Bottlenecks
to Sustainable Agricultural Development
Key
Elements of the Approach and Methodology
Integrating
the Approach into the Mahaweli Authority of Sri Lanka
PTD in MASL after the Project: a Case Study
In 1991, the PMHE (Promoting Multifunctional Household
Environments) project started operating in Mahaweli System C, Sri Lanka, with
an action-research phase to gain insight into the lives of settlers who had
left their homelands to come to the new frontiers opened up by the Accelerated
Mahaweli Development Programme. Contrary to government expectations, the
colossal investment in the programme had not paid off in terms of
socio-economic development of the settlers. PMHE’s task was to identify the
bottlenecks and to develop a strategy for sustainable agricultural development
in the Mahaweli settlements. The implementation phase of PMHE was based on the
active participation of farmers in their own development and was focused on
building the farmers’ capacity to manage their resources and strengthening
local organisation through a process approach. The experiences made in this
phase gave rise to the main elements of the PMHE strategy for sustainable
development: community mobilisation, farm planning for sustainable farming,
farmer experimentation and organisational development through a small-group
approach.
In the next phase of PMHE, which was concentrated on
scaling up, the Mahaweli Authority of Sri Lanka (MASL) featured prominently as
the main agency involved in development activities. Starting with staff working
at the grassroots level, PMHE’s capacity-building programme covered all ranks
of officers in this huge bureaucratic and hierarchical organisation. A
concerted effort in training and backstopping helped in changing the attitudes
and enhancing the skills of MASL field officers to work as equal partners with
farmers. PMHE staff worked alongside MASL staff in integrating the main
elements of the strategy into on-going Mahaweli programmes. Farm planning and
farmer experimentation became part and parcel of the MASL agricultural policy.
The small-group approach to community building became the foundation of the
programme for strengthening farmer organisation, starting with small groups of
farmers at field-canal level. PMHE then initiated training in institutional
development among middle-level managers as a first step towards managing
participation, coupled with specific inputs to higher-level managers in the
form of seminars and workshops on farmer participation.
Having achieved its objectives, PMHE began in 2000 the
process of phasing out. The fruits of its labour were visible, both in the
farming community as well as in the MASL. Farmers started moving away from a
position of dependency to one of self-reliance, setting their own agendas,
solving their own problems and building their communities. MASL staff began to
recognise farmer participation as the key to sustainable development in Mahaweli
settlements, and were acting as facilitators of the process. PMHE had indeed
set the stage for the players to carry on independently, but further efforts
within MASL are still needed to sustain and spread this process. For example,
planning in the whole organisation needs to be changed from top-down to
bottom-up. The chain of planning should begin at Block level and continue to
System and Head-Office Level. Participatory monitoring and evaluation, an
integral part of a participatory approach, needs to be integrated into the
overall MASL monitoring system. There is also a need for clear policy
guidelines for the work of field staff, guidelines for strengthening farmer
organisation, policy for staff training etc. Any further external support
should be directed toward building up internal capacity within the MASL in
these areas.
The Mahaweli
Development Programme (MDP) is the most ambitious development initiative
undertaken in Sri Lanka in the recent past. Five major dams constructed on the
largest river, the Mahaweli, supplied irrigation water to an area of 144,000
ha, previously deemed unproductive because of lack of water. Nearly 125,000
families were settled in the downstream areas during the early and mid 1980s –
many of them poor, landless peasants who left their homelands and journeyed to
the "promised land" with the dream of becoming proud owners of a plot
of irrigated paddy land. Each settler family was entitled to 1 ha irrigated
lowland for paddy rice cultivation and 0.2 ha rainfed highland for a homestead.
The Mahaweli
Authority of Sri Lanka (MASL) was the government agency set up for the sole purpose
of making this programme work. It played a central role in the construction of
irrigation and other infrastructure, in human settlement and in the development
(also agricultural) of these vast settlement areas under its purview. When, in
the late 1980s, it became evident that the "Mahaweli dream" among
settlers had begun to blur and that indebtedness and poverty were on the
increase, the PMHE project was initiated to develop, promote and scale up the
use of participatory approaches to sustainable agricultural development. From
1991 to 2000, it is operated as a bilateral development project of Sri Lanka
and the Netherlands, with advisory services provided by ETC International.
