toward income generation was followed;
investment for infrastructure was low already in the beginning (45% farmer contribution);
low production costs encouraged other farmers to start.

The experience with PTD showed that:

the outcome was better with frequently repeated small PTD weeks rather than fewer big ones,
implementing PTD experiments in groups releases intra- and inter-group dynamics;
women have more staying power to bring a PTD experiment to an end.

There is still much to learn. The spirit of innovation and experimentation on improved production and marketing has not yet caught on fully in Kyrgyzstan. The RADS has not used opportunities systematically and has sometimes misused PTD in order to distribute inputs. The link to researchers and research institutes needs further improvement. Trials were often not owned by farmers. More PTD weeks in RADS topics other than production are indispensable.

Abstract

The Rural Advisory and Development Service Foundation (RADSF)

Context

The Kyrgyz Republic is a small, mountainous, land-locked country of about 200,000 km² in Central Asia. It is surrounded by China, Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan. With Uzbekistan, the Kyrgyz Republic shares 70 years of Soviet regime. In 1991 the country became independent and, since then, has been in an economic and social transition toward a market economy and democracy-like structures. The 1999 population of 4.8 million had a Gross National Product of US$ 300 per capita. Over 60% of the population lived below the official poverty line and 23% could not afford even the poverty-line food basket.[i]

Agriculture is the most important contributor to the national Kyrgyz economy. Officially, 48% of the population work in agriculture and contribute 44.2% to the Gross Domestic Product (GDP), 10% working in industry contribute 22.6% of GDP and those working in services 35%.ⁱ According to officials, the unemployment rate is less than 10%. This figure does not include workers temporarily laid off as a result of enterprises lying idle. Also government employees often have to rely on additional sources of income, because salary payments are months behind. In the 1990s, despite substantial recovery in agricultural production and value added to near or above 1990 levels, rural incomes per capita fell substantially.ⁱⁱ

Figure 1: Map of the Kyrgyz Republic and agroclimatic zones of Jalal Abad Oblast [ii]

Zones classified according to humidity (precipitation): 1a very dry (<150 mm), 1b dry (150–200 mm), 1c slightly deficit (200–250 mm), 2 moderately humid (250–300 mm), 3 sufficiently humid (> 300 mm).

Agricultural zones of Jalal Abad Oblast: ---- upper, mountainous zone, ^…… lowland and foothill zone.

Table 1: Main crops per agroclimatic zones of Southern Tien Shan[iii] (refers to Figure 1)

Zone	Characteristics	Sum of day temperatures (^oC)	Main crops
1	Extremely warm	> 4000	Cotton, wheat, fig, pomegranate, maize, wine
2	Warm	4000–3000	Cotton, wheat, tobacco, maize, vegetables, gourds, wine, fruits
3	Moderate	3000–2200	Wheat, corn, vegetables, gourds, wine, fruits, potatoes
4	Cool	2200–1200	Wheat, maize, cabbage, fruits, potatoes, fodder root crops

Jalal Abad (JA) Oblast has two main agro-economic zones: a lower zone of intensive crop growing and an upper zone of extensive agriculture, based mainly on animal husbandry. JA Oblast is divided into eight rayons (subdistricts), five in the lower and three in the upper zone. In the three biggest rayons of the lower zone, more than 60% of the agricultural GDP of JA Oblast is earned, in the upper zone only 14%.

These figures reflect the population density. In the three agro-economically most important rayons live 59% of the rural people; in the mountainous rayons of the upper zone, only 8%. The average number of persons in each of the total of 67 village management units (Ail Ökmöt) in JA Oblast is high in comparison to other oblasts of Kyrgyzstan. The irrigated land owned per person varies between 0.06 and 0.5 ha. There are farms run by single families or small groups, and larger peasant farms (dykan tsharpa) with up to 1000 members.

The RADSF is meant to be a farmers’ organisation with farmer councils (legislative bodies) at three administrative levels (rayon, oblast and national). The executive body consists of six regional centres (Oblast RADS) and a secretariat in the capital Bishkek. Figure 2 gives an idea of the structure of the RADS in JA Oblast, as an example. The role of the secretariat is to coordinate activities, to train advisory staff and to provide (financial) supervision.

The RADS gives training to individual farmers, farmer groups or farmer associations. Participatory exercises carried out in the villages lead to new knowledge and skills. The RADS facilitates the exchange and dissemination of such knowledge. While promoting groups, it strives for farmer interactive extension, increased exchange of experience and reaching critical economic size for marketing.

