You are on page 1of 16

MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE, LT\IESTOCKAI{D NATI.

IRAL RESOURCES

ZA}I{ZIBAR CASH CROPFARMING SYSTEMSPROJECT

CONFERENCEPAPER

HARARE, OCTOBER1995

PARTICIPATORYTECHNOLOGYDEVELOPMENT
WITH FARMER RESEARCHGROT]PS

Lessonsfrom Zannbar

By; fsmdl Mgeni


Martin Walsh
Rupert Woods

zccFsP
POBox 2283
Zarnbar

Tel./fax:(05a)nU
CONTENTS

Pageno.
Introduction I

Local social,economicandinstitutionalfactorswhichled I
to the adoptionof the FRG approach

Why form FarmerResearchGroups? 2 ,'

Initial orperiences 2

Currentmethd for selectingandforming $oups 4

Methodsfor workingwith groups 6

Problemareas 9

Other approaches
beingusedby ZCCFSPandMALNR l0

The institutionalconstraintsto furtherdwelopmentofthe t2


FRG approachin Zanabarand prospeotsfor the future

Lessons t2
Summaryof methodology t4

ABBREVIATIONS

FRG FarmerResearchgroup
MALNR Mnistry of Agriculture,Livestockandnaturalresources
PRA ParticipatoryRural appraisal
zccFsP ZannbarCashCrop FarmingSystemsproject
e

INTRODUCTION

The ZanzibarCashCrop FarmingSystems Project(ZCCFSP)startedin l99l with the


cashcrop farmingsystems,increasing
principleobjec'tivesof developingsustainable
foreign orchangeearnings,reducingexpenditureon importsandraisingthe incomesof
rural householdsonZawibar (PembaandUngujaislands). It is fundedby Overseas
DevelopmentAdministration(ODA) ofthe UK andmanagedby the Natural Resources
Institute (NRI).

It was originallyfoundedon the principlethat new export cropscould be devel0fedto


replace,or at leastto supplement,the existingexport crop of cloves,for which the world
marketdemandhasgreatlyreduced.

At the outset,therefore,the approachtakenwasto selectindividualcropswhich were


thoughtto havea good market,which would grow well andbe acceptableto Zanzrbari
farmers. A processofPRAs, marketsurveysand agronomicinvestigationresultedinthe
compilationof a list of candidatecropsfor furtherresearchanddevelopment.

andthe decision
top-downcrop-orientedapproachmetwith little success
This essentially
was soonmadeto adopta moreparticipatoryapproactr,to concentratemore on the
farmingsystemspart of the projeottitle.

with the developmentof FarmerResearchGroups


This paperdescribesour experiences
(FRGs)asa key methodfor enhancingfarmer-participatoryresearchand extension.

LOCAL SOCIAI4 ECONOMIC AND INSTITUTIONAL FACTORS WHICH LED


TO THE ADOPTION OF T'RG APPROACH

The choiceof most suitablemethodsfor working with farmersdependsto a largeextenton


institutional,socialandeconornicfactors. The conditionsthat havebeenexistingwithin
Zaru,rbarcanbe summarised asfollows:

Wthin Mnistry of Agriculture,Livestock andNatural Resources(MALNR)


e A top-downapproachhasbeenused,usingthe principlethat the researchsectionsdo
the researchandthenthe resultinginformationis 'taught' to farmers.
o Researchhasmainlybeenfocusedon theoreticaltechnicalfixes:fertilizers,spacing,time
of planting. It is seldomproblemorientatedor takesinto accountfarmerknowledgeor
socio-economicconditions. On-stationtrials havebeenusedandsomeon-farmtrials
with scatteredindMduals.
o Lack of coherentpoliry. The policyis relatedto countryobjectives(eg productionof
rice) and seldomrelateto farmerproblons or conditions.
o Projectisationandunderfirnding.Donor-supportedprojectsettractthe bestofthe staff
andare often autonomousin decisionmaking. Very little co-ordinationbetween
sestions. Fundingfrom the govemm€ntis essentiallylimited to payrngstaffcosts and
little is givenfor runningcosts.
o Long historyof free or subsidisedinputs(fertilizers,seeds,agro-chemicals,
tractor
senvices).Thisis now reduceddueto lack of funds.
r Organisationby crop or discipline:makesit difficult to respondto moregeneral
problemsfacedby farmers(eg declineof soil fertility).