The task entrusted
to PMHE in entering Mahaweli System C was to develop a strategy for sustainable
development. In the first 3–4 years, PMHE's attention was largely devoted to
working intensively at grassroots level in fulfilling this task. After having
developed the broad lines that form the core of the strategy based on settler
participation, the focus shifted in 1995 to spreading this within the Mahaweli
institutional set-up and adapting it accordingly. During the last three years,
PMHE has, against many odds, pursued this goal and is confident that
participatory development can be realised within a large state-sector
organisation such as the MASL. The experience described in this paper should be
considered in this specific context and timeframe and, as such, not as a
blueprint for institutionalising PTD. However, it does suggest important points
that should be taken into consideration when trying to incorporate
participatory approaches into a large state-sector organisation.
In Sri Lanka,
crown land has been issued in colonisation or settlement schemes since the
beginning of the 20th century. The State played a crucial role in
establishing the irrigation network, in selecting settlers and in allocating
and developing land. Most of these settlement schemes are located in the
relatively sparsely populated dry and intermediate zones of Sri Lanka, with
rainfall between 500 and 1500 mm per annum (75% expectancy value). Not only landless
farmers but also others interested in farming profited from these issues of
land almost for free. Ownership of a plot of irrigated land has a high cultural
value.
The MDP of the
Sri Lanka Government aimed at reaching several objectives:
Administratively,
the area under MDP is divided into (irrigation) Systems (B, C, G, H etc),
Blocks and Units. A Unit is more or less comparable to a village with an
average of 150 resident farm families. Several Units form a Block, and several
Blocks form a System. Around 11,000 employees arranged in a strictly
hierarchical order managed this vast programme until the agency underwent
restructuring in the late 1990s and 60% of them were made redundant. Yet, the
MASL remains one of the biggest government agencies which, as a river-basin
authority, will continue to be involved in managing these areas in partnership
with farmers and other stakeholders.
The total
extent of land cultivated under the Mahaweli project is about 92,000 ha. Nearly
90% of the land is under paddy cultivation in the wet season (Maha). In
the dry season (Yala), about 50% is paddy and the rest is grown with
other field crops. The annual rice production from the Mahaweli project area is
about 661,294 metric tons, which is about 25% of the national rice production.
PMHE commenced
at the time when MASL was shifting from being mainly involved in establishing
infrastructure for settlers, to handing over management tasks to the farming
community. These were not isolated phenomena: donors were emphasising
participation of beneficiaries and privatisation, i.e. handing over tasks from
the State. At the same time, the enthusiasm and support for integrated pest
management, i.e. deliberately involving farmers in decision-making regarding
pest control and reducing external inputs, was gaining in popularity.
On arrival in
the settlements, the families were assisted by the MASL in organising their
farming activities – cultivation loans for buying inputs, initial supply of
seed paddy, traction for the first ploughing of the land, seedlings for
planting in the homegarden etc. Extensionists provided advice on cultivation of
rice in an irrigated regime with high inputs. A standard homegarden development
plan was handed out to the families. All the ingredients for settlers to become
successful farmers seemed to be in place.
Yet, the
situation that PMHE encountered in entering System C in 1991 was far from one
of success. Farmers were dissatisfied and debt-ridden. Homegardens lay bare and
unproductive. Rice yields were decreasing after the initial years of
cultivation and did not respond to increased fertiliser application. With
increased costs of inputs and dropping yields, rice farming was not bringing an
adequate income. Lacking the skills, knowledge and motivation to overcome
agriculture-related problems, the farmers had not made the anticipated
progress.
PMHE’s action
research in its initial year shed more light on this situation by pointing to
certain drawbacks of the extension approach adopted by the MASL. Because of the
diversity of settler backgrounds and land characteristics, the standard
recommendations offered for agricultural development were often not feasible or
were unsuitable. Farmer training was confined to classroom settings and
theoretical in content. Processing of farmer’s problems through research
stations was time-consuming; delay in transmitting the solutions meant that the
usefulness and relevance were lost. The fact that farmers were considered
solely as recipients of the extension system ruled out any form of farmer
participation in agricultural development. Poor social cohesion and weak
organisational capacities among settlers with so many different backgrounds
further prevented problem solving by the farmers themselves.
It was these
negative aspects – lack of farmer participation, under-utilisation of resources,
lack of appropriate skills and knowledge, dependency on MASL – that PMHE
addressed in developing a strategy for sustainable agricultural development.
Principles of LEISA (Low-External-Input and Sustainable Agriculture) and PTD
(Participatory Technology Development) were pivotal in this endeavour of
stimulating farmers to be better managers of their resources.