Figure 2: Organisational chart of RADS Jalal Abad in 2000

In the oblast centre, a Regional Manager and five Subject Matter Specialists (SMS) provide logistical and topical support to the rayons and are responsible for planning, monitoring and evaluation. In each of the eight rayons, 3–5 rayon advisors work. They are generalists with a basic knowledge in all spheres of agriculture and are in close contact with “temporary promoters”, either “village promoters” (VPs) who are women, working with groups, or village specialists (VSs)in charge of a specific task. A VS has either specific topical education (possibly an academic degree) or – even more important – profound experience in the subject matter.

The RADSF has four sources of finance: 1) a loan from IFAD (International Fund for Agricultural Development) and the World Bank, 2) the Kyrgyz Government, 3) a grant from the Swiss Government (implemented by Helvetas) contributing 51–60% to the budgets of the oblasts Naryn Issyk Kul and Jalal Abad, and 4) the beneficiaries. By the end of the first phase in 2003, the beneficiaries are supposed to contribute 5% of the RADS budget. Following the Russian saying, “he who pays calls the tune”, RADSF today is controlled primarily by donors and the Kyrgyz Government and only to a limited extent by farmers.

Context

Rationale for PTD

Definitions

Why PTD?

PTD training and exposure for the various actors involved

Approach, planning and set up

Implementation and follow-up of PTD experiments

PTD in groups

Assessing results of PTD experiments

Definitions

RADS JA understands PTD as a process of:

defining research needs;
designing programmes (“experiments”); and
physically implementing and evaluating them;

all conducted by farmers, researchers and advisors, with the farmer being the driving force (owner of the innovation), the researcher contributing knowledge and a wider view, and the advisor facilitating the process and assuring documentation and dissemination of the results to other farmers.[iv]

In this paper, the term “PTD week” refers to an activity designed to start up and plan PTD for the next cropping season or a suitable time period for PTD in livestock husbandry or marketing. A PTD week usually lasts for five days. The term “experiment” refers to any willingly arranged modification of farming practices, often planned during a PTD week. Each experiment has a control (usually the existing farming practice) in order to allow comparison with the new technology. Experiments often have no replications or, if there are any, then often on another farm. They are not designed to provide scientifically substantiated insights. The words “experiments” and “trials” are used synonymously. A “pilot farmer” is a farmer who implements a trial and shares his/her experiences with other farmers during one or two field days. Only then is s/he called a “temporary promoter” (village promoter or facilitator), who receives a RADS working contract. Pilot farmers are often members of the RADS Farmer Steering Committee.

Definitions

Why PTD?

Alongside various types of on-farm research, PTD is a research process that is independent of government or private enterprise and is driven by farmers’ visions. It is limited only by the capacities of the farmers, advisors and formal researchers. Development-oriented adaptive research aims primarily to improve sound forms of production and to make it more profitable. In comparison to conventional research, PTD has the potential to contribute to socially sound development, as innovation is not primarily started up by money or governmental power, but by the initiatives of farmers, researchers and advisors. PTD means continuous assessment and learning on each farm. When the advisory service then facilitates exchange of experiences between farmers, knowledge develops even further.

Why PTD?

The first projects – advisory service and credit

How PTD came to Kyrgyzstan

Advisory field laboratory in two rayons of Naryn Oblast a step toward PTD

Introducing PTD into the World Bank-supported RADS – starting to scale up

The first projects – advisory service and credit

Agricultural extension activities started in Kyrgyzstan in 1994 when the ATAS (Agricultural Training and Advisory Service) project set up a training centre in Bishkek. Later, TACIS-1 (Technical Assistance to CIS Countries) advised farmers in Chuy, Issyk Kul, Talas and Jalal Abad through training and visits. The German Agency for Technical Cooperation (GTZ) started its advisory project in Osh Oblast in spring 1997.

On behalf of the Swiss Government, Helvetas started the KSAP in 1995 in the rayons of Kochkor-Jumgal in Naryn Oblast. In the same year, Caritas started the Kyrgyz Swiss Agricultural Project in Suzak, Bazar Korgon and Nooken Rayons of JA Oblast. At first, each project had its own or an associated credit component, and advisory topics were linked to credit in most cases. In 1998, the approach was revised in all projects, when Caritas ceased advisory activities and went for an independent credit line, Helvetas discontinued credit and focused on technical assistance, and GTZ institutionalised the link with the American-funded ACDI/VOCA (Agricultural Cooperatives Development International / Volunteers in Overseas Cooperation Assistance). In 1997, with the support of Helvetas, participatory advisory approaches were started in Kochkor-Jumgal.