Rural areas
e High populationdensity,smallfarm size,considerablelandborrowingin manyareas.
. Significantvariationbetween&re&s:agro-ecological;cropsgolvn; importaoceof oF
farm income;acc€ssto markets;involvementof womenin agriculture.
r History of governmentcontrol hasresultedin a reductionin the senseof responsibility
of farmersfor solvingthek own problemsanda lack of communitystructurewithin
villages,outsideof family groups. Also an expectationof direct benefitswhenworking
with government.
o Low input-low output agriculturepractisedin most rueas.

WEY FORM FARMER RESEARCH GRO[]PS?

The reasonsfor usingthe FRG approachcanbe summarised


asfollows.

o Relevantresearch.With farmerresearchgroupsthe researchpriorities arisefrom the


constraintsandopportunitiesfacedby the farmeruwithin the group. If the group is well
chosenthe new ideasor technologieswhichare developedby the group will be relevant
to a wide sectionof farmingfamilieswithin that farmingsystemzone.
o Orgonistion. From an organisationalpoint of view it is easierto work with 15 farmers
in a group, ratherthan l0 individuals
o Contimrity. lf farrnersdrop out otherscanjoiq the group will havea'memory' ofwhat
hasbeendoneandthereis more chanceof activitiescontinuingifthe direct project
assistance ands. Long-termcontact.
o Exchangeof informationwithin thegroup. The learningproc€ssis muchquicker as
farmerscanlearnfrom eachothers' experiences.
o Responsibility. Farmersaremorelikely to take responsibilityfor their own problemsby
talking throughthemand searchingfor possiblesolutions.
o Collabwation betweenformers.Thereareadditionalbenefitsfor the frrmers from co-
operationin a group: sharingresouroes;marketing;andattractingattentionfrom other
organisations.
o Collaborationwithin MAINR lt was felt that the FRG approachwould be a good
methodfor encouragingco-operationwithin the MAINR Different sestionscan
collaborateon differentproblems. The collabor&tioncanbe dernand-ledby the farmers,
which reducesthe problemsof 'ownership' (the problemof one sestionbeingaskedto
helpwith anothersection'strials).
o Training.Good trainingexperiencefor ministrystaff

INTIIAL EXPERIENCES

ZCCFSPis a so-called'processproject'. This meansthat the preciseend-pointandthe


methodsfor gettingtherecannotbe clearlydefinedfrom the outse{. To this enda flerdble
approachhasbeenusedto try to developmethodsbestsuitedto Zanabu conditions.
3

The farmerresearchgroup programmehasbeencautiouslybuilt up. Formingone group at


a time and developingthe approachover tirne. In this way it is hopedto avoid makingtoo
manymistakes.This is particulartyimportantwith farmerre.search groupsbecause
considerableinvestmentis madeat the outsetto start a group. Cunently thereare a total
of six FRGs,tlueeon eachisland(PembaandUnguja).

A rangeof differentmethodshavebeenusedfor startingandworking with thesegroups.


The experiences gainedduringthe formationofthe first few groupsare describedbelow,
beforediscussion of the currentmethods.
, '
Farming SystemZones

As a first step,beforeforming anyFRG, the islands were sub-dividedinto FarmingSystem


Zones, The objectivesofthis exercisewereto describewhat was happeningin agriculture
within the differentzonesandthen,througha seriesof meetingswith other sectionsof
MALN& to identify the mainagicultural constraintsandopportunitiesfor eachzone.

Issues locotion

It was decidedthat formationof FRGswould relateto the FarmingSystemZones. The key


issuesregardingthe locationwerewhetherto target areas:which havethe most cashcrop
opportunities;or which havethe mostproblerns,or wherechangeis happeningfastest;or
to try andcover all areas? Also whetherto selecta villagerepresentativeof a certainzone
or a villagewherethey haveaccessto two zones.

Iswesregardinggroup selection

Therearetlree mainfactorsto consider


r Size
o Composition
r Method of forming a gxoup

In the pastfarmerswere selectedmainlyon the basisof willingnessto co-operatein doing


research. Whenforming a researchgroupthereareadditionalrequiranents,suchas
wealttqfamily groupings,race,gender,ageandwillingnessto do research.Thesefactors
haveto be considered for selectionof a groupwhichis representativeof a wider population
andwhichwill be ableto work together.