From the
beginning of the project, it was obvious that development efforts could not be
sustained without the participation of the farmers. This change could be
brought about only if the main actors involved – in this case, the farmers and
the MASL staff – were willing and able to participate. Farmers had to regain
self-reliance, take over responsibilities and manage their own affairs, while
the MASL staff had to become facilitators in this process – recognising and
respecting the knowledge of farmers and supporting them to become self-reliant.
Bottlenecks
to Sustainable Agricultural Development
Community
Mobilisation and Organisational Development
Farm planning,
farmer experimentation and farmer-to-farmer extension were regarded by PMHE as
the key elements of the PTD approach in the reality of the Mahaweli settlement
areas. These worked hand-in-hand with Community Mobilisation (COMMOB) and
Organisational Development (OD) to form the five main components of PMHE's
approach to sustainable agricultural development.
Farm planning
is a tool for farm families to develop their farms while managing their
resources in a sustainable manner. It gives farm families the reins in
developing their own farms, and became an integral part of the PMHE approach
towards sustainable agricultural development.
The fundamentals of farm planning. Efficient
resource use is the cornerstone of farm planning, which is based on ecological
processes, LEISA principles and active participation of farm families.
Recycling, biomass production, diversity, living soil, internal collaboration
and efficient use of all resources are aspects of the natural environment that
are imitated in farm planning. As such, external inputs are considered only
when all options within the farm have been fully utilised.
Farm planning
is a tool to achieve systematic development of the whole farm – the irrigated
plot and the homegarden – over several years, and provides a framework into
which all activities are fitted in. This plan, however, is a flexible overview
of how the farm family would like to develop the farm, and can be changed as
and when required. In putting the plan down on paper, the family makes a
commitment to farm development and also gains confidence in saying: “This we
can reach on our farm with our own resources.”
Farm planning
is also a participatory process in which the farm family takes the central
decision-making role, guided by extensionists as facilitators.
Application of farm planning. A farm-planning
exercise begins with a situation analysis of the farm, taking into
consideration both the irrigated plot and the homegarden. All resources and
opportunities are noted. These findings are then depicted visually in the form
of a map. Looking at its resources and opportunities, and bringing in some of
its own vision, the farm family draws a map of the desired situation. A
long-term plan of action is then developed, and consists of activities to be
undertaken in order to reach this desired situation on the farm. Short-term or
seasonal plans are extracted from this master plan as segments of development
to be undertaken by the farm family in a given agricultural season. At the end
of each season, the family measures the progress made, makes alterations
according to its needs, brings in new ideas and experiences, and re-plans for
the next season.
Over the years,
the methodology was refined to one that could be adopted by the MASL staff
within their regular extension activities, consisting of the steps shown in Table 1.
Table 1: Steps in farm planning
|
Activity |
Purpose |
By whom and how |
|
Awareness session |
Provide an orientation to farmer
groups on farm planning and select group of farmers (35–50) interested in
doing farm planning. |
General meeting with all farmers by AO
/ FA or UM. |
|
Session 1 (½ day) |
Identification of the sustainability
of soils by comparing soil samples of a virgin forest and of a cultivated
plot. Observation of sustainability in a
forest setting. Visit to a resource farmer's land and
observation of steps taken to achieve sustainability. |
FA / UM / AO conduct this session at
selected venue. |
|
Session 2 (½ day) |
Analysis of present situation. Resource identification. Mapping of present situation of farm. |
Block staff trained in FP. Group gathers at selected farm used as
example for the exercise. |
|
Session 3 (½ day) |
Group returns to a given location with
maps of present situation and inventory of resources. Problems are clarified. |
AO / FA |
|
Session 4 (½ day) |
Exposure visit to farm developed
through farm planning and exchange of ideas. |
Visit organised by FA / UM. |
|
Session 5 (1 day) |
Mapping of future situation. Preparation of long-term plan. Preparation of short-term plan. |
Block staff trained in FP guide
farmers in small groups of 5 farmers each. |
|
Acronyms:
AO = Agricultural Officer; FA = Field Assistant; UM = Unit Manager; FP = farm
plan |
||
Monitoring the implementation
of farm plans and end-of-season evaluations with the farmers were incorporated
into the regular extension activities of the Field Assistant.