Advisory field laboratory in two rayons of Naryn Oblast a step toward PTD

In the field of seed-potato cultivation, fodder mixtures and meat and milk processing, Helvetas started collaboration with scientific institutes such as the Agrarian Academy (Division for Seed Potato), the Pasture Institute and the Polytechnic University. GTZ started to work together with the Osh State University. This collaboration with research institutes was a concrete step toward PTD. While planning was still in the hands of the researchers, implementation and ownership of the PTD experiments were in the hands of the farmers. In the case of seed potatoes, cheese and meat, the farmers were to a certain extent accountable to the service, as they received material support. Already in the second year, however, farmers organised themselves and decided on their own about the use of the seed. The scaling up of cheese production and its impact are described later in this paper. Other activities such as seed-potato production were transferred to the newly created national advisory service (RADS). However, a fairly rigid legislation and unreliable input of original seed material prevented the technology from spreading to a larger number of farmers. None of the meat products developed during the experimental phase is produced commercially today.

Introducing PTD into the World Bank-supported RADS – starting to scale up

Adaptive research is foreseen in the planning document for the Agricultural Services Support Programme (ASSP) and its implementation within the framework of the RADS. The appraisal report describes adaptive research as “demonstration of proven small farm technology at rayon level” and refers to participatory research to develop a pipeline of new technology. The advisory service would have the role of providing the support needed to develop a practical programme of demonstrations and field trials in each oblast, i.e.:

preparation of “field trial contracts” (demonstrations) or “adaptive research trials” (PTD), backed by research supervision contracts with the Agrarian Academy and international research institutes;
material support such as field and laboratory equipment and storage, and office facilities.

Implementation in the RADS was later modified to reduce material support to a minimum in order to assure farmer ownership of the activities and to prevent farmers from participating for the sake of material support rather than an interest to develop innovations.

The main aim of the RADS is raising the standard of living in rural areas, which is linearly correlated with agricultural productivity. In Kyrgyzstan, the RADS is the major actor in transferring knowledge and skills to farmers. In JA Oblast, as in the other five districts with RADS in Kyrgyzstan, it uses three main tools for providing advisory services to farmers: training, adaptive research (PTD) and group formation. The first is applied in a rather linear Training-and-Visit approach, and group formation may not be considered as a “direct” advisory tool. Adaptive research offers the greatest room for manoeuvre in terms of methodology and technical approaches. It is the most practice-relevant form of farmer support foreseen in the planning papers.

Implementation of PTD needs an institutional framework that encourages farmers to continue trying out new technologies. Only the advisors of the former Helvetas project in the Kochkor and Jumgal Rayons had methodological skills and knowledge in terms of farmer participation in technology development and had received international backing. In the other oblasts, an appropriate environment had to be created. The RADS JA is striving to achieve the following:

setting up and organising RADS (autonomous advisors who are present and known in the regions)
strengthening advisors’ communication skills and awareness of what else is happening in the rayon
making focus problems a topic of discussion among farmers
arranging support by specialists
operating within an optic driven by economic concerns
lobbying for farmers’ interests.

In a highly educated and specialised professional environment, as it is the case in Kyrgyzstan, there is a risk that interaction with farmers is hampered by “shoptalk” by either advisors or specialists.

PTD Training and Exposure for the various Actors involved

PTD cannot be studied and then applied. The researchers and advisors involved have to learn while acting and reacting together with farmers. PTD in its entire complexity is only beginning to be built up in the RADS. It works best when practised. Continued follow-up after its initiation is necessary.

Staff of RADS JA became acquainted with PTD for the first time when a SMS and a rayon advisor took part in a workshop in Issyk Kul Oblast. In the same month, these two staff members spread their knowledge to the advisors of RADS JA. Figure 3 shows the dissemination of knowledge as such and applied in practical exercises. It distinguishes thereby between participation in PTD weeks (reception of knowledge), illustrated with an outlined dot and competencies (experiences, skills), gained through reproduction of PTD methodology as trainer or moderator, illustrated with a black dot. The illustration is not complete, as the “PTD pyramid” had already within a couple of months a basis of some 100 persons. The figure only keeps track of those that later implemented or contributed to a PTD week in a leading function. By the end of the year 2000, RADS JA has one master trainer, two trainers and 12 co-trainers in PTD.

Figure 3: Dissemination of PTD among the staff of RADS Jalal Abad in major practical exercises

(Œ= performers, O = participants) in field implementation of PTD in RADS Jalal Abad

Main actors and their motivation

My name is Ergesh Bekeshov. I’m a leader of a farmers association in Aksy Rayon of Jalal Abad Oblast. The association consists of five families, a total 38 persons, all relatives of my wife and myself.

