Mohammed Majzoub Fidiel
The
Technology Development Process
Annex:
Glossary of Local Terms
This case study documents the process of developing animal-drawn ploughs
in North Darfur, Western Sudan. It also reflects on how this process led to
strengthening farmers’ and blacksmiths’ capacities to engage in PTD and
attracted the interest of formal institutions of agricultural extension and
training in this approach to technology development. The process followed a
logical sequence of consulting available literature and looking into previous
experiences in the surrounding geographical areas and as far as the United
Kingdom. It also drew on the valuable inputs of local blacksmiths (who made the
ploughs), project engineers and the farmers themselves, the end users of the
product. The impact of the new ploughs on the livelihoods of the people in the
study area is also discussed.
The experience started in 1988/89 in the Kebkabiya area under the
Oxfam-supported Kebkabiya Smallholders Project (KSP), which was later extended
by the Intermediate Technology Development Group (ITDG) into two more areas,
Jebel Si and Dar Elsalam, under the project Linking Indigenous Knowledge
Support (LINKS). In 1998, when a further extension of LINKS started under the
name Darfur Livelihood Integrated Project (DARLIVE), the animal-traction work
was placed under its auspices, and the Azagarfa and Kutum areas were added.
This case study of the development and dissemination of animal-drawn
ploughs is meant to contribute to institutionalising the PTD approach within
Sudan. The study was developed in a participatory way involving local people
through the following activities and methods:
·
Azagarfa Blacksmiths
Society
·
Azagarfa Village
Development Committee (VDC)
·
Kassara Blacksmiths Society
·
Kassara VDC
·
Jebel Si VDC
·
Shouba VDC
·
Kebkabiya Smallholders
Charitable Society (KSCS)
Group interviews were conducted with some CBO
committees. Individual interviews were also conducted with selected community
members and with project and government staff.
The
Kebkabiya Smallholders Project
The Greater Darfur Region, with a population of 3.5 million people, is
divided into three states: North, West and South Darfur. North Darfur lies in the Sahel zone on the
southern edge of the Sahara desert and has a population of about 1.4 million,
with 70% or around 159,000 families living in poverty. Forty percent of these
families are vulnerable to disasters such as drought, loss of animals etc; the
other 60% are constantly threatened by food insecurity. The area is highly
vulnerable to drought and is characterised by extreme remoteness, poor
communications, poor infrastructure and poor public services.
Kebkabiya is one of the four provinces in North Darfur. Provinces are
divided into local councils and village councils. Each village council is
formed of 2–7 villages. Kebkabiya Rural Council, the project area, is situated
in the southwest of the State at the bottom of the mountain known as Jabal
Marra.
Most of the area in the northern part of the State is desert with 10–12
arid months per year; the southern and eastern parts are semi-desert with 8–9
arid months and suffer from low and highly
variable rainfall. This ranges between 75 and 400 mm/year, with extreme
variations in annual distribution. Kebkabiya Rural Council experiences 9
arid months a year; annual rainfall is 350–400 mm. The area was hard hit by
successive droughts since the early 1980s (Table 1), resulting in a long-term
deterioration in the people’s livelihood base, reflected in a severe decline in
crop production, mass death of livestock, reduced range productivity and
widespread ecological degradation.
Within North Darfur, Kebkabiya Rural Council has more agricultural
potential, especially on the wadi
areas of seasonal water flow. The economy is based on rainfed subsistence
farming. The main crops are millet, sorghum, okra, cowpea, watermelons (mostly
for seeds), karkadeh (hibiscus) and
sesame. The better-off farmers normally practise dry-season small-scale
irrigation on alluvial soils of wadi
land where the water table is high. The main irrigated crops are chickpea,
bean, onion, tomato and other fresh vegetables. Poor families without access to
irrigation facilities grow wet-season onion, tomato and okra. Groundnut was
introduced later as a result of the project and the introduction of the plough.
As one goes south, livestock decrease is importance but still remain
essential for the economy. Goats and sheep are raised as a means of saving and
investment; donkeys were used mainly for transportation and only recently as
draught animals. The main tools used for cultivation are hand hoes.
Off-farm activities include collection of grass fodder, building
materials, firewood and wild fruits; charcoal making; petty trading and
handicrafts. Opportunities for non-farm income are limited to seasonal or
semi-permanent migration of men to mechanised-farming areas, urban centres in
central Sudan and abroad to Libya. Remittances from migrant relatives are the
primary source of off-farm income.
Access to Land and Size of
Holding
The farm unit is based on a nuclear family or families including married
sons who, after three years of marriage, will have their own household. Women
head 25–40% of the 5000 households in the area.
Land for
cultivation is the basic resource of the households. Tenure types include
communal or tribal land, family- or clan-owned land, village-owned land and
individually owned land. In Kebkabiya
Rural Council, access to land can easily be gained through inheritance, rent,
sharecropping or borrowing from relatives or friends for 1–2 years. Land is not
rented or sold in the area. Ninety percent of the women in the area own fields
and have land titles. The main constraint to the amount of
land cultivated is labour availability. The most successful households are the
larger polygamous ones.
Each family owns several plots, each ranging between 2 and 4 makhammas (1.5–3 ha). The average size
of holding ranges between 2 and 10 makhammas
(3–7.3 ha). The dominant soil type is the hard-surface sandy loam locally
called nagaa or gardud. Many families in the area own wadi land, which is more fertile but more limited in area than the
other land types.
In Jebel Si, which was included in the second project phase (LINKS), good
cropland is scarce because of the mountainous topography. People cultivate the
mountain slopes on terraces built with stones. Gardud or wadi land is
very limited and farm sizes range between 2 and 4 makhammas. In Dar Elsalam, the other area included in the second
phase, soils are predominantly sandy (goz)
and sandy loam (gardud) crossed by
few seasonal streams where alluvial soil dominates. Farmers grow millet,
sorghum and okra.
Millet, and to a very limited extent, sesame and sorghum are grown on
sandy and sandy loam soils. Millet is dominant in the three project areas and
is the main staple food. It is grown mainly for home consumption and covers 80%
of the area cultivated annually. Tomato, okra, chickpea, cowpea and groundnut
are grown both for consumption and cash on wadi
land. Some farmers have started to grow tomato, okra and groundnut on the gardud soil in terraces.
Traditionally, millet, sorghum, sesame, cowpea and watermelon were
intercropped. This practice was increasingly abandoned because of the decrease
in rainfall and, more recently, the introduction of the donkey plough, which
reduced the amount of labour needed for land preparation.
Farmers in North Darfur face three main constraints: poor availability
of seed, inadequate labour and lack of extension services.
The project and its partner Oxfam realised the need for extension
services and offered to build up a participatory extension system. The Village
Development Committees (VDCs) nominated some of their members, who were then
trained as Village Extension Agents (VEA) to deliver advice and services. The
VDCs and their VEAs have played an important role in the PTD approach: they
convinced their communities to take part in the process, they assisted in
nominating farmers and allocating land for experimental and demonstration
plots, and they liaised between their community farmers, the project engineers
and the blacksmiths throughout the process. The VDCs initially started as
informal groups of active community members. The project then helped them to
register themselves as legal CBOs.
After the major drought and famine in 1984/85, Oxfam came to the area to
give relief support. The main beneficiaries were the small subsistence farmers.
Oxfam started a seed distribution programme to help people secure their food
requirements in the 1985/86 season. Through continuous dialogue with farmers,
the agency became aware of the main constraints in farming identified by the
community: seedbed preparation (ploughing and ridging), planting and weeding.
Most of the poor farmers cultivated sloping land with hard-surface sandy loam
soil that restricted water infiltration and led to runoff. Under such
conditions, cultivation with the traditional hand hoe is difficult and
time-consuming. This causes much hardship for women, whom perform 75% of the
cultivation operations, and has adverse impacts on productivity and the
income-generation capacity of the households.
Although the average household sows 2–4 makhammas of millet, it manages to weed only 2 makhammas. The maximum period available for timely weeding is three
weeks. The average production per makhammas
is about 3 sacks. This means that the average household produces from 2 makhammas only 6 sacks of millet or only
half the average annual requirement per family (12 sacks).