For our purposeswe wanteda groupwhich was most representativeof the peoplemost
involvedin agriculturewithin that area.

It is easyto get homogenousgroups(eg womenor family-basedgroups),which are the


sort of groupswhich the extensionserviceusuallyworks with. A mixedSoup, however,is
more difficult to achierrebecauseit tnaynot representa naturalgrouping.

The first goup wasformedby inviting a contactfarmerto selecta group. The resulting
gfoup hasa reasonablemix of ages,but too manyof the group membersarerelated. There
is only onewomanin the group, but womenarenot muchengagedin agriculturein this
afea.
For the secondgroupit wasdecidedto ta(getwomenonly. This decisionwasbasedon the
observationthat womendo most of the agriculturalactivitiesin the selectedfarmingsystem
zone,whereasmenaremostlyinvolvedin earningoFfarm income. Following a more
detailedstudy,howwer, it was discoveredthat althoughwomendo most of the
agriculturalworh they were not muchirrvolvedin farmingon tho coral rag, an important
farmingareafor the village,becausethey arenot ableto do the necessarybushclearance.
A discussionwas heldwith the womenaboutthis issueandthey decidedto includefour
menin the group. This group now consistsof eight womenandfour men.

CURRENT METHOD FOR SELECTING AI\ID F'ORMING GROUPS.

Village selection

Therewas muchdebateaboutwhereto form the mostrecentgroup. Therewere somethat


favouredstartingin a FS zonewherethe projecthad not hithertobeen'involved,but where
thereare perhapsfew cashcrop opportunities;othersfavouredhavinga secondgpoupin
the largestzone,wheretherearethe most constraintsandopportunitiesfor agricultural
development. The compromisethat was reachedwasto selecta villagewithin the largest
zone,which was far from the existinggroup within that zoneandwhich alsohad accessto
the adjoiningzone. It was felt that anytechnologiesdevelopedwould therebyhave
relevance to two zones.

Severalvillageswere chosenwhich met this generalselectioncriteria. Thesevillageswere


visited over a period of two daysandinformationwas collectedon agriculturein each
village. Finally onevillagewas chosen,whereit was consideredthat the most new
developments were happening(independentof outsideassistance).

Group selection

Having decidedon the village,a teamof two peoplewere s€ntto the villagewith the task
of identiSing possiblegroup members. Tkee separateinformantswere identifiedwithin
the village,who wereselectedon their abilityto be ableto identify possiblegoup
members, Theseinformantswere told aboutthe aimsof forming a researchgroup and
were askedto zuggesta mix of people-differentages,gorder, wealth,family grouping.
The importantcharacteristicfor all group membersbeinga willingnessto participateand
try newtechniques.

Following thesediscussionsandbasedon a comparisonof the threeseparatelists a final list


of 15 nameswasdrawnup. Our ocperience is that the idealgoup sizeis from 12to 15
people,any largerthanthis andthe group becomestoo difficult to managewith no extra
benefits.

Creatinga researchpragramme

We havefoundthat the importantfirst stepwith farmerresearchgroupsis to gain a


thoroughunderstandingof their farmingpracticesand socio-economicconditionsbefore
makinganydecisionsabouta possibleresearchprografirme.Thereforewe conducta type
of mini-PRA The methodologyusedis asfollows.

l. Soonafterthe selectionof a researchgroup,we hold a discussion


with the groupabout
the conceptof researchandthe aimsofforming sucha group. A dateis thensetfor doing
the PRA.

2. ThePRAteamare selected.The aimis for 8-10teammembers,drawnfrom the


sestionswithin MALNR that havean interestin collaboratingwith the researchgroup. The
teammeeta few daysbeforethe PRA anddrawup a checklist for datacollection.Topics
that arecovered include:Land useandownership;labourissues;soil fertility and
associatedpractices;croppingsystems(food andcashcrops);forestry;livestock;
marketing;incomesources;householddecision-m#ng;andgenderissues.

3. Informationcollectionis baseduponsemi-structured intervieqrsandvisitsto the


individualplots of eachFRG member.A teamof two or threeinterviewersspendone day
with a singlefarmer,the morningvisiting the farmer'splots andthe aft6rnooncompleting
the interviewat the farmer'shome.

4. Eachday's findingsarediscussedcollectivelyeach€veningandanynecessary
modificationsar€madeto the checklistof the following day.