Key
Elements of the Approach and Methodology
Another key
element of PMHE’s strategy was farmer-led experimentation as a process of
iterative learning through interaction between farmers and outside facilitators
in developing sustainable farming systems. The experiments were geared not only
to finding solutions to current problems, but also to conserving and enhancing
natural resources so that they could still be used by future generations.
The process. Most
experiments started from problems articulated by farmers. A good understanding
of the problems was gained through in-depth analysis, taking into consideration
the cause-effect relationships. An inventory of the potential resources and
opportunities, including human resources and good ideas, was made thereafter.
Possible options were listed; the most promising were selected for trying out.
The experiments were designed accordingly, ensuring a level of complexity that
could be managed by farmers. What was to be monitored, and how, was also
decided in discussion with the farmers. At the end of the agricultural season,
the experiments were evaluated, usually at group sessions and according to
criteria set by the farmers themselves. Results were shared with other farmers.
The results of one experiment often formed the basis for another, and farmers
continued the process of experimentation. Farmers who went through this
iterative process of action and reflection learned an approach to
problem-solving that could be used in any sphere of life. And with it came
confidence to cope with their situations and stimulate change. Over the years,
more than 2000 farmers have thus been involved in experimentation. More than
300 did their experiments in close interaction with PMHE, while the others
received support from MASL field staff or were encouraged by other farmers to
experiment by themselves.
Once farmers
became involved in experimentation and were enthusiastic about its
possibilities, the more technical aspects were brought in. Farmers’ skills were
gradually built up to the point that they could undertake systematic
experimentation, giving attention to the following aspects: site selection, the
issue of control, replication, scale, border effects, number of variables and
monitoring and evaluation.
The large
number of farmers involved enabled the tackling of a wide variety of issues in
rice production, other field crops and homegarden development: weed control,
fertility management, soil conservation, variety selection, harvesting and
processing and marketing. This diversity made the processing and
systematisation of results relatively complicated. Because of the strong
extension and action orientation of both PMHE and MASL and the almost
non-existence of a research capacity in the region, the emphasis was on
farmer-to-farmer and farmer-extensionist-farmer mechanisms to spread results.
Impact of farmer experimentation. The key impact of farmer
experimentation was in instilling a problem-solving approach among farmers, which
weaned them away from dependency and gave them confidence. Through
experimentation, farmers were able to find solutions to their problems, instead
of waiting for someone else to do it for them. Moreover, these solutions were
well suited to the specific site conditions and therefore very appropriate. The
ability to analyse problems, find suitable options, try them out and draw
conclusions was a valuable capacity that was used by them not only in
agriculture, but also in other spheres of life.
For example,
since 30% of the total cost of rice production is on land preparation, some
farmers took up experiments in zero or minimum tillage, which had never been
done by farmers in the area. Experimentation also helped farmers to improve
profitability in rice farming. By trying out a combination of options –
straight fertiliser application, organic manure, varietal selection etc – some
farmers were able to increase their rice yields from 3000 kg/ha to 6500 kg/ha.
Knowledge about
the positive findings from experiments was not confined to the experimenters
alone; instead, this was shared and applied by a much larger group of farmers.
Initially, only a few farmers started to bring the paddy straw back into the
paddy fields as a means of recycling nutrients. Within a short time, many
farmers took up the practice, as they noted its benefits. Experimentation also
helped farmers to take a more rational stand on common myths that prevented
them from carrying out certain useful activities. For instance, in the case of
straw recycling, many farmers in System C did not practise it because they
believed that the straw would become entangled in implements used for
ploughing. However, experiments in straw application proved this myth to be
baseless. This helped many more farmers adopt the practice.
Key
Elements of the Approach and Methodology
The third key
element in the PMHE approach to agricultural development – farmer-to-farmer
extension – was part and parcel of almost all activities undertaken with
farmers. It took many forms:
The farmers in
System C who joined such activities mentioned among the main benefits:
Key
Elements of the Approach and Methodology
In addition to
the above three components, which are part and parcel of most PTD programmes,
PMHE's approach to sustainable agricultural development included two more
components. The first is called Community Mobilisation (COMMOB) and focuses on
attitudes and skills to be built up in order to empower farmers. This is an
approach inspired among others by Freirian thinking and has a considerable
history in Sri Lanka. It encourages people to analyse their situation in the
widest sense, create awareness about what can be done by joining hands and
encourages action planning. Central in this approach is the formation of
relatively small farmer-neighbourhood groups, which may remain rather informal
or go through a process of structuring and formalisation. In the Mahaweli
settlement areas with their lack of social structure and coherence, the
hundreds of small groups that emerged appeared to be of crucial importance for
the development and implementation of all other activities.