The long time
spent on cultivation coupled with the hardship involved in the work and the
effort needed for other household tasks exert mental and physical pressures on
women, adversely affecting their health. It also prevents other family members
involved in the farming operations from working for better-off farmers after
cultivating their own fields and from non-farm income-generation opportunities.
Given the above
constraints and farmers’ needs, the Kebkabiya Smallholders Project (KSP) was
designed and implementation started in 1986. The ultimate project goals were to
empower the KSP communities and to strengthen the relative position of the
poorer men and women. The intermediate objectives were to:
To achieve
sustainable livelihood security and empowerment, the project’s designated
interventions were: the operation of a seed-bank facility to secure sustainable
supply of seed; pest control; extension; and widespread introduction of animal
traction.
In view of the
droughts that had affected livelihoods and agricultural production, the local
farmers were well aware of the importance of increasing yields and
productivity. The project regarded animal traction as central for realising the
three intermediate objectives of food security, control over resources and
empowerment. The plough was a clear option, especially since some of the
farmers in the project area had seen the benefits of the camel plough used by
affluent farmers in adjacent areas and when they seasonally migrated to work in
the areas of two large development projects: Jabal Marra and Western Savannah
(see below). Farmers clearly gave priority to the plough.
The History of Animal Traction
in the Area
The Role played by Bilateral
Government Development Projects
The Process of Participatory
Plough Development
Distribution
of Ploughs and Training of Farmers
Dissemination
of the Plough in the Project Area
Scaling Up Plough Dissemination
The
Technology Development Process
In the 1960s,
nomadic camel traders brought a buffalo mouldboard plough from Egypt to Greater
Darfur. These traders are based in Kass town in Southern Darfur, 300 km from El
Fashir. In the 1970s, traditional Darfur blacksmiths modified the plough to
suit the camel. In the late 1970s, the plough was used in rainfed plots but
only by the few farmers who could afford to rent or buy it. In the mid-80s, a
steep rise in the value of camels led to an upsurge in camel theft. The use of
camels became more and more unpopular, and the focus shifted to donkeys.
The
Technology Development Process
The Jabal Marra
Rural Development Project (JMRDP) started in 1971 with a main objective to
develop farming in Jebel Marra area. One of its interventions was the
development of animal-traction technology. The project adapted the design of
the traditional mouldboard camel plough to suit the loamy clay soils of South
Darfur, using the donkey as source of draught power. Also the Western Savannah Development
Corporation (WSDC), which operated from 1974 to 1994 in Darfur, did research in
animal traction and developed the donkey-drawn seeder/weeder.
The
Technology Development Process
Oxfam’s early
work in Kebkabiya built on these experiences. Implements designed as copies of
those used by JMRDP and WSDC were tested in Kebkabiya in 1986 and 1987 and
proved unsuccessful. In late 1987,
the Oxfam animal-traction officer was sent to Britain for further training in
animal-traction technology. He brought back a mouldboard donkey plough. Oxfam
contacted a blacksmith in Nyala named Halatu to train seven Zaghawa blacksmiths
from Kebkabiya area to make the plough. The aim was to transfer knowledge and
skills in animal-traction technology to the village blacksmiths. Acquiring
knowledge and skills for a technology demanded by all local farmers was
expected to empower the blacksmiths.
To be able to experiment with the seven mouldboard ploughs, Oxfam
established three demonstration farms in four villages in the north, west,
south and east of the Kebkabiya area on land allocated by the village councils.
In each village, the selected farm was situated on the main road to be seen by
all passing farmers. The local extension agent cultivated the demonstration
farm and was paid by the project. He also used the plough to cultivate part of
his own farm and lent the plough to other farmers who showed an interest in
trying it. Very limited success was achieved with this plough. Oxfam and the
pioneer farmers concluded that it was too heavy for the donkey and did not
speed up cultivation significantly. Nevertheless, farmers saw it as a step
forward. A small number of farmers in the demonstration farm villages showed
interest in it the following season. By mid-1988, it became clear that the
limited experience with animal-drawn implements was constrained progress in the
project’s animal-traction programme. For this reason, ITDG was contracted to
provide technical support in identifying, testing and developing a suitable
donkey implement for ploughing.
The
Technology Development Process
ITDG was
involved in the project from mid-1988 until 1990 and then again from 1992 to
date. Simon Croxton was employed by ITDG to undertake the work. He, in turn,
recruited Mohammed Siddig Suliman on secondment basis from the Regional
Ministry of Agriculture (MoA). The specific tasks of ITDG were to:
This third
objective was to be achieved by working with farmers to ensure users’
participation in developing the innovation to meet their needs and working with
and training local blacksmiths so that they could produce the implements
without external support. The blacksmiths were regarded as the only option to
ensure local manufacturing and maintenance of the ploughs, an element that was
key for the sustainability of the technology.
ITDG’s
intervention involved two aspects:
The surveys
were a useful means for project staff to build relationships with and learn
more about the communities with which they work. The surveys revealed that
there was considerable interest in the use of donkey ploughs in the project
area. All farmers who had had used them or had seen them being used by others
stated that they wanted to use them, but seemed unclear as to what the actual
benefits would be. The most commonly perceived benefits were improved water
infiltration, less drudgery and easing the labour bottleneck during weeding. A
large number of poorer households had no donkeys. There was considerable
borrowing and lending of donkeys but it was far easier to borrow a donkey for
light work and for a short period than for heavy work like cultivation. Women
headed many of the poorer households. The proportion of female-headed
households without donkeys was particularly high. Women household heads had had
the least experience with donkey plough (this included seeing a plough
working). Even in villages near demonstration plots, the number of women who
had seen ploughs in operation was relatively small.
Designing
and Developing the ARD Chisel Plough
Designing
and Developing the Mouldboard (the Kebkabiya Plough)
The
Technology Development Process
ITDG adopted the following approach in the process of designing and
developing the animal-drawn implements:
From the
beginning, the ITDG team was aware of the great restrictions on the
possibilities open for implement design. Effectively, the need was to identify
implements that were:
This meant that
it was necessary to look for a chisel-tined implement suitable for cultivating
light sandy loam that forms a hard surface crust. Such as implement could reach
the farmer at a reasonable cost, could be manufactured by village blacksmiths,
did not require a large amount of steel and could be pulled by a donkey.
Although the mouldboard is not the implement most suitable to the area, it was
decided to improve the current version developed by Oxfam in Halatu’s workshop.
The Process of Participatory
Plough Development
The
Technology Development Process
In order to
reduce the need for large quantities of scarce steel, a wooden-frame implement
was thought to be most suitable. In December 1988, ITDG hired a consultant engineer
to develop and test some basic ideas for a simple wooden-framed implement based
on a Middle Eastern ard (an ancient tool dating back to the earliest days of
settled farming). The Ethiopians have their own version of it, the maresha. This work was done in England
at the University of East Anglia’s Rural Technology Unit (RTU). Experiments
were made with various frames to develop a short-beamed implement that could be
drawn by a single animal. Once a frame had been designed, various tines – all
simple enough to be made by local blacksmiths – were tested behind a trained
mule and the power requirements for the different models were compared.
Finally, RTU identified two tine designs as showing promise and the tines were
taken to Sudan to use as patterns for blacksmiths in the Kebkabiya area to
copy.
One of these
tines was a scaled-down version of an Ethiopian maresha. The other was a simple chisel plough with sweeps. A
further brief evaluation of these in Kebkabiya demonstrated the suitability of
the tine with sweeps, and no further work was carried out with the maresha, which the English tests had
shown to have higher draught requirements (i.e. more suitable to be drawn by
oxen, as is traditionally the case in Ethiopia, than by donkeys).