5. A meetingwith all the membersofthe FRG is heldon the final morningto providean
opporhrnityto presentanddiscusspreliminaryresultsof the surveyandoutline subsequent
stagesof the researchprocesswith farmersbeforethankingthemfor their co-operation.

6. Back in the office,a dayis givento the collectiveanalysisofthe data. Minutesof the
analysisaretakento form the basisof a report summarisingthe findingsof the study. Also
notesare compiledon eachfarmer,which generallytakesabouta week. Responsibilifyfor
drawingup the reportis givento two teammembers.

7. Theteamthenget togetherto drawup a list of possibleareasfor researchandany


furtheractionneeded,basedon the collectiveanalysis.

8. Finallythe researchproposalsandcommentsof the tearnare discussedwith the FRG to


modi$ andrefinethe proposals,togetherwith anyadditionalsuggestion.

The advantages of this mini-PRAprocessare asfollows:


anddisadvantages

Advantages
e importanttrainingfunctionfor project andMALNR staff. Improvesinterview,report
writing andanalyticalskills.
o More rapidthan conventiondPRA which involvesmatrix andwealthranking.
o The informationgatheredcanbe directly used.

Disadvantages
o Sometypesof informationare difficult to obtainwith zucha rapid proc€ss,for example
informationaboutincome.
6

o Farmersexpectquickresponsefrom the researchteam.


o Time consumingfor farmer.Takesroughlylrl2 daysfor eachfarmerand 4 - 5 daysfor
the wholegroup.

METIIODS FOR WORKING WITH GROUPS

The methodsusedfor working with groupshasdevelopedover time. The history of


researchwith the oldestgroup (DayaFRG) is givenaBan exampleof this developlnent.

wasput on doingsimpletrialswith new cashcrops(chillies,ginger,


Initiallythe ernphasis
furmeric). Simpletreatmentswereused,sushas* or - shade,* or - mulch. Monitoring
was donebi-monthly. This approachwasnot very successfirlasthe farmersexpecteda lot
from the new cropsandtwo of the threecropsprovedunsuitablefor the local conditions.

Subsequently, the groupwas giventhe choiceof a wide rangeof tree crop seedlings,
availablein the project andforestrynurseries.The seedlingswere sold dt a subsidisedrate,
choiceof species,numbersandwhereto plant wasleft to the farmer.

This was still not very satisfactoryasit was difficult to dealwith major iszues,suchas soil
fertility andredevelopmentof the cloveplantationarea. A detailedstudywas then
undertakenof eachfarmer(asdescribedfor PRA above). From this a muchwider rangeof
researchthemesaros€. The themesareactuallyquite similarfor all the FRGs,although
thereare somedifferences.The currentthernesfor DayaFRG are:

Soilfenility maintenance.This coversinvestigationssuchaserosioncontrol, compost


making a$oforestry, mixedcropping,economicuseof fertilizers,mulchapplicatiorl useof
legumes,rotatio4 greenmanure,cover cropplngandfallowing. AIso the adviceto
concentrateefforts on a smallerarea.

Farm oatptt diversification. This is particularlyaimedat developmentofthe clove areas,


whoreonly cloves,citssavaandbananasaregrown. Oneobjectiveis to ertend the home
gardenideainto the cloveplantation,to havemulti-storeycroppingof a rangeof crops.
Main emphasisis on trylng new species,extendingcultivationof someexistingspeciesand
trytng improvedfood crop vuieties, Otheractivitiesin this themeincludenursery
establishment,monkeycontrol andbreadfruitdry,ng.

Developmentof rice areds. It is felt that the rice valleysareunder-utilised,despitethe fact


that manyhavewater all the year. The objectiveis to improveproductivitythroughcrop
diversificatioq diversificationinto new uses(eg sugarcaneor vegetablesinsteadof rice)
anduseofbundsto improvewaterholdingcapacity.