Closely linked
to the above is a fifth component: Organisational Development (OD). With this,
PMHE aims at strengthening community organisation emerging from the social mobilisation
efforts. It addresses issues such as management and administration of groups,
leadership and conflict resolution. In line with PMHE's overall approach, OD
efforts are very much farmer-led and demand-driven. As a result, a variety of
community organisations have emerged: Some small groups formalised but remained
on their own; others joined together to become federations of small groups.
Some maintained a single purpose (e.g. saving and credit, marketing), while
others developed a much wider agenda. In the later years of the project, the
COMMOB/OD approach was also used successfully to strengthen the farmer
organisations initiated by MASL for the purpose of taking responsibility for
water management at the various levels.
Key
Elements of the Approach and Methodology
Support to Manage Participation
Creating
the Conditions to Sustain the Integration
The process of
participatory development could not be sustained within the Mahaweli Systems, unless
the MASL adopted it as its own. The organisation was strictly hierarchical,
with a blueprint approach to development and a paternalistic attitude towards
the settlers. Taking on an approach to development based on farmer
participation therefore required fundamental changes. These changes had to be
brought about at three levels: 1) enabling staff to take on the role of
development facilitators through a process of training and backstopping; 2)
assisting middle-level staff to manage participation; and 3) lobbying at the
higher-level to bring about favourable conditions for participatory
development.
Content. Approximately
100 training workshops in participatory approaches were conducted during the
period January 1995 to June 2000. This included full-fledged training workshops
as well as periodical refresher sessions. The staff categories included in the
training came from all layers of the MASL structure from Unit to Head-Office
level, and the subject matter varied accordingly. PMHE’s contribution to these
programmes was in many forms: sponsorship, logistical arrangements,
collaboration with various Mahaweli agencies in selection of trainees,
providing training support in the form of trainers, co-trainers and field
facilitators etc. Training was conducted in the following areas:
In most cases,
these topics were treated systematically through a sequence of training events
covering a period of 1–2 years, with each event linking up with and looking
back at the previous one.
PRA and participatory approaches to sustainable agriculture (PTD and
Farm Planning for LEISA) were the initial programmes in which training was
conducted. PRA training was considered pivotal for all categories of MASL
staff, as it focuses on developing the attitudes and skills required in
facilitators. Continuing from PRA, PTD was important to develop the capacity of
MASL field officers to interact with farmers in finding solutions to their
specific problems through a process of joint experimentation. Training in FP
imparted the skills and the knowledge required for an extensionist to guide
farm families through a systematic process of planning their farms, using
available resources optimally.
As field staff began to work in closer collaboration with farmers, the
need for better facilitation and group-moderation skills for community
strengthening emerged. Training workshops in Community Mobilisation (COMMOB)
and Organisational Development (OD) were a response to recognition of this need
and were conducted in 1998 and 1999. Participatory monitoring and evaluation
was an integral part of each of the above-mentioned subjects and focused on
finding simple systems of monitoring and evaluation with farmers. Gender was
another aspect that encompassed all subject areas and helped officers to
understand the different roles and responsibilities of men and women in
development activities and, thereby, to ensure active participation of both
parties.
Targeting training. In a large,
multi-layered, hierarchical organisation like the MASL, selection of staff
categories was crucial to achieving the required impact of wide-scale application
of participatory approaches. The first priority concerned people who worked
directly with farmers, namely Field Assistants and Unit Managers. Application
of participatory approaches by field-level officers required understanding by
their immediate supervisors. Hence, the next category of staff that needed to
be trained consisted of Agricultural Officers, Community Development Officers
and Institutional Development Officers at Block level. Block Managers, who
coordinated all development work, were also given orientation in participatory
approaches. Human Resource Development Officers, who were attached mainly to
the training centres and whose main responsibility was training, formed a major
category included in all training programmes. Several programmes, some
specially tailored, were targeted at the middle- and higher-level managers of
the MASL.
Training
content varied according to staff category. Field- and Block-level staff
members were given intensive training, with a large component of fieldwork.
Such workshops were of longer duration and went into greater detail. Shorter
workshops or discussions, which generated awareness on participatory
approaches, were used for managers. As opposed to field staff, that underwent
10-day rigorous PRA training, managers were exposed to a 5-day orientation
programme. The same applied for PTD and FP.