The next stage involved
working with blacksmiths in Kerikir village, near Kebkabiya, to show them the
design and to see if they could manufacture the implement. The wooden frame is
very simple, consisting of two poles, and it would be possible for farmers to
make. However, certain parameters have to be met in its construction, the most
important ones being the angle at which the tine will penetrate the soil and to
ensure that the implement is symmetrical around its line of draught. As farmers
had no experience with this implement, ITDG felt that the blacksmiths should be
encouraged to make both the steel and the wooden parts in the first instance.
It may be possible to encourage farmers to make their own frames at a later
stage, once they have some experience with it. This would greatly reduce the
price of the implement, as farmers would have to purchase only the steel tip
from blacksmiths. At this stage, all work was disrupted and delayed by the
upsurge in tribal conflict in 1989.
Work on the ard
chisel plough was resumed after the 1989 wet season, this time focused on
ensuring that the local blacksmiths were fully acquainted with its design. Some
modification to the tine was necessary, as the blacksmiths found it difficult
to copy exactly the design made by the English blacksmith. By now, the Zaghawa
blacksmiths in Keriker were far more interested in the work than they had been
initially and developed their own solution to the fabrication problem. The
final cost of the ard was a little higher than expected, mainly because the
blacksmiths were now aware of how valuable they were to the project and
insisted on a fairly high charge for their labour. However, the ard still cost
only one third the price of a mouldboard plough. The project felt that paying a
slightly high price to the Zaghawa blacksmiths set no undesirable precedent.
They were clearly doing no more than exploiting their monopoly position, and
this advantage would disappear over time as the design become known by more
blacksmiths and there was more competition. Their enthusiasm remained high, and
the blacksmiths were now coming up with ideas of their own. The job of project
staff shifted to trying to maintain steady progress in the work, rather than
having to show them designs. It was a clear step towards local institutionalisation
of the PTD approach when the blacksmiths themselves began testing their
modifications and products in the field near the village. By the end of March
1990, 20 ards had been manufactured for distribution to farmers for training
before the onset of rains, so that the new implements could be used for
cultivation in the 1990 season.
The Process of Participatory
Plough Development
The
Technology Development Process
The mouldboard
plough is not a particularly suitable implement for a low rainfall area such as
Kebkabiya. It inverts the soil so that soil moisture is lost to a greater
degree than when some form of chisel plough is used. This is not such a serious
problem on wadi soils where moisture
inputs (through flooding or irrigation) and moisture-holding capacity (because
of higher clay content) are relatively high. It is of far greater importance on
lighter goz soils where the
moisture-holding properties of the soil are poor. If these implements are used
on goz soils, conditions for crop
growth become critically dependent on subsequent rainfall patterns. A further
disadvantage of the mouldboard plough is that it has a higher draught
requirement than, for example, a simple tined implement. In addition, the
mouldboard requires a higher quantity of steel. Steel is always in short supply
in Darfur. This is true in the major urban centres of Nyala and El Fashir. It
is even more difficult to obtain regular steel supplies in a remote rural area
like Kebkabiya.
Despite these
disadvantages, it was decided to continue with the development of a more
suitable mouldboard version because there were other factors to be considered.
Firstly, the farmers and blacksmiths needed several alternatives to experiment
with, so that they could choose the most appropriate technology option. In the
early stages of introducing a new technology, experimenting with several
alternatives can lead to good and quick results. Secondly, it was clear that
the training of blacksmiths in manufacturing the ard would take some time. It
was doubtful if large numbers of ards would be ready in time for the next wet
season (June–September).
A further
factor influenced the decision to continue developing the mouldboard plough.
This was the assessment that the project was suffering from a credibility problem
among farmers with regard to plough supply. Farmers had expressed very strong
interest in animal traction and knew that the project had been experimenting
with various ploughs for the previous three years without coming up with
tangible benefits. Although the suitability of the mouldboard was doubtful, the
project felt that it was better to continue with the development of a model
that could be manufactured locally. This would provide the most reliable way of
ensuring that a reasonable number of ploughs were available in time for the
next growing season. It was felt that, in an ideal world, the mouldboard would
have not been promoted, but events had overtaken the project. The JMRDP had
begun to work in the Kebkabiya area and was promoting its donkey-drawn
mouldboards and offering them for sale through their extension agents. The
mouldboard was the type of implement with which most farmers and blacksmiths
were familiar. These ploughs were available in Nyala and would almost certainly
begin arriving in Kebkabiya in small numbers. ITDG felt that it was preferable
to maintain some control over the manufacture, distribution and use of the
ploughs and this could be best done if the project were active in this field of
work. The project could not impose a technology on farmers and blacksmiths. The
most positive approach was to provide them with a choice of implements.
Work on the mouldboard was already in progress when ITDG involvement
began. Experimentation in the 1987 wet season with the latest mouldboard version
developed in Halatu’s workshop proved that the plough performed poorly. Farmers
with demonstration plots and other farmers who used borrowed ploughs observed
that the plough was too heavy for the donkey, it was not steady and stable on
the ground (it jumped out of its path), the mainframe was weak and bent during
operation, and ploughing was slow.
Closer examination of the plough design by ITDG revealed the following:
Work continued
to correct the above-mentioned defects and to develop a mouldboard plough that
suited the local conditions, met farmers’ requirements and could be
manufactured by village blacksmiths. By early 1989, the mouldboard plough had
been improved. It was lighter than the Jebel Marra donkey mouldboard, with a
longer landsite made of steel section and requiring no welding to construct.
The project’s
animal-traction officer had built up a good working relation with two of the
Zaghawa blacksmiths who were among the first seven blacksmiths trained in
Halatu’s workshop in Nyala. Both of them were based in Kerikir village near
Kebkabiya town. They were more responsive to the idea of working with the
project than the blacksmiths based directly in Kebkabiya who had also been
trained in Halatu’s workshop. The town blacksmiths were more interested in
continuing to serve the town dwellers in making gates, windows and hand tools.
Although the
Zaghawa blacksmiths were skilled artisans, the process of developing a suitable
mouldboard design took some time. It was necessary not only to avoid welded
joints but also to use the steel section that was available. A prototype of a
frame that used 2-inch waterpipe was produced, but supplies of this then dried
up. The Agricultural Bank of Sudan (ABS) had a stock of steel in Nyala, which
had been provided by the EEC as part of an aid package. The steel was marked
for use in producing animal-drawn implements. The particular steel sections and
sheeting that had been imported were not of suitable dimensions to produce the
donkey mouldboard, but this was the only reliable source of steel in Darfur at
the time. The design had to be further modified so that the available steel
could be used. Moreover, there was considerable competition for this steel.
Both WSDC and JMRDP required large quantities for their programmes and it was
only after some negotiation that the ABS in Nyala was persuaded to allow the
Kebkabiya project a reasonable amount of the steel. Steel pricing was also
quite variable. The method followed by ABS was to sell at prices fairly close
to the market price in Nyala, which fluctuated depending on supply and demand.
Accordingly, ABS developed a price structure that seemed to change each time a
new purchase was made. Despite these problems, steel was obtained and at a
price that meant that the ploughs could be sold at a similar price to those
available through JMRDP. The fact that steel was available only through the
limited and non-permanent supplies of ABS underlined the non-sustainable aspect
of using a design that requires large quantities of steel for each implement.
At this stage,
it became clear that the Zaghawa blacksmiths in Kerikir, being few in number
and busy making the ard, would not be able to manufacture a large quantity of
ploughs before the next wet season. The project decided to commission Halatu
(the Nyala blacksmith) to mass-produce 100 ploughs because, at that time, he
was the only person able to accomplish the work in the time left. Halatu is an
astute businessman and drives a hard bargain, and some fairly tough
negotiations were necessary to obtain a fair price for this work. In addition,
the standard of the work left much to be desired and some of the ploughs had to
be modified locally after delivery. Actually, the 100 ploughs made by Halatu
resembled more the JMRDP plough than the plough developed locally by the
project together with the blacksmiths and farmers. This had happened in spite
of the fact that the ITDG national engineer spent long periods in Nyala
supervising work progress and quality control. This experience reinforced the
conviction that future plough manufacture would be far more satisfactory if
local blacksmiths could do it.