Following the PRA in Daya,the finding$were discussedwith the group and the individual
farmersdecidedwhat sort of investigationtheywould do. Now thereis a mix of :
t Semi-formaltrials. Examples:comparisonof artificial fertilizer, compostandcattle
msnureon bananas.Thesetrials could be categorisedasresearcherdesigned- farmer
implemented.
t Informal iwestigations.Examples:compostmaking,monkeycontrol, trying new
crops/varieties.Couldbe describedasfarmerdesigned- farmerimplemented.
7

o Discassionon topicol iswes. Examples:developmentof clove are:!s,managernent of


forestareas,discussion aboutcrops. New investigations mayarisefrom the discussions,
otherwiseanydevelopmentsarenoted. Often the point is madein thesediscussionsthat
the farmersmusttakeresponsibilitythemselves andthat they shouldco-operatebecause
if only onepersonactson their own they are likely to fail.
c Training. Studytours, visits

Measarementsand recording

All trials are kept very simple. The majorobjectiveis to get the farmers'opinioris-about
the viability of a technology(technicalandsocio-economic).In sometrials the farmer
measuresthe yield, in othersno measurements aretaken.

An exampleof a trial whereno measurements aretakenis an erosioncontrol trial. This is a


completely new concept for the farmersanda wide rangeof specieshavebeenplantedon
the contour,togetherwith a comparisonofvegetativeand mechanicalmethodson a single
farm. The ideais to get a first responseofthe farmersaboutwhat type cif rnethodsmay
havea chanceto work. This will also serveasa demonstrationplot.

Thereis not a strongtradition of recordinginformationor writing paperswithin the


MALNR andwhereaseflorts aremadeto improvethe analyticalandreport writing skills,
paperworkis alsokept to a minimum. The currentthinking is to havea short annualreport
on the progressofeachgroup.

Inputs

Material inputs shouldbe kept to the minimumpossible. Thereare cases,however,when


the outcomeof a trial is completelyuncertainandthe costsof materialsor labourare high;
or wherethe benefitsto the project,in termsof the knowledgegained,maybe potentially
greaterthan thosefor the farmer;or whena largeplot hasto be plantedto get realistic
results. In thesecaseswe fe€l it is justifiableto give a gteaterlevel of zupport.

In a recentexample,a farmerwas paidfor someof his labourfor implementinga large


erosioncontroltrial on his farm.Someofthe plantingmaterialwasalsoprovided. Before
agreeingthe rate to be paid an independentlabourerwas askedto give a quotefor carrying
out the work andthe paymentof the farmerwasbasedon this. Erosioncontrol techniques
are new to the islandsandthe aim wasto comparea largenumberof techniqueswithirr a
singlefarm.

Farmer training and studytours

The useoftraining or studytours is an importantcomponentofthe work. Sometimes


farmersaretakento other areas(eg from one islandto the other)to get first-hand
experience.This maybe to seea specifictechnology(eg compostmaking,vanilla
cultivation,erosioncontrol), or to seenew farmingsystems(eg cattlecrop integration).
Trainingin the villageis alsogivenfor somenewtechnologiesfor which the farmershave
had little experience.
8

Meetings

Meetingswith the grouptakeplaceat inegularintervals,depending on the time ofyear and


the researchactivitiestaking place,the intervalcanrangefrom 2 to 10 weeks.In between
the groupmeetingsindividualfarmersarefollowedup.

Group Ieader ship/organisation

Someof the groupshaveappointeda chairmanandsecretary,othershavenot. Decisions


of this kind are left to the groupsto decide. For the group$which haveseveralrtr6mbers
from a singlefamily group it is perhapsbetternot to haveanychairmanasthis may cause
rifts.

Topical studies

Sometimesissuesor researchpossibilitiesarisefrom the work with the FRGsfor which


moredetailedstudyis required.An example(plannedfor October1995)is a studyon the
agroforestry possibilitiesfor the coral rag (soil type). The objectiveof this studyis to
identify indigenousandimportedtree specieswhich are currentlygrowing on the coral rag,
to investigatethe perfonnanceof eachspeciesandthe way in which they areused. From
this studywe expectto be ableto designagroforestryinterventionsfor adaptationby the
KangaganiFRG.

Remlts

It takesat leasta yearbeforeanyrezultsof co-operationwith FRGscanbe seenandmay


take longer- It needstime to foster ganuineparticipation,for the farmersto understandthe
conceptof researchandto start to overcomethe problemsofunrealistic expectationsfrom
the farmersgroups.

Therearetwo areasto considerwhentrylng to evaluatethe effectivenessof a group: the


changeswithin the group andthe effecton farmersoutsidethe group.