We have 4.8 ha of irrigated land, located at 1400 masl. We decided to grow seed potatoes because they do well and we can sell them to the lower regions and to Kolkhozes in neighbouring Uzbekistan.

In the first year, Konstantin Pavlovich showed us three different ways of growing seed potatoes. The yield was good and so I prepared together with Nurkul a plan for the next three years. In the second year we got some difficulties with Phytophtora, but Nurkul showed us how to treat it and Konstantin explained what Phytophtora is. Now we plan to get the status of seed farm, but therefore we need 50 ha of land.

My name is Nurkul Stamov. I graduated from the Polytechnic Institute of the former Kyrgyz Soviet Republic in food engineering. In 1989 the Aksy dairy plant became a victim of Perestroika and so I lost my job. Later I was given some land and earned experiences as a farmer. In 1999 I passed the exam and became RADS advisor. In RADS each advisor is a generalist and so I had to get familiarised with many new fields in agriculture.

From E. Bekeshov I learnt about the economic side of seed-potato growing and marketing conditions. With my knowledge in business plan preparation, we drafted a plan for the next three years. From Konstantin I learnt how to grow potatoes, but also how to determine the yield in a scientific way. I’m the linkage between both. In Aksy the villagers have often no telephone.

My name is Konstantin Pavlovich Gorbov; I have a PhD in Meristem Seed Potato Production and am lecturer at the Agrarian Academy of the Kyrgyz Republic. Moreover I’m the head of a Seed Potato Laboratory, which has recently been privatised. As my salary as lecturer is only US$ 14 a month and paid irregularly, I concentrate more and more on commercial activities like the sale of seed potato or consultancies.

The Advisory Service brought me in 1997 for the first time together with farmers. This collaboration allowed me to contribute to basic on- farm seed development and to get valuable insights for my scientific work.

The advisory service helped me to continue my work for the economically difficult transition period as researcher.

The farmers

It is difficult to characterise farmers involved in PTD in Jalal Abad. Some were so-called Akimiat farmers; this means farmers with close relationship to local administration. The majority of clients were leaders of a farmer association or individual farmers with initiative. Only a minority were so-called poor farmers. Mainly the vegetable experiments, for which women were approached, reached this last group.

In RADS JA about 40% of experiments were set up and implemented together with women. Despite the fact that the follow-up of these trials through village promoters and female rayon advisors often lacked professional technical inputs, more of these trials were brought to a concrete result.

The researchers

Since the pilot phase of the first Helvetas project in Kochkor-Jumgal, researchers became an extended human resource of the advisory service. In most cases, researchers worked on a task-oriented basis with a limited contract. Umbrella agreements were negotiated and prepared in 1999 (Agrarian Academy) and 2000 (Uzbek National Cotton Institute, Andijon) only.

During the PTD week dedicated to fodder production held in April 1999 in Issyk Kul Oblast, researchers – either livestock specialists or specialists from the pasture institute – participated in the exercise. The evaluation workshop in September revealed that none of them had visited a trial during implementation. The lack of clearly binding conditions in the contract and the remoteness of Tiup Rayon in Issyk Kul Oblast might have been the main reasons.

In RADS JA, the participation of scientists in PTD is a bottleneck. In most teams, there were no real researchers. In all PTD weeks dedicated to vegetable growing and conservation, local resource persons therefore took the place of scientists. Scientists who graduated from Russian institutes often have a narrow specialisation and/or did not follow the trends of the last 20 years. When RADS JA wanted specialists in biological plant protection (Integrated Pest Management in Bazar Korgon Rayon), there was simply no scientist available with such a specialisation. Collaboration with Uzbek scientists started with the first international cotton conference and the IPM week in Bazar Korgon.

The role of researchers was discussed on various occasions, for instance, during the PTD experience workshop in Issyk Kul on 21–22 September 1999. There, the researchers themselves asked for closer involvement in the PTD experiments. However, their main motivation to collaborate with the extension service was not primarily to test the innovation but rather to receive the cash payment – a fact that some of them admitted openly in informal discussions after the workshop.

Staff of the advisory service

Advisors

Rayon advisors are the link between farmers and researchers. Their participation in PTD weeks was aimed at:

making them acquainted with the methodology
initiating concrete advisory activities, to be followed up by the advisors[3]
experiencing farming, farmers and their problems in the (own) zone anew, while collecting the feedback and perception of outsiders (other advisors, specialists, facilitator)
Increasing of self-esteem and advisory/public relations effect.