Before the
beginning of the wet season, the 100 ploughs were ready for distribution but
the work was disrupted by the tribal conflict and all staff left the project
area by June 1989.The ploughs were not distributed in that season. In early
1990, work resumed and it was decided to commission another batch of ploughs
from Halatu. The ABS still had a small amount of steel. The project wanted to
obtain as much of the remainder as possible, which turned out to be enough for
another 100 ploughs. This time, Halatu was asked to make mouldboard ploughs that
were copies of the JMRDP design. Halatu had more experience with this design
and it was hoped that the quality of the finished product would therefore be
better. It would also provide further insights on plough performance, as
farmers could then test three designs (two mouldboard designs and the ard).
The Process of Participatory
Plough Development
The
Technology Development Process
The project had
only one leather harness stuffed with straw. This was used to harness the
project’s own donkey working on demonstration plots. The original idea had been
to copy this design, which is similar to the one for horses used for carting in
Nyala and El Fashir. It had originally been envisaged that local
leather-workers could make collars of this type. However, the project’s collar
did not fit the project’s donkey well: it was too big and needed constant
adjustment while the animal was working. This underlined the drawbacks of using
this design, which must be made-to-measure for the individual animal or must be
modified (and made yet more complex) to allow adjustment for different animals.
When the project was working with the blacksmiths in Keriker, the plough needed
to be tried out in a nearby field. The project’s collar was not available and
the donkey was hitched to the plough with ropes attached to a riding saddle.
Although this method is not an efficient way of utilising the donkey’s power,
it worked relatively well and demonstrated the poor performance of the
ill-fitting leather collar. Pricing the leather harness also showed that the
high cost would make its widespread use unlikely. Therefore, simple harnesses were
investigated.
The project team thought that a breast-band harness would be the best
bet, as this style of harness suits equines (e.g. donkeys), which – unlike
bovines (e.g. oxen) – can pull from the chest. A breast-band harness is easier
to make than a collar, and it is fairly simple to ensure a good fit on the
animal. The main criterion is to ensure that the animal’s windpipe is not
constricted. Various materials were considered. Nylon webbing about 2 inches
wide was available in the market. It is an inexpensive material that is widely
used to tie baggage to camels. It is quite soft and therefore preferable to
leather, which tends to become hard and crack as a result of the animal’s sweat
drying on it, causing sores to develop on the animals as a result of chaffing.
ITDG used the nylon webbing to make a breast-band harness. A double layer,
stitched along the edges and stuffed with cotton, rags or straw, crosses the
donkey’s chest. This is attached to single straps across the donkey’s shoulder
to keep the harness in place. The traces to the implement are tied to each end
of the strip around the chest. This harness works well, is easy to adjust and
is now being promoted among farmers using donkey ploughs.
The Process
of Participatory Plough Development
The
Technology Development Process
The
Technology Development Process
By the end of March 1990, the project felt that enough ploughs (200
mouldboards and 20 ards) were in stock to concentrate on distribution and
farmers’ training. This was done with the cooperation of the centre committees (see
below), the VEAs and the project’s extension officers.
The Process of Participatory
Plough Development
The
Technology Development Process
The results of the socio-economic survey in 1989–90 suggested that a
large minority of households would not be able to afford a plough at any price,
but also that a sizeable number of farmers were very keen to obtain a plough
and did not consider the price to be a major obstacle. The project thought that
the ploughs should be sold at a price that represents their market value. To
subsidise the price would have undermined the blacksmiths’ ability to sell
their own ploughs in the future. This would have run counter to the project’s
overall philosophy, which stresses sustainability without the need for outside
assistance or subsidy. In addition, any subsidy might jeopardise or delay
spread of the technology in the future. The mouldboard design had been
frequently tested, both in Kebkabiya on the demonstration plots and elsewhere
in Darfur by WSDC and JMRDP. Many farmers had seen the plough in action and a
few had borrowed one during the 1988 wet season. The modifications evolved with
the Zaghawa blacksmiths were merely means of making manufacture possible in a
village context but had not dramatically changed the implement. Farmers were
not being asked to spend their money on an untried implement. The enthusiasm of
a large number of farmers reinforced this view.
The project decided to offer the mouldboard plough for sale and fixed a
price of Ls 450 ($US 22.50). It would allocate ploughs to each centre committee
to make distribution fairly even, the centre committees would decide which
individuals could purchase the limited number of ploughs available. All
conversations with farmers had suggested that those who first bought ploughs
would be those most able to afford taking the financial risk involved and that,
if they proved to be successful, other farmers would follow their lead in
subsequent seasons. The project planned to consider, at a later stage, methods
of providing the less affluent households with ploughs. A different approach
was proposed for the ard. As this was an untried technology, it would be
offered to interested farmers on a sale or return basis. This would permit
farmers to try them out without having to take the financial risk.
Distribution was made through the Kebkabiya Smallholders Charitable
Society (KSCS). The society started in 1986 as a semiformal project management
committee to link the Oxfam project team and the beneficiaries at the
grassroots. Centre committees were established at village-council level,
primarily to help deliver inputs and services, to facilitate implementation of
other project activities and to take over implementation in the future. The
idea to institutionalise the project management committee came from its members
in 1989; in 1990, it was registered as a charitable society.
The project area was divided into 16 centres covering a total of 65
villages. According to the suggested approaches for plough distribution, centre
committees in the 13 centres with suitable soils for animal traction were asked
to select farmers who would buy the ploughs and 173 mouldboard ploughs were
distributed for sale and 20 ards were distributed on a sale or return basis.
An attempt was
made to ensure that women farmers would have equal access to the ploughs
available, but this was not as easy as anticipated. Many female-headed
households are among the least affluent in the community and this alone
prevented many from obtaining ploughs. In addition, many women expressed doubts
in their ability to manage ploughs. There was one marked experience, in Shouba
village, where the women’s committee pooled resources to purchase a plough that
could be shared. Later on and from interviews with women and men farmers in
Shouba and Azagarfa villages, we came to know that ploughs obtained by male
family members were also used by women (sister or wife) to cultivate their
plots.
The Process of Participatory
Plough Development
The
Technology Development Process
Distribution and training started in March 1990. Training was conducted
with the cooperation of the project’s extension officers and VEAs. In each
village, training started with plough distribution and continued for two days.
Training covered the following:
The Process of Participatory
Plough Development
The
Technology Development Process
The project had
hoped to monitor farmers’ reactions to the plough during the 1990 wet season,
but it was difficult to move around the area because flooded wadis frequently made routes impassable.
In addition, at this time of the year, farmers spend long hours in the field
and it would therefore be difficult to find the individuals using the ploughs.
Nevertheless, a tour was made of parts of the project area in August 1990,
specifically to talk to farmers who had used ploughs and to obtain some
feedback soon after they had cultivated. As expected, it was not always
possible to find all those who had used the ploughs.
The farmers
were not satisfied at all with the ard plough. The responses and comments of
both men and women farmers were much the same: the ard was difficult to adjust,
and the ridges formed were very small and were washed out after the first
showers. Accordingly, the ard chisel plough was rejected as an option from the
first season.
With regard to
the mouldboard, some of the 173 ploughs distributed were typical of the JMRDP
plough and the others were a mixture of the JMRDP design and the design
developed by the project. The six farmers who could be interviewed responded
positively about the mouldboard, although with some reservations, mentioning
drawbacks in manufacturing and design. The main benefits identified were
improved infiltration of rainfall, as the plough broke the soil’s surface
crust, and the large size of the ridges, which resisted washing out by runoff,
thus preserving more water. Some farmers mentioned that the ploughing made
subsequent weeding easier. Although the number of farmers interviewed was
small, the positive responses were quite encouraging. As all farmers had paid
for the mouldboard, it was unlikely that they had responded positively merely
to please project staff. Farmers’ experiences are the most valuable and
informative means of evaluating the performance of the various designs in the
field, as they are using the implements under realistic conditions that can
never be exactly replicated in the trials done by project staff.
Despite the
positive responses, farmers faced some problems in operation and mentioned the
followed drawbacks of the mouldboard plough:
Nevertheless,
the farmers continued to use the plough because of the benefits realised in terms
of productivity and increased cultivated area.