The changesthat haveoccurredwithin the groupsare significant. To takethe example


againof the first group,Daya:
r All farmersare startingto useorganicmatterrnanagement methodswhich they were not
usingbefore-useofmulches,compostandcattlemanure.
r Farmersaretaking responsibilttyfor reducingthe monkeypopulatiorqwhich is allowing
themto plantlargerrangeof cropsoutsidethe immediatelocalityof the village.
o A largenumberof new cropshavebeenassessed, somecontinueto be grown others
wererejected.
. All farmersare startingto diversifytheir cloveplantationareas,plantingsomecropsthat
they hadformerlylaughedat the ideaof (eg timber species,cinnamon,other tree crops).
. Somefarmersare startingto raisetheir own tree plantingmaterial.
o Somefarmersareconcentratingtheir efforts in a singlearea(beforethey were using
scatteredplots).
r Startingto try sornenew cropsin rice valleys(eg sugarcane).
o The farmersarenow'researchminded'.
9

The Dayafarmersgroup is now startingto repaythe effort requiredto start it. None ofthe
farmershavedroppedout. Someadditionalfarmerswant to joi4 but the group havenot
wantedto expand, The farmersreport that other peoplein the villageusedto makefirn of
the farmerswhenthey havetried new cropsor techniques,but the group farmersthink that
the last laughwill be on them.

We haveyet to evaluatethe impactofthe farmerresearchgroup work on farmersoutside


of the groups. For most of the groupsthis would be premature,but a studywill be done
within the local areaof the frst group later this yearto determinethe extentof tlie dispersal
ofnew ideasandadoptionofnew technologies,

PROBLEM AREAS

Expectation

The dominantproblemwhentry to work with groups,or individualsfarmersfor that


matte,r,is that of expectation.The expectationof what the farmerwill get out of
participatingwith the project and expectationofthe relativerole of farmerandproject in
problemsolving. This issuemustbe tackledbeforeanyrealparticipationcanbe realised.

The history of strongstatecontrol, subsidiesandtop-down approachhasreinforced


farmersunderstandingthat:
. farmerswill be grveninputsor other incentiveswhenco-operatingwith the government.
e all problemsoutsidethe immediatecontrol of an individualwilt be tackledby the
governmentandnot by the community.
o anytrials are seenasbelongingor beingfor the benefitof the Ministry andrrot for the
farmer.

Onefarmersaidthat he thoughtof the governmentasbeingmotherandfather.

Therehasbeenlittle history of real participatoryschemesinZarn:ibu. Although therehas


beena moveby variousdepartmentswithin the governmenttowardshelpinggroups,this is
often counterproductiveasthe groupshavebeenforming solelyto attracttangible
resources(tools, inputs)andnot througha desireto try andalleviateproblemsttuough
joint action.Thetypesofgroupsthat havebeenencouraged arethoseforjoint production,
which often fail. Thereareno local NGOs working within the agriculturalsector.

Conceptof research

It takessometime for the farmersgroupsto really appreciatethe conceptof research.The


Dayagroup,for example,expectedthat theywould be ableto quickly plant large areasof
introducedcashcropsandtherebymakemoney. Whenthey were givenplantingmaterials
of new cropstheywantedto plantthem in a largeareabeforethey knew how thesecrops
would perform. The project objectiveswere to experimentwith a rangeof options,
plantingsmallareasonlS and comeup with improvedsolutions.
l0

Workingin multidisciplinary mode

The project'sremit is developtnentof cashcrops. The idealwhenworkingwith FRGsis to


havea multi-disciplinary whereeachmemberof the team
teamof researchers/extensionists,
cancontributedifFerentareasof expertise.Currentlythereis no suchgroup within
Zanabar,so thereare a numberof alternatives:
r involveothersections;
o coverall areas;
r limit the group exclusivelyto cashcrop problems.
,-
In practicewe areusinga mixtureof the three. We aredoingsomejoint work with other
sections(panicularlyforestry),we aredealingwith someproblemsoutsideof our direct
remit andwe are alsorejectingsuggestionsfrom the FRGswhich arecompletelyout of our
(or suggestotheragencies
capabilities whichmigtrtbe ableto helpthem).

Working outsidethe remit of the project is not idealas it mayresrlt in duplicationof effort,
but on the otherhandthe divisionsbetweensectionsare somewhatartificial and are not a
logical dMde but relateto donor activity. Most MALNR staffreceivegeneraltrainingin
agriculture.Someg* specialised trainingbut thenmaybe postd to anothersectionon
return from training. The structureof the Ministry haschangedmanytimeswithin the last
l0 yearsandwill probablychangeagainin the future.