The experience in RADS JA showed that rayon advisors are not able to conduct an entire PTD week on their own after having seen PTD methodology as participants somewhere else. An attempt in Aksy Rayon failed when an advisor introduced local resource persons (‘researchers’) and village promoters to the methodology in a one-day workshop and then sent them for three days to the villages.

Village promoters

In most PTD weeks, village promoters (VPs) were involved. VPs are part-time staff of RADS JA and in charge of group formation and coaching. In Suzak Rayon, the promoters did good work in bringing the members of a group together, and later in bringing different groups together to exchange experiences.

In most cases, the technical support given by VPs to farmers was poor. Only a former brigadier (foreman in the Kolkhoze) in Octiabrkskoje was able to provide sound advice to the farmers. There are quite a few cases in which PTD experiments gave good results without VPs, for example, in Toktogul Rayon in the villages of Cholpon Ata and Torkent (milk shop).

A typical PTD initiation week

Approach, Planning and Set-Up

Selection of topics

Topics of the PTD experiments and their technical feasibility

Ownership of PTD experiments

Selection of topics

Every October, RADS JA carries out local planning exercises in the villages. Within a project phase, the yearly plan of operation is prepared. Three main questions are discussed: 1) an assessment of the ongoing programme; 2) suggestions as to which topics should be added in the next year; and 3) suggestions as to which ones should be dropped.

It was then up to each specialist to decide which advisory tool might be most suitable to deal with the problem. In 2000 only the agronomist and livestock specialist chose the PTD methodology as a tool. This rather liberal approach has the advantage of leading to need-based “research”, but it involves a broad range of topics and challenges all staff with respect to facilitation and support.

Approach, Planning and Set-Up

A typical PTD initiation week

Each PTD week in RADS JA was dedicated to a specific topic. In terms of methodology, the pattern was as follows:

Day 1 Introductory workshop in a central village: mutual introductions, methodology of PTD, use of Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA) tools for the survey, common language regarding the topic, planning the visit to the village;

Days 2–4 Information meeting in the village, survey, visit to the farmers who showed interest, clustering ideas, going back to the farmers and refining the ideas, jointly working out the set-up for an experiment, presentation of screened ideas, welcoming farmers willing to try out the idea (technology) and developing an action plan together with them;

Day 5 Experience exchange among the different groups in the central village, handing over all action plans to the respective rayon advisor, discussing whether a (local) specialist is needed for the follow-up of the trial (moderator).

In many PTD weeks, the introductory meeting and the assessment were shortened. On one hand, this might help to disseminate the approach more easily and to link up with local habits. However, the group risked including persons who are not familiar with the methodology – often the local farmers in the preparatory phase or the specialists during implementation. Extensionists have a tendency to talk in their own “language”. With an increased number of PTD exercises, there is a risk that the language becomes more to the point, but not necessarily more understandable for the newcomers.

In only a few cases were pilot farmers involved in the planning and monitoring activities of a PTD week. Pilot farmers may open the access to villagers and may be of less importance only in cases where an advisor already worked before in the region.

Approach, Planning and Set-Up

Topics of the PTD experiments and their technical feasibility

RADS JA carried out 13 PTD weeks dedicated to the following topics (number of weeks in parentheses): production and marketing of agricultural products (1), cotton and soil fertility (1), IPM in cotton (1), fruit growing and conservation (1), prospective production of crops and animals (1), improvement of animal husbandry (1), and growing and processing vegetables (7).

PTD means trying out new things that work: these can be either clever recombinations of elements of familiar technologies or combinations of known elements with new elements having been brought into the area (e.g. cropping practices, new varieties, new ways of farm management or marketing a product)[v]. The degree of innovation varied in the different PTD experiments. If linked with money, it was rather to use a new variety than to learn how it works; the interest in material support was often bigger than the interest in the technology. Some topics of PTD experiments were of an integrated character, relying on multiple conditions or technical requirements.

Approach, Planning and Set-Up

Ownership of PTD experiments

If a rayon advisor says: “We want to show to farmers the effect of …”, then she is making a demonstration and not developing a technology in a participatory way. One farmer even stated: “Tell me what to grow and I’ll do it for you.” Here, the advisor is definitely tempted to impose an idea. It is an art to pass the message that “continued improvement of a technology is an integral part of farming”. The initiator (driving force) thereby has to be the farmer; otherwise the self-dynamics and sustainability of the venture are endangered. If some farmers today are waiting for innovations to come from outside, this may be a leftover from the former Soviet system, so also the above-mentioned farmer who was waiting for an order.