Training approach. The training
organised by PMHE differed significantly from what MASL staff had undergone
before. Moving away from the conventional “top-down” courses focusing on
transfer of information, the training in a workshop style created an atmosphere
of active learning. Experiential learning was given strong emphasis, with field
assignments providing opportunities for trainees to acquire skills and develop
insights independently. Focused learning sessions were interspersed with
fieldwork that allowed trainees to practise what they learnt and then to
reflect on how they acted. Such reflection helped trainees to go deeper into
the subject and to gain new insights. Each workshop, even those for
higher-level staff, created situations in which trainees could interact
directly with farm families. Assignments with farm families, visits to resource
farmers and brainstorming sessions with farmers were all means of developing
the relevant attitudes and skills, such as respecting farmers’ knowledge,
dealing with gender issues, stimulating creative interactions with farmers etc.
Training of trainers. Conscious of the fact that training in participatory
methodologies cannot always be done by external trainers, PMHE began – already
in 1995 – to identify potential trainers from within MASL, who could be groomed
for this task. A number of training-of-trainers workshops were organised in all
the core subject areas. These workshops generally lasted for 10–14 days of
highly intensive work. They combined study of the content of the relevant
subject area with learning and practising the participatory training approach
developed and promoted by PMHE. The project strongly believed that a PTD
trainer can be effective and convincing only if she/he practises the main
principles of participation during the training itself. After gaining training
skills, these officers were given the opportunity to gain on-the-job experience
by being co-trainers with PMHE staff in the relevant programmes.
As most of these trainers belonged to the Human Resources Development
Unit of MASL, this activity was a crucial one that tied up, in a sense, all
the input into capacity building of staff. It was important to provide the unit
with the knowledge and skills required not only to continue training and
backstopping, but also to adapt training to meet the changing requirements of
the organisation and its staff.
Development of training curricula and manuals. All
the above-mentioned training activities were documented with great care to form
the basis for the preparation of systematic training guides for use by MASL
trainers in their regular training programmes. A first outline of a curriculum
was made for Community Development, which was discussed and adjusted to
function as an example. Curricula for the other subjects were prepared
accordingly. Detailed session plans per curriculum were then worked out through
a similar process. Each curriculum was tested and fine-tuned through the
ongoing training programmes. While all training manuals give step-by-step
directions on how to organise training on the relevant topic, they do encourage
the users of the manuals, at the appropriate places, to adapt and innovate the
modules in order to suit the requirements of a specific group or situation.
Having
completed the English versions of these training guides,, PMHE embarked on
translating them into Sinhala, an equally intensive activity. Most of the
translation was done in-house by PMHE trainers, adjusted whilst conducting
training, and completed. Workshops for orienting the trainers on using the
training manuals were conducted before handing them over to the respective
sections of the MASL.
Backstopping of field staff. Very
early on in the process of training, PMHE noticed some reluctance on the part
of trained staff to apply the newly gained knowledge and skills. Although
training workshops provided some “hands-on” exposure through short field
exercises, it was obviously not sufficient to build up the confidence required
to embark on application in the field. Even the more adventurous among the
trainees dared only to take small steps in trying out what they had learnt.
Backstopping was essential to reap the full benefits of training.
Backstopping evolved over the period and depended on the
availability of PMHE staff, requests from MASL, type of training etc. The
backstopping activities included:
Another aspect
of backstopping was in encouraging managers to obtain more feedback from their
field officers who were applying participatory approaches as part of PMHE's
second-level efforts to integrate the participatory approach within MASL.
Training impact assessment. An independent study carried out
in the latter part of 1999 by the Department of Agricultural Extension of the
University of Peradeniya, Sri Lanka, looked into how training in participatory
extension methods/tools affected the working styles of Field Extension Officers
(FEO) in the MASL. PMHE was one of three projects included in the study. It was
found that FEOs had learned new methods/tools relevant to their day-to-day
activities and were using them in extension activities with farmers. Both
farmers and superior officers had experienced favourable changes in the
behaviour of FEOs in interaction with their clients, i.e. the farmers,
articulated as being friendlier towards them and respecting their views. More
than 75% of the FEOs interviewed during the study were positive about the
training received and agreed that they gained greater job satisfaction by using
participatory methods and had increased their extension coverage with farmers
(Wanigasundera & Sivayoganathan 1999).