The Process of Participatory
Plough Development
The
Technology Development Process
The
Technology Development Process
In 1991, ITDG was
not involved in the KSP and no work was done to improve plough manufacturing
and to produce new ploughs of better quality than the batch distributed in
1990. By November 1991, farmers had increased their complaints about the
drawbacks of the mouldboard plough in terms of its heavy weight and the poor
finishing and quality of steel. ITDG therefore became involved again as of
January 1992. From this time onwards, the work was focused on disseminating the
plough technology by:
In February
1992, training of local blacksmiths was started in Kassara village (30 km west
of Kebkabiya) under the supervision of the ITDG engineer, first with the two
blacksmiths who had already been trained in Halatu’s workshop and had worked
most closely with the project. As a result of this additional training, 18
Kebkabiya ploughs were produced. ITDG supplied the raw materials. Through the
training process, the blacksmiths’ knowledge about plough manufacturing and
operation increasingly improved. They were applying their own new ideas and
considering farmers’ observations to improve the plough. Car scrap springs and
scrap steel sections were used for the first time.
All 18 ploughs were distributed on credit in the 1992 growing season
through KSCS. Payment was in two instalments, 50% down payment and the balance
to be paid at harvest. Project staff together with VDC members and VEAs used
different methods to monitor farmers’ responses, such as:
Farmers gave very positive observations regarding overall performance of
the ploughs compared to the 1990 batch manufactured in Nyala. Still, they made
some negative observations about bending of the frog, which was made from light
steel section, and the plough arm (handle), which was too short and required an
additional effort from the farmer to cultivate in a straight line.
In early 1993,
the two trained blacksmiths from Kassara worked with another group of seven
blacksmiths from Sigring village, and focused on overcoming the defects of the
frog and handle. Heavier steel sheets were used to make the frog and the handle
was lengthened. They made 70 ploughs. As before, ITDG supplied the raw
materials and KSCS paid for labour and distributed the ploughs on credit. The
fund accumulating from plough sales was managed by KSCS and used as seed money
for a revolving fund. In this year, farmers’ complaints related to finishing
were very minor and blacksmiths immediately made repairs. As of 1994, demand
for ploughs started to increase. Table 1 shows the number of ploughs
manufactured and distributed between 1990 and 2000 by KSCS through 13 village
centres.
Table 1: Number
of ploughs distributed by KSCS
|
Year |
1990 |
1991 |
1992 |
1993 |
1994 |
1995 |
1996 |
1997 |
1998 |
1999 |
2000 |
Total |
|
No. |
193 |
109 |
18 |
70 |
95 |
260 |
250 |
55 |
63 |
101 |
150 |
1364 |
Source: KSCS records
Training of
blacksmiths continued, using trained blacksmiths as trainers. Now, in 2001,
there are 30 trained blacksmiths in Kassara alone. The village has become a
source of trainers, facilitating technology dissemination in KSP project
villages and in villages covered by the LINKS project. Between 1993 and 1999,
Kassara blacksmiths trained 67 blacksmiths from Sigring, Kirung, Dar Elsalam,
Azagarfa and Bardi village centres, with the project facilitating the links.
The number of ploughs manufactured and distributed during the lifetime
of KSP was greater than the number in Table 1, as blacksmiths started to
manufacture and sell ploughs on their own. The drop in number of ploughs
distributed by KSCS between 1997 and 2000 was mainly due to the fact that the
blacksmiths society and its members were selling directly to farmers without
KSCS support. KSCS used to contract blacksmiths as an informal group to
manufacture ploughs. It provided raw materials and paid for the labour against
the delivery of ploughs. In this process, a blacksmith’s return to labour (i.e.
net profit) was Ls 5000 per plough. As of 1998, the blacksmiths started to
manufacture and sell ploughs outside of the KSCS contract and realised a net
profit of Ls 17,000 per plough.
Scaling
Up Plough Manufacturing and Distribution
Institutional
and Capacity Building of CBOs
The
Technology Development Process
Dissemination of the animal-traction technology to other areas in and
beyond Kebkabiya province was continued through the LINKS project after the end
of KSP. The main objective of LINKS was to explore and develop effective
methodologies for transferring local skills and knowledge to other rural areas.
The strategy was to build on the success of the work with KSCS and disseminate
more widely the technology options (for better weeding and post-harvest
processing of agricultural products) and experience gained.
The role of ITDG was to facilitate the spread of technical knowledge in
animal traction from one rural area to the other. In addition to animal
traction, terrace cultivation and use of contour lines were introduced as
adaptations of ploughing techniques from KSP, with the aim of minimising soil
erosion that resulted from runoff and from soil inversion during ploughing.
Terrace construction was also meant to increase soil moisture to counteract the
negative effect on the crops caused by long dry spells during the wet season.
The LINKS project was designed and implemented in the period 1996–98.
The project covered three areas:
It was an aim
of the project to spread outside Darfur, but it occasionally provided technical
support to other areas. This included support for Oxfam in the Red Sea Hills
about 2500 km away and to Plan International in White Nile State over 1500 km
away.
Scaling Up Plough Manufacturing
and Distribution
The
Technology Development Process
Out of its
office in Khartoum, ITDG Sudan coordinates and networks with many institutions
in a range of technology areas including food production and animal traction.
ITDG organised workshops and exhibitions in Khartoum to demonstrate its
fieldwork including the work on the plough. Many NGOs showed interest in
replicating the success of the plough. Recently, FAO and UNICEF negotiated the
possibility of training blacksmiths in, among other things, plough
manufacturing in southern Kordufan and southern Sudan. Our advice, based on our
experience, is to regard the PTD approach as a major determinant of success in
adapting any new technology, especially to ensure sustainability of the
continued technology development process in the rural areas.
Scaling Up Plough Manufacturing
and Distribution
The
Technology Development Process
ITDG organised
training in making and using ploughs in all three project areas. The number of
blacksmiths trained initially by skilled blacksmiths from Kassara was 10 from
Jebel Si, 10 from Azagarfa and 8 from Dar Elsalam. There are now 25 trained
blacksmiths in Jebel Si, 30 in Azagrfa and at least 8 in Dar Elsalam, all of
whom are manufacturing ploughs.
Table 2 shows the number of ploughs manufactured and distributed in these
three areas. Ploughs were distributed through farmers’ or blacksmiths’
societies. Credit arrangements and conditions, which were determined by the
CBOs without external interference, differ between sites. For example, in Jebel
Si, payment is in two instalments and the plough is confiscated if the farmer
fails to pay the second one. In Azagarfa, the repayment rate was 61% in 1999
and 2000 on account of low rainfall and low production.
Table 2: Number of ploughs distributed between 1997 and 2000
|
Area |
1997 |
1998 |
1999 |
2000 |
Total |
|
Jebel Si |
65 |
63 |
102 |
102 |
332 |
|
Azagarfa |
- |
42 |
65 |
14 |
121 |
|
Dar Elsalam |
149 |
20 |
98 |
152 |
419 |
|
Total |
214 |
125 |
265 |
268 |
872 |
Source: LINKS evaluation report
Scaling Up Plough Manufacturing
and Distribution
The
Technology Development Process
When the
project began, the staff first met the community leaders and organised group
meetings with them. When they developed trust that the people coming from
outside would help them, they collaborated and nominated the members of their
informal committees. Later, the formation and support of CBOs became the
project approach. Through time, the number of CBOs has grown to six blacksmiths
societies, three societies for manufacturing and selling intermediate means of
transport and 63 village committees. The VDCs are involved in facilitating
dissemination of the different types of technology adopted/adapted by the
communities. Group formation is based of the people’s interest in formalising
their informal CBOs. ITDG facilitated the links between the advisors, the
concerned government departments and the community members. Constitutions for
the associations were drafted. The project then facilitated strategic planning
processes for most of the CBOs, facilitated the necessary training in
management and book-keeping for all of them and provided financial and material
support to some of them. The support was mostly in the form of roofing
materials, doors and windows for their office and storage buildings, while the
community provided bricks and labour. Many of the CBOs have now acquired
premises and are actively involved in developing their communities by
identifying needs, establishing links, seeking and managing funds, developing
technologies, mobilising members, and running and managing necessary campaigns.