Someproblemsaredifficultto classify,anexamplebeing the problemof damageby


monkeys. We felt that this problemis onethat relatesto the PlantProtectionDivisior\ th€y
saidthat monkeysare underthejurisdiction of the distrist governmentoffice, who in turn
saythat it is an iszuefor the Departmentof Environment,and so on. In reality, monkeys
are a major constraintin the area,becausethe farmersareunwilling to plant anycrop in the
areasawayfrom the village apartfrom cassava,rice andthe existingclovetreesor wild
trees. Thereusedto be a governmentprogrammefor shootingmonkeys,but this
programmeceasedmanyyearssgo.

Our input hasbeento: give trainingon trappingandpoisoningmethods;to persuadethe


villagersthat it is their problemand only they cansolveit throughcommunityaction;andto
advisethat if thereis largescaleplantingof cropswhich are susceptibleto monkeydamage,
then damagesufferedby eachindividualwill be reducedandalsomonkeyhabitatwill be
reduced.

OTHER APPROACHNS BEING USED BY ZCCFSP AND MALNR

The FRG progranmeis the mainmethodusedby the project for doing long term indepth
researchanddwelopmentof new technologiesin a participativemanner,but it is by no
meansthe only approachbeingusedby the projector the widerMnistry.

Other ZCCFSP

havebeentried, manyofwhich were subsequently


Different approaches modifiedor
rejected.Onemethodwhichhasbeendroppedis theuseof so-called'pilot trials'. This
approachwasbasedon commercialdevelopment of singlecrop. Within a givenarea
ll

farmerswereidentified(opento anyfarmer),potentialtradersfoundandplantingmaterials
were distributed.

The mainproblemswith this approachwsre: the difficulty to correctlyidentify a crop


whichhadreal scopefor expansion to a commercialscale,the usualproblemsof
expectationof the farmers,aswell asthe physicaldifficulty ofproviding sufficientplanting
materialof goodqualityat the right time.

TheForestrysub-Commission hadmorezuccess with this typeof approachwith -


developmentof Casuarinaproduction.This speciesfilled a real nichefor buildingpolesand
couldalsobe grownon'free land', Plantingmaterialwasgivur freeto farmersfor many
years,but is now soldbecausea real dernandhasdevelopedfor this species.

The currentproject programmeis betterintegratedandlesstop-down.


c Individual crops. Somework continueswith individualcrops,for which thereis
considered to be realcommercialpotentialandsomeresearchquestionsremain.'"
Examplesarethe agronomicassessment of vanilla;top-working andvariety selectionfor
mangoe9.
. Networking, Of individualsin differentareasfor agroforestryinvestigations.
o Topicalstudies. Whenmote detailedinformationis needed.An exampleis the rec€nt
assessment of blackpepperproduction.
c Policy andplanning. Promotionof farmingsystemsapproachwithin MALNR,
Developmentof CropFact Sheets
o Germplasmdevelopment Introductionof new propagationpractices;identificationand
selectionof superiorgermplasm.Dorelopmentof capacityfor village plantingmaterial
production.
o Detailed socio-economicstudies. On rural households,their economicstrategiesand
relatedmatters.
o Mmketing. Particularlyresearchanddevelopmentof regionaltrading opportunities;
facilitationof export(reductionof bureaucracy).

Approacheswithinother sectionsof M4LNR

In the pastthe emphasis within the Ministryhasbeento do traditionalon-stationandon-


farm researchusingresearcherdesigned- researchermanagedtrials. More recentlyit has
beenrecognisedthat this methodwas achievinglittle. Subsequently manyofthe different
sectionswithin the Ministry are movingtowardsa group approach.

Unfortunately,the problemsof poor co-ordinationwithin MALNR hasresultedin different


approachesbeingusedby differentsections.

Participatorygroupscanwork well if the contactpurposeor objectiveis clearandsimple


(eg tree plantinggroups)or is left openandflexible(eg FRGs). The problemoccurswhen
groupsareformedwith objectivesthat don't respondto a clearlyidentifiableneed. Thus
the PlantProtectionSectionencounteredproblemswhenthey formedgroupsfor pest
control in certainfood crops. It soonbecameclearthat the mainproblemsfacedby the
farmerswere problens of marketinganddecliningsoil fertility andnot pestsper se.
t2

Potentialsolutionsto theseproblemswereto diversifycrops,agroforestryandother


organicmattermanagement practices,ratherthandirectpestcontrolmethods.