Besides the PTD experiments, RADS advisors were supposed to prepare demonstration “trials”, at least one each. Here it was clear that the ownership was on the part of the RADS and mutual responsibilities were agreed upon on in a contract. When ownership of PTD experiments tended towards the RADS, observations and recordings often stopped and, because the advisor in some cases could not manage at the end of the season to supervise all the trials, essential data were lost.

When hunger wards off innovation curiosity

When we asked a Russian grandmother in Octiabrskaya village about the results of the new carrot variety, she answered: ”My golden son, how can you come and ask questions about size and weight of the carrot?. You, who gave us those few seeds. We have eaten them all.”

Implementation and follow-up of PTD experiments

Design of the experiment

One trial leads to another

Setting criteria in advance

Input of materials

Payments slow down the implementation of PTD experiments

Technical support during the follow-up

Design of the experiment

Is it difficult to design a good PTD experiment?

No, it isn’t. We saw a good approach when visiting the cauliflower trial by Marazikova in Kok Jangak. She simply planted between thousands of other cabbages a line of cauliflower; same soil, same water, same climatic conditions and the same close influence from the crop around the trial.	Yes, it can be difficult to design a good trial that later allows comparison and drawing conclusions. Nursalkyn in Kok Jangak tried out the new tomato variety TMK. She planted it in a separate plot where she had previously applied compost. Despite this privilege given to the new variety, the old Volgograd in the control plot grew better. For comparison, such an approach is problematic.

Figure 4:A line of cauliflower in a cabbage field; simple but well reasoned trial design	Figure 5: Sketch of Manas’ and Nursalkins tomato plot

The main shortcoming in most of the PTD experiments was the lack of or insufficient control. In Kyzyl Tuu (Toktogul Rayon) farmers grew cabbage. It grew very nicely and, at the end, farmers said: “We have nice results.” “Nicer than what?” we asked. “Does cabbage pay more, nourish better or what?” Not having a control is a side-effect of the subsidised seed. Farmers did not familiarise themselves thoroughly with the participatory approach.

Text Box: Figure 6: Two to three plants per row are left as control when applying the insecticide

One trial leads to another

At the southern edge of her garden in the Kok Jangak, Toktokan planted Brussels sprouts. When we visited the plot, we observed a heavy attack of aphids. Insecticides can be bought only in Jalal Abad some 30 km away. We advised Toktokan to do so, as she was the only one in the entire oblast with Brussels sprouts. We suggested that she add another trial: spraying as indicated in Figure 6, while leaving witness stripes, might better show the effect of the insecticide. Toktokan did so and showed the two trials to peers the next time that she hosted the women’s group.

Setting criteria in advance

To set criteria in advance for assessing results of a PTD experiment is a challenging task. Only experienced advisors or scientists may, at the outset, be able to say what, besides the yield, will be the most sound or convincing criteria to be observed. RADS staff and scientists often did not pay enough attention to setting criteria together with farmers.

A sound criterion is economic efficiency. If one can express the result in Som (Kyrgyz national currency, 50 Som = US$ 1) of additional income, s/he has automatically taken all variables into account, ranging from local climate, soil, cropping technology, harvest, storage and sale. Expressing a result in Som allows compare of PTD experiments over distances. In RADS JA, a good trial result is only that which has an economic analysis.

Input of materials

In the field laboratory phase of the Helvetas project in Kochkor and Jumgal Rayons, the project subsidised such inputs that either could not be afforded by the farmers or were not possible for them to organise. This was the case, for instance, with the cheese pilot unit: the project contributed 45% and the farmers the rest. In the case of seed potatoes, more than 80% of all costs were paid by the project. One Meristem seed potato costs US$ 0.50, or one fourth of a minimum monthly wage in Kyrgyzstan. In the pilot phase, the few clients and therefore the close coaching, but also the direct contact between expatriate and farmer, helped build up mutual trust. In the scaling-up phase, this was more difficult. Fast results were wanted also in the other oblasts. Topics that showed good results in Naryn were adopted but not adapted thoroughly. Time constraints influenced negatively the building up of staff capacities or the “selection” of clients. In the scaling-up phase, the topics of the PTD weeks became less complex, for instance in RADS JA, but were supposed to reach more and poorer farmers. This initial intention turned out to be problematic. Experience showed that, also during scaling up, time is needed to build mutual trust between farmer and advisor. Many farmers who would have been able to pay for the inputs received subsidised materials.