Blacksmiths
Charitable Societies Established. In 1999 the
Kassara blacksmiths formed and registered a charitable society with the main
aims to supply its members with steel and to assist them in marketing. Total
membership is 64 blacksmiths, of which 30 are trained in plough manufacturing.
The society’s initial capital was formed of share dividends and members’
contributions (Ls 2500/month). ITDG supplied it with steel at a value of Ls
8,000,000 (approximately GBP 2000).This was used to manufacture 350 ploughs, 75%
of which were sold, and a large number of hand implements. In 2000, the society
procured 5 tons of steel and other raw materials. It either contracted its
members to manufacture implements or supplied them with raw materials for cash
or on credit. To increase its sales of ploughs, the society offers members who
sell ploughs in neighbouring periodical markets a 10% discount. Currently, the
society’s assets are worth Ls 14,000,000 (about GBP 3500) in cash, raw
materials or finished products (99 ploughs in stock ready for sale next
season). In addition to seed money, ITDG provided training in
book-keeping and management. As a result of this training, the society now
maintains satisfactory records for all its financial transactions and
inventories.
The Azagarfa Blacksmiths Society was registered in 1998 with 43 members,
34 of whom are trained in plough manufacturing. ITDG gave the society support
similar to that provided to Kassara, such as support in constructing premises,
technical and management training and a working capital that was used to buy
steel in the capital Khartoum. The society had completed the following
contracts in 1998 and 1999:
This society
realised a net profit of Ls 1,700,000 or 34%. In 2001, the society was
contracted by the World Food Programme to make 750 sets of hand implements for
a value of $US2000. The implements will be used in Food-for-Work
rainwater-harvesting activities.
In 2000, the 46
blacksmiths who were trained from within and around Jebel Si formed a
charitable society, which is now being supported by ITDG in terms of logistical
support, access to raw material and management training, including book-keeping
and credit management.
Blacksmiths
Societies in the making. In 1999 20 blacksmiths were trained in Kutum and
provided with the necessary support. Kutum was the site of a German-funded
agricultural project that handed over its assets to the Kutum Agricultural
Extension Society (KAES), a CBO developed and supported by the German Agency
for Technical Cooperation (GTZ). KAES now monitors and gives field support to
the Kutum blacksmiths after they had received technical support from ITDG. KAES
and ITDG contacted the local authorities and managed to obtain a piece of land
for the blacksmiths in Kutum market. ITDG supported the building of a
blacksmiths’ shed. The group now consists of 47 blacksmiths, who are trying to
register as a charitable society.
Thirteen of the
36 blacksmiths in the Dar Elsalam area were trained through ITDG. They are
spread throughout numerous villages. The project is now working to train more
in the area and to help them form an association to facilitate support to them.
Village
Development Committees. ITDG has worked in 186 villages (85 during KSP and 101
during the LINKS and DARLIVE projects) through their VDCs. These play a vital
role in community development by organising their people and supervising the
building of infrastructure such as seed-/tool-banks[1],
through which the villagers can access ploughs, among other things. In all the
villages in which ITDG works in North Darfur, it supports VDCs by, for example,
building premises including seed-/tool-banks, providing the necessary tools and
seeds, and giving training in management and agricultural extension. The VDCs
in all villages are now capable of planning and executing their villages'
development activities.
Table 3: Blacksmith CBO membership
|
Name of area / village |
Total No. of members |
No. trained |
Untrained members |
|
1.
Kassara |
64 |
30 |
34 |
|
2.
Jebel Si |
46 |
23 |
23 |
|
3.
Azagarfa |
43 |
34 |
|
|
CBOs seeking registration |
|
|
|
|
1.
Kutum |
47 |
20 |
27 |
|
2.
Dar Elsalam |
36 |
13 |
23 |
|
3.
Kebkabiya |
57 |
10 |
47 |
|
El Fashir* |
? |
6 |
? |
|
Grand total |
293 |
136 |
154 |
Source:
compiled from monitoring data
* Six
blacksmiths were trained during early days of the project
? Large unknown
number of blacksmiths in Fashir town
Scaling Up Plough Manufacturing
and Distribution
The
Technology Development Process
Sustaining
the Technology and Institutionalising the PTD Approach
The introduction of the animal-traction technology into the area has a
multitude of beneficial impacts on the farmers, blacksmiths and the
environment.
To date, over 3000 implements have been distributed to farmers. More
farmers are expected to apply animal traction as the technology becomes more
widespread in farming. A pictorial manual on how to use and maintain the plough
was printed and distributed to farmers. Use of the plough resulted in improved
tillage and seedbed preparation; increased water infiltration and timeliness in
land preparation, weeding and planting; reduced drudgery; and savings in labour
and time. By using the plough, some farmers cultivate and plant simultaneously.
Others reported that ploughing made subsequent weeding easier. Furthermore, the
introduction of rainwater harvesting combined with animal traction helped to
improve yields and meant that growing tomato, okra and pulses was no longer
limited to wadi land; it was extended
to land with sandy loam soils. This was also promoted by training VEAs who, in
turn, trained other farmers. Some farmers suggested alternatives for laying out
terraces, by using a long rope instead of the wooden A-frame to determine the
direction of the slope. This was then taken up in the whole area. Thus, farmers
themselves apply a PTD approach to technology adaptation.
The effects of wider use of the animal-traction technology were
reflected in:
Time needed for
cultural operations was reduced by more than 50%. Table 4 shows the time saved
in growing millet, the main staple food in the area.
Table 4: Time
savings in producing millet at different project sites and on different soil
types
|
Village |
Soil type |
No. of days using hand hoe |
No. of days using plough |
No. of days saved by men & women farmers |
% saving |
|
Azagarfa |
Alluvial |
7 |
2 |
5 |
71% |
|
Ed el Beida |
Alluvial |
8 |
4 |
4 |
50% |
|
Shouba |
Alluvial |
5.5 |
3.5 |
2 |
80% |
|
Shouba |
Hard sandy loan |
4 |
2 |
2 |
50% |
|
Jemmeiza |
Hard sandy loan |
3.5 |
1 |
2.5 |
71% |
|
Jemmeiza |
Alluvial |
4 |
2 |
2 |
50% |
|
Bardi |
Hard sandy loan |
4 |
1.5 |
3 |
75% |
|
Ardeiba |
Alluvial |
5 |
2 |
3 |
60% |
|
Average |
|
4.5 |
|
2.6 |
58% |
Source: adapted from LINKS
evaluation report, November 1998
Table 5: Percentage increases in cultivated area resulting from plough
use
|
Case
No. |
Area
without plough (mk*) in 1992 season |
Area
with plough (mk) In
1993 season |
%
increase in cultivated area |
|
1 |
6 |
13 |
100% |
|
2 |
2 |
4 |
100% |
|
3 |
2 |
4 |
100% |
|
4 |
3 |
9 |
300% |
*mk = makhamma ( 0.74 ha)
Source: ITDG Support to KSP evaluation report, June 1994
Time and labour savings and timeliness in cultural operations allowed
farmers to increase cropping area by 100% (Table 5) and to diversify crops to
include, for example, groundnut, sesame and chickpea. Groundnut production,
which has high labour requirements for planting and weeding, was first
commenced with the use of the Kebkabiya plough. Farmers now sell the crop raw
to generate cash or extract oil from it, using the service offered by owners of
small presses in the area. Part of the oil is kept to meet household needs and
the rest is sold, generating more cash as a result of the value added to the
produce. This practice is now widespread in the area for both groundnut and
sesame.
Total
production of millet has increased on account of increased cropping area and
productivity. Table 6 shows a comparison between productivity of sorghum in
parcels on which the plough was used in a poor rainfall season in different
villages and productivity in other parcels in those villages, when the hand hoe
was used for cultivating in a good wet season. The increase in productivity
ranges from 20% to 60%. The wide range gap could be attributed to variations in
level of soil fertility.