Integrating
the Approach into the MASL
Institutional Development and Organisational Strengthening. Field
officers who began to adopt a more participatory working style needed to be
understood and supported by their superiors. In the MASL hierarchy, the first
and most crucial level of managers that deals with field officers is that at
the Block level.
While all relevant
staff at the Block level was exposed to PRA,PTD and FP though the
above-mentioned training programmes, PMHE found that a more focused support to
Block managers was needed to motivate them towards a participatory approach and
to enable them to manage effectively their Block on the basis of this approach.
Support was given to Block Managers in the form of strengthening their
understanding and capacities in Institutional Development and Organisational
Strengthening (ID/OS). The participatory principles of ID/OS training were to
stimulate the Block Managers to take a more positive look at their situation
and learn to respect the knowledge of farmers and staff as a valuable
contribution to arrive at effective planning. Changed thinking was to result in
appropriate action that would begin the process of managing participation.
A series of
one-week training workshops in ID/OS were conducted in 1998 to prepare these
managers. These included the topics of networking, inventory of key
institutions in the area, their role, and patterns of collaboration with the
Block Office. Block staff was also challenged to do an internal SWOT
(Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats) analysis to identify areas
for improvement. Often proposed areas for improvement related to division of
responsibilities of each staff, management style and mechanisms, and
stakeholder involvement.
Backstopping middle-level managers. Following
the training, the Block Managers were supported by PMHE staff in initiating
activities based on ID/OS at Block level in aspects such as:
These
interactions began, slowly but surely, to give Block Managers confidence in
applying participatory approaches to management.
Support to on-the-job planning sessions. Finally,
Block Managers were supported with the facilitation of Block planning
exercises, so as to integrate the priorities and plans of farmers. In some
Blocks, a team-building session was held prior to the planning exercise. In
most cases, this was the first time that all Block staff had come out of their
compartments to prepare an action plan together. Genuine enthusiasm was
observed as staff members set a common goal and found ways and means of
achieving it through pooling of resources, irrespective of the department or
sector. Regular sessions for monitoring the plans in a participatory manner
were also scheduled.
Integrating
the Approach into the MASL
The full
potential of all changes at field- and middle-level could become mainstream
only if the strategy for participatory development was fully integrated within
the overall MASL approach and structure. Here again, PMHE worked on many fronts
and with many key persons, mainly at the higher levels of the organisation.
Creation of awareness and acceptance at higher levels. Seminars and workshops were
specially prepared to provide decision-makers with a clear picture of field
developments and to raise issues that needed attention. As much as possible,
these were also occasions in which farmers were given an opportunity to discuss
matters directly with higher officials of MASL. Successful case studies
were included in the progress reports to the project Steering Committee, which
consisted mostly of top MASL officials. Close
personal contact with sectional heads was very important in keeping a
continuous and open dialogue about the process of participatory development and
its implications. Such dialogue helped to incorporate their views and led to
strong support for the strategy. A few key staff members were given
opportunities to study participatory approaches abroad. Many openings
for integrating elements into regular MASL programmes were thus found. For
instance, farmer-to-farmer extension as a means of sharing experiences and farm
planning as a tool for sustainable resource management were integrated into
many field-level agricultural programmes.
Close collaboration with staff of the Agricultural Division. One
of the most important points to be mentioned with respect to
institutionalisation of PTD is the close collaboration and rapport that PMHE
built up with the staff of the Agricultural Division of the MASL. It so
happened that, through all the changes that took place within the organisation,
the key agriculture staff remained consistent, thus allowing for a continued
dialogue and cooperation. Recognition of the approach by the Director and his
colleagues at Head-Office level paved the way for smooth implementation by the
System- and field-level staff. Indeed, the experiences of MASL staff were
documented in a video called “A new approach for the Mahaweli fields” in the Sinhalese
language (MASL 1999).
MASL formulation of extension policy. The
Agricultural Division at headquarters level was also responsible for
formulating the MASL agricultural development policy. Evidence of its close
interaction with PMHE was given when the new policy document included an
extension component with several key elements of the participatory approach:
problem analysis with farmer groups using PRA tools, participatory extension
and farmer experimentation. It provided the legal framework for wider
application of the strategy, also in other Systems of the MASL.