PTD is not a humanitarian activity. The desire to increase one's knowledge and the mission of improving agriculture should be the main motivations. In most PTD exercises in 2000, RADS JA provided inputs for the farmers and, in the case of vegetable growing, even completely free of charge. As mentioned repeatedly, this enhances the “cup one’s hand” mentality of the farmers, privileging some who then asked for more support the following year.

One farmer in Besh Bala village regarded the given seed as the main input from the advisor. Asked about follow-up and advice, he became uncertain. Reasons for his reaction may be: a) information has no price, especially in a culture with a rich oral tradition; or b) follow-up by the advisor was really poor, which may also hold true.

Payments slow down the implementation of PTD experiments

Having money involved led, besides the bad effect of the “cup one’s hand” mentality, to slowing down the implementation of the trials. The PTD methodology is based on the needs of farmers. Kyrgyz farmers often live for the moment and today’s problems are the essential ones. That is why the venture has to start on Day 1 of the PTD initiating week. In the case of RADS JA, if money was involved, the advisor had to prepare a budget, submit it to the manager who advised the accountant – agreed upon on with the SMS – to pay for it. However, if the accountant had ordered no money for trials, he had to wait until he was able to pay. It took up to four weeks before the advisor went back to the farmer to tell him or her that “concrete” work could start. In fact, the long wait was the “death warrant” for many a trial.

Technical support during the follow-up

Technical support during implementation is crucial for the final success. As mentioned earlier, the RADS had almost no scientists involved in PTD experiments. As a consequence, all technical support relied on RADS staff and the generalists were often overtaxed. The structure of village promoter (not a specialist at all) coached by the rayon advisors (also not a specialist, but in contact with the SMS in the centre) and the SMS him/herself worked only in some cases. The workload in the different subjects was unequal. While two out of three PTD experiments dealt with agronomy, farm mechanisation was underrepresented, with only eight ventures.

Text Box: Figure 7: Number of trials in relative figures, the shaded areas representing:
Animal husbandry
Agronomy
Vegetable growing and small- scale processing
Marketing Figure 7 gives a simplified picture of the workload of the different SMSs. Most trials by female farmers were related to agronomy, marketing or animal husbandry (poultry raising). Almost all marketing/processing experiments were carried out by women. The biggest workload was for the agronomist SMS – even if, in the case of vegetable growing and/or indigenous methods of plant protection, high replication rates were achieved. In terms of workload, the agronomist SMS is followed by the gender/economy SMS with a total of 150 experiments. Only 46 experiments were related to marketing and less than 20 to animal husbandry.

The distribution among the rayons was also unequal because, during planning, the SMS set priorities according to farmers’ needs. Figure 8 indicates the total number of PTD experiments per rayon as an area and the number of different types of trials as bars. Toktogul had, with 35 different trials, the highest variation, followed by Nooken and Bazar Korgon. In Toktogul, on average 3.3 families implemented the same type of PTD experiment, whereas in Nooken each family had its own.

Text Box: Figure 8: Total number of trials per rayon (area) and number of different types of trials (bar) The higher the number of different PTD experiments, the more the rayon advisors were challenged in the technical follow-up, either in mediating specialists or in doing it themselves. The lower the average number of experiments per family, the less the possibility for experience exchange among them. High diversity in PTD experiments means, on one hand, taking the farmers’ concerns seriously; on the other hand, it makes the advisory service less efficient.

Implementation and follow-up of PTD experiments

Generating ideas when a group jointly observes trials and exchanges ideas

PTD in Groups

Specialisation to earn more money

Generating ideas when a group jointly observes trials and exchanges ideas

Individual farmer families carried out most of the 77 different PTD experiments implemented in RADS JA in 1999–2000. The risk of failing was almost two times higher and the chance of succeeded was 1:2 compared to these experiments implemented by several families (see also Figure 12 and Table 4). The conclusion is simple: interaction between farmers is a key element of success. Interaction means exchange of experience during implementation and joint assessment of the trials.

In Bala Chychkan, Toktogul Rayon, five farmers conducted the same experiment in growing oil maize, when they realised their common interest. The rayon advisor brought them together. It was fascinating to see how many ideas they generated. The topics shifted from maize-cropping techniques to oil extraction, comparison with other oil crops and the use of by-products. It went so far as the group checked gluten characteristics of maize flour, wheat flour and a mixture of the two. The farmers have now set up a seed distribution scheme in order to involve still other farmers.