Table 6: Sorghum productivity in plough parcels compared to hand hoe
parcels
|
Village |
Average yield / mk (in sacks) |
% increase |
|
|
|
Cultivating with hand tools in good
season |
Cultivating with plough in a bad
season |
|
|
Id Al Biedha |
3.5 |
5.3 |
50% |
|
Arieda |
4 |
4.8 |
20% |
|
Wadaa |
4 |
5.3 |
32% |
|
Diewanha |
4 |
5 |
25% |
|
Keriker |
18 |
25 |
39% |
|
Shouba |
5 |
8 |
60% |
Source: IT Darfur Newsletter No. 1, February 1998
The increases
in total production and crop diversity have lead to increases in both food
production and farmers’ income. The household’s asset base for livelihood
security has also improved in terms of savings, increased ownership of
livestock and larger reserves of millet. These effects were reflected in
reduced household vulnerability to droughts. In meetings held in February 2001,
farmers in Shouba (Kebkabiya) and Bardi (Jebel Si) reported that, compared with
the famous drought of 1984, seasonal migration in dry years dropped after the
plough became widely used for cultivation and new crops were introduced.
Farmers in Bardi said that most of the families stayed in the village because
they had some millet reserves from the previous season. They added that
diversification in crops gave them new sources of income such as dried tomato,
dried okra, cooking oil and onion. Because they had additional income from
selling crops and savings from producing other foods (oil, onion, cowpea,
chickpea etc), they could buy millet and sorghum from the market for daily
consumption and keep their own produce for bad years.
Blacksmiths in
the area, who mainly come from the Zaghawa tribe not indigenous to Darfur, face
social marginalisation and exclusion. (The Arabic word for blacksmith, haddad, is considered an insult.) They
have their own village or a separate camp in a village; they suffer from lack
of representation in local community institutions and are often subject to
discrimination in allocation of resources such as land. Intermarriage is
discouraged and blacksmiths are forced to live on the edges of settlements with
less access to services such as water and education. Blacksmiths benefit from
the animal-traction technology in two ways – as producers and as users –
because they are also farmers.
A total of 136
blacksmiths were trained to make this new marketable product. By enhancing the
recognition of blacksmiths’ skills and increasing their value (through the
production of improved agricultural tools for increased productivity), the
blacksmiths’ market has become diversified, their social status improved and
their income increased. This is reflected clearly in their general appearance.
Azagarfa
blacksmiths estimated an average net return of Ls 300,000 per individual in the
main season (June–August) in 1997, before they started making ploughs.
Afterwards, the estimated average was Ls 416,000 per main season, an increase
in seasonal income of 38%. Return to labour for Kassara blacksmiths, when KSCS
was supplying them with steel, was Ls 5000 per plough. Their return to labour
increased by 80% to Ls 9000 per plough when steel supplies were provided by
their society. Currently, those who work on their own are realising Ls 17000
return to labour per plough, a difference of 88%.
Sustainability
of such high returns is determined by the market size, stability in the price
of scrap steel and skills dissemination. The size of market for the plough will
continue to grow, as there is high demand for it in Darfur, and will grow even
further if demand is created in adjacent areas with similar climatic and soil
conditions, such as Kordufan. The diversification of types and sizes of ploughs
will also affect the demand for them. The Azagarfa blacksmiths have developed a
larger version of the mouldboard to be drawn by a camel. They have already
received some requests for more ploughs. This also reflects the creativity of
the blacksmiths, a talent that was refreshed after they received recognition
from the people around them.
Evidence of the
social impact on the blacksmith community, as a marginalised group, may take
some time to materialise but signs are starting to appear in Kassara villages.
People have begun to send their children to school. In 1999, only one child
from the village was in school in a neighbouring village. The number increased
to six in the year 2000. Sixteen blacksmiths reported that they managed to
purchase wadi lands, which is more
fertile and expensive. Seventy percent of those who use to migrate during the
off-season to earn some income are now settled as a result of a year-round secured
income in the village.
Use of the plough is not expected to increase the cultivated area
dramatically, since this is limited by the maximum area that a household can
weed. Use of the plough in the sandy loam hard-surface soils increases water
infiltration, reduces run-off and reduces soil erosion, compared with hand
hoeing. Combining rainwater-harvesting techniques with ploughing has enhanced
these advantages. Use of the plough encouraged farmers to shift from the
fragile goz soil to the fertile wadi soil, giving the sandy soils time
to recover.
Tractor use is very limited in the area. It is also not recommended for
the local soils. The donkey plough has limited the use of tractors for tillage,
because the cost of hiring a tractor is high (Ls 35000–40000/mk), equal to ten times the rent of the
plough and almost equal to the cost of the plough and to the value of a donkey.
Farmers of Azagarfa revealed that some farmers in the village council had been
using a tractor for ploughing but they have not seen the tractor for two years
since the introduction of the donkey plough.
Women are at
the centre of the development process, in the delivery of training and
services, capacity building in local institutions, and links to trade and
policy-makers. The increase in area cultivated dictated by drought has
increased women’s workload and placed increasing pressure on the natural
resource base. The introduction of the plough has had a positive impact on
women in a number of aspects:
Developing
Roles and Skills to Sustain the Technology
Introducing
PTD within the Curricula of Centres of Education
Institutionalising
the PTD approach
Lobbying
and Advocacy of the Plough and the Process
Cost
Effectiveness in Developing and Disseminating the New Plough
Sustaining
the Technology and Institutionalising the PTD Approach
ITDG uses the term “institutionalisation” to refer to both a technology
and the approach to developing it. Institutionalisation of a technology occurs
when a demand for it is created among the users and its supply (in terms of the
final product, raw materials, technical knowledge and other related services)
is in equilibrium with demand.
In Kebkabiya,
institutionalisation of the technology is heading towards maturity. Different
institutions have participated in the process since the early stages of
technology development. International NGOs (Oxfam and ITDG) provided technical
expertise and financial resources, while CBOs (farmers’ associations, KSCS and
blacksmiths associations) provided their vocational skills, experience,
experimentation and observation capacities, and feedback.
ITDG realised
the importance of long-term training so that the development, production and
marketing of the plough through normal marketign channels could be sustained.
During the course of the project, three technicians and engineers were trained
in technology development. Two of them are still involved and their knowledge
has been retained in the area, as they are from the region. A total of 120
local blacksmiths were trained in plough manufacture. Selected members of their
associations were trained in procurement and transport of raw materials from as
far as Khartoum, and other members in book-keeping and management of revolving
funds.
Roles and
responsibilities gradually shifted during the project. After the donkey plough
had been developed and farmers had witnessed its benefits, ITDG and Oxfam were
initially responsible for technical training and arranging supply of raw
materials, while KSCS simply distributed the ploughs. After the project was
handed over to KSCS, it assumed also the role of securing supply of raw
materials, while ITDG focused on building the capacity of blacksmiths
associations and disseminating skills to other rural areas. Over time, KSCS
shifted its focus to other activities such as strengthening capacities of local
communities to produce (e.g. through harvesting rainwater for cropping and
domestic use), health education and other social services. Now the individual
blacksmiths and their associations procure the raw materials from Khartoum and
other cities and disseminate both the skills and the technology. Since 1991, the
number of skilled blacksmiths has increased from two to 120, working in pairs
in 60 workshops in the project area to produce ploughs and other hand
implements. The market, without any external assistance, drives the process of
dissemination and ensures sustainability of the technology.
In many
villages, the project developed seed- and tool-banks. The villagers built the
stores with project support. The stores were then stocked with some seeds and a
variety of tools such as hoes, shovels, wheelbarrows and ploughs. Farmers can
access seeds and tools by purchasing in cash, in kind or on credit, by renting
and even by borrowing, in the case of poor people who are known to the
community leaders who manage the stores.