Networking and building alliances. These
results cannot be explained by the efforts of PMHE alone. In the second half of
the 1990s, most donors stressed the importance of farmer participation, and
other projects and NGOs gave evidence of the impact of more participatory
approaches. PMHE therefore looked continuously for allies beyond MASL and was
actively involved in networking within Sri Lanka on participatory development.
By being in these networks, PMHE could pave the way for MASL, its counterpart,
to join and gain from the rich diversity of experiences. The network with the
greatest impact on the scaling up of PTD experiences is the PTD Working Group
in Sri Lanka (see Box 1).
Support to the farmer bulletin “Aswenna”. Aswenna (Harvest) is a
monthly bulletin published by the MASL in System C. The purpose of this
bulletin, published by the MASL Development Centre, is to serve as a source of
information to the farmers. In July 1995, PMHE was requested to take on
sponsorship of the bulletin. Before deciding on sponsorship, PMHE initiated a
reader’s survey to ascertain the usefulness of the bulletin to the farmers. The
findings were encouraging: with very little access to resource materials,
farmers actually looked forward to the bulletin and even suggested that the
bulletin be issued more often. PMHE agreed to fund the production, but also
requested a stake in its contents. Being involved in promoting an approach that
put farmers in the centre stage of their development, PMHE felt that the
bulletin would be an ideal medium for taking this message to other farmers in
System C. Apart from providing financial support, PMHE’s major contribution was
probably in encouraging the bulletin to mobilise relevant experiences directly
from farmers and providing links to farmers who would contribute.
In 1999,
funding of the bulletin was taken over by the new Mahaweli Consolidation
Project (MCP). This implied that the readership of the bulletin was extended
beyond System C to System B, part of MCP’s operational area. If farmers in
System C continue to contribute as they have done in the past, this would
become an indirect way of spreading their experiences, especially those in
participatory development, to fellow farmers in another System – farmer
exchange of a different kind.
|
Building
alliances: the PTD Working Group in Sri Lanka The
PTD Working Group was an initiative of three donor-funded projects – namely, the
North Western Province Dry Zone Participatory Development Project (NWPDZP),
the Smallholder Integrated Livestock Extension Project (SILEP) and PMHE –
working in the field of sustainable agricultural development in different
parts of the country. The objectives of the network were primarily: mutual
learning through sharing of experiences in the application of participatory
methods and tools in agricultural extension; sharing of resources and
know-how (especially trainers); and conducting joint training-of-trainers
programmes to improve the capacity and skills of local trainers. The network
was set up in 1995 and was soon joined by two other organisations – CARE
International and the Netherlands-assisted Integrated Rural Development
Programme (IRDP) in Nuwara Eliya. Despite the
voluntary nature of the members’ involvement, a narrow focus, concerted
effort, good cooperation and a high sense of commitment helped the Working
Group to meet many of its goals and positively influence the government
counterparts about the merits of participatory extension methodologies.
Whilst being an active member, PMHE ensured that MASL, its counterpart, was
introduced and gradually became a part of the Working Group. For the MASL
staff, the Working Group was a great opportunity to meet, share and learn
together with colleagues of other governmental agencies and NGOs. Mutual
learning through sharing of experiences During the
first year, the discussions were more fundamental in nature. After having
experimented with PTD for 2–3 years, several topics of common interest were
discussed at bi-monthly meetings. Problem identification, planning and policy
on (free) input provision; approaches in group development and social
mobilisation; farmer experimentation, design and monitoring; involvement of
government officers in PTD and the role of transfer of technology in PTD were
among them. The second year focused on more practical application of PTD and
on problems faced in the field. A first round of cross-visits to each of the
projects took place in this year, and proved very insightful. Linking
learning and lobbying By the
third year, the focus of the Working Group shifted to scaling up PTD
approaches. Realisation of the need to bring PTD to the attention of a wider
audience led to the joint organisation of a national PTD workshop in
September 1997 in Peradeniya. Each member of the Working Group presented its
own experiences in using the PTD approach, and highlighted one or more
aspects of it. As intended, the workshop raised awareness on PTD among
government agencies involved in agricultural development, familiarised the
participants on how it could be adapted in various organisational settings
and highlighted the institutional and managerial implications for effective
application of PTD. Subsequently, a number of regional workshops were
organised in 1998, each coordinated by one working group member, with the
same purpose as the national one to allow greater participation of staff and
government officials at that level. In 1999, PMHE itself – with moral and
other support from Working Group members – organised a two-day national
seminar on farmer participation in the MASL development areas. Training in PTD and training of
trainers As an or |