The Extensionsectionhasalsostartedworking with groups. The problemsthey havefaced


include: the groupsthey areusingare often formedfor reasonsdiffFerent from the
(eg
objectives for attractingeconomicassistance, or for socialreasons);the field staffhave
little experienceof working with groupsin a flexibleparticipativemode; andthereis a
Iack of ready-madetechnologieswhich canbe extendedto farmers.

THE INSTITUTIONAL CONSTRAINTS TO F{IRTHER DE\IELOPMENT OF


THE TR'G APPROACS IN ZANZIBAR AND PROSPECTSFOR THE FUTURE.

Therearemajor institutional,economicandpolitical changesin the offing andit is very


difficult to predictexactlywhat future this FRG approachmay enjoywithin Zandbar.

Thereis a continuedproblemof projectisation, despitethe changes to th€ structureof rnu


Mnistry designedto reducethis problem. Eachproject importsdifferentideasand
approaches.It difficult for the govemmentto controltheseprojectsbecausetheir
contributionto the runningexpenses is minimal. Evenlessresourcesaredirestedto
sectionswhicharenot donor-supported,Also incentivesgivenwithin projectsin the form
of allowancesandtrainingexacerbates the projectisation.Allied to this is the lack of a
realisticoverallpolicy on agriculture.

On the positiveside:
r The FRG approachreducesthe dependency of the group on the institution,through
minimisingthe useof inputsandttrough participation,
o The MALNR staffbenefitfrom prolongedcontactwith farmersandthe flexibletwo-way
approachneededfor working with groups.
r Chanetrng institutionsis a slow process,oneof thebestinfluenceson positivechangeis
to demonstrateeffectivemethodsfor agriculturaldwelopment.
o FRGsare an effectiveway of ensuringthat frrmers' constraintsandoppornrnitiesform
the basisfor the work progranrme.
r FRGsareprobablyoneofthe cheapest methodsfor dwelopingappropriateagricultural
technologies.

Therearea numberof methodological issuesfor the future:


. Will the learningcurve drop ofl Is it most appropriateto continuewith the same
groupsor would it be betterto changeto newgroupsaftera certainperiod.
o Whennewideasor technologies aredweloped,do you alterthe approachanddo more
networkingor start extensiongroups?

LESSONS

The mainlessonswhich canbe drawnfrom the FRG programme:


r It is importantnot to importmethodswholesale.Methodsneedto be adaptedto suit the
very differentcircumstances existingwithin differentcountries.
l3

Whendeveloping& new approachit is bestto startslowly,so that lessonscanbe learnt


andsuccesses built uponbeforetoo manyresourcesor farmersare involved. This is
often difficult whenprojectshaveshortlife spansandunrealistictargets.
o FarmerResearchGroupsrequirea lot of time, effort andthereforemoneyto setup. It
is essentialto selectthe group andlocationvery carefully.
r FarmerResearchGroupsare an excellentmethodfor developingrelevant,useable
technologies.
t4

SUMMARY OF METIIODOLOGY

Locationof FRG r Basedon farmingsystemzones.


r Village which is representative.
e Createshortlistof villagesmeetingcriteria,do rapid surv€y,
selectone.

Group selection Mix of age,gender,family, wealth,


andformation 10to l5 members.
Representative oftype of peopleusingland.
Must bewilling to participateandexperiment.
Threeinformantsin villagemakesuggestions of possible
goup members, basedon givencriteriafor mix of members,
makea combinationof the suggestions.
Discussconceptsof researchandaimsof researchgroup
Mni-PRA. Mixed group of MALNR staff(6-8), makecheck
list, visit eachfarmerindividually(discussion andvisit plots),
meetingat endof field work to give initial feedback to
farmers,write report on mainpoints andon individual
farmers.
Drawup areasfor research(MALNR statr)
Discussresearchproposalswith farmers,modifyplan.

Methodsfor Identifyresearch themes


working with Mix of :
groups Formaltrials (Researcher designed- Farmerimplemented)
Informal investigations(Farmerdesigpedandmanaged)
Discussionon topicalissues.
Trainingandstudytours.
Mnimise paperwork.
Topicalstudieswhenmoreinformationneeded.
Minimalinputs,exceptwhenrisk to farmersis high.

You might also like