Sustaining
the Technology and Institutionalising the PTD Approach
Involvement of
universities and research institutions came late, because the intervention
started as a consultancy with an agreed output of a report on a technical and
socio-economic survey. The NGO way of funding is erratic, depending on the
donors’ willingness to fund, usually on a short-term basis (1–2 years).
In 1998 and
1999, respectively, the Faculty of Agriculture of Khartoum University and the
Rural Extension Department of the Faculty of Agriculture of Sudan University
developed a curriculum for “Appropriate Technology” including sections on
“Animal Traction” as part of an “Agricultural Tools” course. Both approached
ITDG for support in curriculum development and acquisition of necessary
literature. The course is intensive and incorporates knowledge of all
agricultural tools and equipment, their relevance to the physical and
socio-economic environment, and methods of technology development, including
the PTD approach. In 1999, the University of West Darfur approached ITDG for a
cooperation programme involving, among other things, development of hardware
technology, including the plough. El Fashir University came on board in 1996
after the evaluation of the project’s first phase and organised a workshop to
present the findings. It agreed to participate in development of hardware
technology, but a restructuring of the university, which led to its split into
El Fashir and Nyala Universities, brought these good intentions to an end.
Later, El Fashir University signed a memorandum of understanding to work on
developing technologies appropriate to the region. Financial constraints
prevented full realisation of the above-mentioned agreements, but the chance
still remains to pursue them.
In 1999, the
Rural Development Department of Gezira University drew up a curriculum on NGOs’
roles in rural development, including their methods and approaches such as
participatory needs assessment, participatory monitoring and evaluation, and
PTD. The main example is the Kebkabiya Society with its case of plough
development.
Recently, the
agricultural research station at Gezira, Central Sudan, was contacted by the
project and was given an oxen mouldboard plough for testing and fabrication.
The link of Professor Mamoon Daw ElBait with Gezira University will involve
this institution in the process as well. The project regards this step as
progress towards involving research and teaching institutes in the process of
technology development.
Sustaining
the Technology and Institutionalising the PTD Approach
Institutionalisation of the PTD approach has come about as a normal step
in the development process. The structures set up by the ITDG project,
particularly at the level of farmers and blacksmiths, has helped in
facilitating this.
VEAs. The project
developed participatory extension services because such services were not
available in the area. The locally nominated VEAs now carry out their normal
activities in advising farmers and making links between them and the extension
head office in El Fashir. Some slightly richer farmers in Azagarfa, who have
camels and larger landholdings, expressed a need for a camel plough. Their VEAs
transmitted this request to ITDG staff members, who easily came into an
agreement with blacksmiths for designing a slightly larger version of the
plough to be tested for use by camels. From a very early stage, the trial
proved successful. This early success was mostly due to the experience built up
by the different stakeholders (farmers, extension agents, blacksmiths and ITDG
engineer) in the PTD process. (Even the project camel used in the trial was
experienced, as it has initially been operating a camel ganni or oil press!) The VDCs who were trained in participatory
methods such as PRA became capable of assessing needs, monitoring their
activities by recording their observations and participating in evaluation of
the work. They are now successfully managing their organisations with no direct
support from ITDG, only the annual audit of their seed- and tool-banks. KSCS is
now a mature local NGO with advanced strategic and operational systems in addition
to its own fundraising and financial systems.
Blacksmiths Associations. The
blacksmiths’ response to the VEAs’ request for a larger plough demonstrated the
efficiency of the built-in PTD approach. ITDG has encouraged them by providing
all necessary support without creating dependency among them. They built their
own premises with relatively little support from ITDG, which consisted of
providing corrugated metal for the roof, while they moulded and fired their own
bricks. ITDG also provided money for a revolving fund to help the blacksmiths
acquire raw materials. They now operate the fund successfully, while ITDG does
only the annual auditing of accounts. They keep their own records and monitor
their business progress. The latest audit of the Kassara Society showed that
their capital is now doubled.
Sustaining the Technology and Institutionalising the PTD
Approach
The government was involved since the very early stages in 1988/89, when
ITDG and Oxfam approached the Darfur State MoA. It seconded the first national
agricultural engineer, Mohammed Siddig Suliman, who still works for the
project. Since then, the MoA has continued to show interest in the technology
and the PTD approach, including dissemination.
After the
evaluation of the first animal-traction project in 1993/94, ITDG organised two
workshops in El Fashir and Khartoum, where the evaluation findings were shared
with other interested NGOs and institutions. The very positive results
encouraged many institutions, mainly governmental, to think along the same PTD
lines. The MoA very recently established a Department of Technology Development
led by a professor in agricultural engineering from the research field. Last
year, the State Government supported 200 poor farmers by acquiring ploughs
through the Zakat Fund, which is an Islamic Government Grant Fund directed
towards supporting poor people. The draft strategy of the Federal MoA has
incorporated an output of promoting ploughs in relevant geographical areas in
the country.
Sustaining the Technology and Institutionalising the PTD
Approach
Since 1988, the
work on the plough has always been integrated with the other development
acitvities of the project and has not been treated separately. It is therefore
difficult to define exactly how much money went into developing and
disseminating the plough. The following are only approximate assumptions. The
project has been working for 13 years. In the first two years, GBP 20,000 was
used annually to support it. The total amount of money spent in the
animal-traction work, including some overhead, is about GBP 300,000. The
benefits derived from these costs can be summarised as follows:
If the 3000
ploughs would be regarded as the only output, the cost per plough is about GBP
100. Achieving the above-mentioned quantitative achievements by investing GBP
100 is very cost effective, without even considering its multiplier effect. The
greatest achievement is involving the community in the PTD approach, which
brings much positive impact, since the approach is institutionalised within the
community structures. The impact on the environment and empowering of
marginalised groups such as women and blacksmiths is also huge.
Sustaining
the Technology and Institutionalising the PTD Approach
An experience
of so many years’ involvement in PTD has lead to numerous lessons being learnt
through the process. The following are some of the most important ones:
This case study
shows that the PTD approach that was adopted was effective in the particular
setting of Western Sudan. It reveals the crucial importance of involving
stakeholders in such a process. It gives evidence that local rural artisans,
such as the blacksmiths, can play a vital role in technology development. It
demonstrates that bottom-up approaches are valid and effective in ensuring
sustainable development.
Both at farm
level and among artisans and blacksmiths, ITDG has encouraged the gradual
emerging of local CBOs, blacksmiths associations, and village development
committees. This in contrast to approaches in which CBOs are rapidly and
formally constructed on the basis of ready made models from elsewhere. To what
extend are these CBOs indeed proving now to be sustainable? And do they still
have technology development and dissemination on their agenda, beyond the
initial issue of animal traction? How are funds generated to that end?
Reeves EB &
Frankenberger T. 1990. Farming Systems
Research in North Kordofan, Report No. 2.
Majzoub Fidiel
M. 2000. Creative solutions to poverty.
Paper presented in the BDN workshop organised by WHO, Khartoum, February 2000.
Majzoub Fidiel
M. 2000. The transfer and adaptation of
technology: the case of the donkey drawn plough. Paper presented in a
workshop organised by Sudan Ministry of Industry, Khartoum, October 2000.
Croxton S.
1990. Animal traction in Kebkabiya: a
review of ITDG involvement with the Kebkabiya Smallholders Project 1988-1990.
Malik Abu Sin A
M & Osman Hdra T. 1994. ITDG support
to Kebkabiya Smallholders Project, Evaluation Report.
Wedgewood H,
Abdalla A & Gumma E. 1998. Linking
indigenous knowledge support: an evaluation report.
ITDG Staff.
1997. LINKS annual review report.
Gardud hard-surface sandy loam soil
Goz sandy soil or sand
dune
Makhammas an area measurement unit equal to
1.73 feddans or 1.80 acres or 0.74 ha
Nagaa gardud, hard-surface sandy loam soil
Wadi valley, shallow
watercourse
Zaghawa a large ethnic group
occupying a vast area in North Darfur, Libya and Chad
[1] The village tool-/seed-bank is a building owned by
the community and managed by the VDC. It is furnished with different tools and seeds
to be accessed by the community members through purchasing, renting or
borrowing.