Figure 9: Trials by number of replications and degree of success

Specialisation to earn more money

In Suzak Rayon, most experiments were done by groups, each member having the same trial in her garden. In a second step, farmers planned how to specialise: some group members went for seedling production, some for growing vegetables, some for processing, some for marketing. The VP facilitated the discussion, paying special attention to responsibilities, economic impact and risks.

PTD in Groups

Figure 10: Proposed set-up for PTD documentation (April 1999)

Assessing Results of PTD Experiments

Field days

Determining yields

Recording and reporting

Field days

Figure 9: Three elements of a successful field day: information, experience exchange and fun (Oz Gurush, Toktogul)

Field days are the event during the implementation of a PTD experiment. In some cases, even two days were held. In some others, field days fell into oblivion. During the hot period, advisors were on leave and, by the time they returned, many crops had already been harvested. Besides the three elements of success – information, experience exchange and fun – economic analyses and/or, at an earlier stage, harvest prognoses have been integral parts of field days in RADS JA.

Determining yields

Besides the ongoing observations during the growing period, yield data are the most important to be recorded. This involves measuring: counting and weighing. Besides examples of successful implementation, there were cases where harvesting took place without the advisor and, as most farmers need money in autumn, most of their harvest was already sold by the time the advisors came back to the village. In other cases, the rayon advisors were present but forgot to record, or recorded and then “lost” the records. Extensionists do not yet consider the generation of data as the generation of capital with which the extension service can work.

Text Box: “I don’t know the result of my trial. I needed money and so I sold the cabbage”
When we came to Oz Gurush to assist in the first harvest of cabbage, the farmer disclosed the sale of some 500 kg of cabbage on the weekly bazaar the week before. He did not keep any records. Only a few rough estimations based on conclusions from the sale in the bazaar helped us estimate the yield.

Measuring and observing are challenging activities

In many cases, criteria were imposed and the scientists and advisors were too optimistic about all the criteria the farmers would observe. Scientists and advisors have quite different interests in observations than do farmers. Thus, the owner of one of the sunflower experiments in Cholpon Ata did not measure the plant height. She was more interested in gross yield and oil output, which she observed and recorded well.

In many cases, farmers did not know – or pretended not to know – their area of land (taxes are paid on the basis of land area). Thus, Abdychaly Mamatbekov and Kabylbek Saidbek could say exactly how many kilograms of sunflower they harvested, but had “no idea” about the area on which it was grown. Especially for PTD experiments dealing with quantitative data, not knowing the surface area is a major handicap.

Some farmers could not say for sure how high the yield was, but often remembered how many bags or wagonloads they had harvested. Thus, Mairambek B. in Cholpon Ata indicated that the yield of the Ukrainian sunflower variety was five small bags compared with four of the local one. As the bags are standardised, we then could conclude that she had 25 kg more yield with the improved variety. Local measurements are quite accurate; moreover, they are easily understood when explained to other farmers.

Recording and reporting

During the Issyk Kul PTD week, a reporting scheme as shown in Figure 11 was adopted. In RADS JA, as mentioned earlier, not all documents were prepared. As can be seen in Table 4, out of all PTD experiments that brought a concrete result, the data of one out of two agronomy experiments were not recorded and analysed properly. Observations in the field confirmed this. In most of the farms visited in autumn 2000, there were no records or, if there were, they only went up to some time in July. The farmers generally still had the notebook, but had found it difficult and not always possible to keep records. Recording and analysing were better in post-harvest management/marketing (two out of three PTD experiments with analysis) and best in animal husbandry, all experiments having an (economic) analysis.

	Ideas	Starting action	Contract	Monitoring action	Final document of action
Contact farmer of each experiment		Action plan ñ	Contract	Journal for each experiment ô
		ñ		Diary
*Rayon* advisor	Idea sheet ô	ñ Action plan ò	Contract	ò ò ò	Final report ô
	ô ô ô	ò ò ò		Report according to instructions by RM	ô ô ô
*Oblast*	ô Idea sheet	ò Action plan		ò Status reports ò	ô Final report ô
			Copy of a contract	Concentrated information in quarterly reports	ô ô ô
Secretariat				ò Databank	ô Final report

Not only recording and reporting on rayon level, also the processing of data in the centre needs improvement. Except for those experiments in which the involvement of money demanded proper reporting, SMS made compilations only to a certain degree and the analyses were often incomplete. Nevertheless, the results of some PTD experiments were published in brochures which enjoy great popularity. In 1999 RADS JA entered most of the trial data into an Access database, but did not forward the data to the national RADS secretariat. Later, when the hard disk was re-formatted, the data were lost.

Assessing Results of PTD Experiments