Capturing farmers' demands and involving them in research |
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Methods for linking the supply of technology with the demand from smallholder farmers | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
A new menu of methods now helps farmers and researchers work together more productively. Farmers want and need change. So finding out what they want isn't a one-off process, it's continuous. And, like everyone else, there are things out there that farmers don't know about, so they don't know whether or not they might need them. Then, when suggestions are made to meet their needs, they like to be involved in testing them out. Development agencies, research organisations, foundations and non-government organisations already use the methods. Teamwork between researchers and farmers relies on social principles. These principles work as well with new equipment for draught animals as with integrated pest management, whether the topic is potato, rabbits or rice. Project Ref: CPP58:
Research Programmes: The Crop Protection Programme, Crop Post Harvest Programme, the Livestock Production Programme and DFID's Rural Livelihood Department (Bolivia Initiative) commissioned research through the Innova project in Bolivia. Work on participatory methodologies for project development and implementation were jointly developed with the DFID RLD funded FOCAM project ("Participatory monitoring and evaluation (PM&E) for rural innovation in Bolivia."). Relevant Research Projects: R8182
SIBTA was to make adaptive research and technical assistance respond more clearly to demands from farmers and other actors. Previous RNRRS projects in Bolivia had developed a range of promising technologies. Some policy makers wanted to throw out this technology and start again from scratch, in order to be "demand-led". Innova was a chance to see if the existing technology really did meet demand, and if so, finish it up with poor farmers. Innova coined the idea of explicit and implicit demand. Explicit demands are ones that people recognise and can express loud and clear ("We need more grass for our sheep in the dry season"). Implicit demands are for problems that the end users do not recognise (e.g. potato viruses), or for techniques which they have not imagined (for example, they did not demand metal ploughs until they saw them). Innova developed a menu of methods to capture farmer demands for technology and improve their supply (research)
INNOVA also developed a suite of methods for engaging farmers in the project cycle and ensuring that their demands were met. These included:
Potato, but including many other crops in the system (various Andean roots and tubers, several grains, quinoa, broad beans), and several fodder species (vetch, oats, phalaris and other grasses). The outputs can be applied to any commodity, because the methods for harnessing research to farmer demands can be used with any crop or product, as can the marketing methods.
The menu of methods developed could be applied to any production system.
The menu of methods developed could be applied to any farming system.
Value could be added to the Innova methods by clustering them with any of the RNRRS outputs. Research to alleviate poverty must respond to local demand. Innova found that demand is not a tangible object to find and pass on to researchers. Rather, demand must be measured often as it evolves, while pro-poor technology is designed and fine-tuned over time. The principles for joining researchers and farmers together as a team are social, not agronomic, and they work as well with new draught-animal equipment as with IPM, whether the topic is potato, rabbits or rice. The suite of methods for capturing demand could be integrated with approaches for participatory on-farm research by ensuring that technologies being researched are clearly articulated with farmers' demands. Around the world, many national agricultural innovation systems face a similar problem of how to assess farmer demand, articulate it with the supply of available technology, and stimulate shifts in both demand and supply to promote broad adoption of appropriate technology. The suite of methods for including users in the project cycle could be appropriate for any decentralised adaptive research and extension system that seek to give users a real voice in controlling the content and quality of service delivery. How the outputs were validated: Each of the menu of methods developed by INNOVA to capture farmer demands for technology and improve their supply (research) was tested on at least three occasions in different production systems (Table 1). Table 1: Validation of the menu ofmethods to capture farmer demands
The use of the menu of methods led to a series of changes in the technologies that were being tested by the project (Table 2). This led to changes in the technology, and in the case of three of the technologies to widespread adoption. This validated the methods as effective instruments for promoting innovation processes of technological adaptation and adoption. Table 2. Changes in technologies due the application of the menu of methods to capture farmer demands.
The suite of methods to systematically involve farmers in the project cycle were tested on numerous occasions between 2005-6 (Table 3). Table 3: Validation of the suite of methods to engage farmers in the project cycle (during the period from 2005 to 2006)
A Evaluate knowledge and practices acquired by demanders during the project B Evaluate the performance of the provider and of the user organization from the perspective of the demanders C New regional project coordinated by CIP/ Papa Andina Initiative and supported by New Zealand Aid. The suite of methods to engage farmers in the project cycle were designed and tested for use with SIBTA's adaptive research and technical assistance projects but they could be used more generally with any type of project for technological innovation. The Innova methods have been described in a catalogue for Bolivian policy makers, published by the Ministry of Farmer Affairs, Agriculture and Livestock (Patiño, Fernando, Rolando Oros & Graham Thiele 2006 Inventario de Metodologías para el Diseño e implementación de Proyectos Guiados por la Demanda). Proinpa decided to include the methods across the whole research organization and invited staff members who work with Innova to give a course on the methods to project managers. The manager of a project, implemented with 16 communities on the Altiplano, made the following comments about the methods: The elaboration of demands let us get to know farmers' real problems while writing a proposal, and to change some implicit demands into explicit ones. The technology fair showed the technologies offered by the project and by Innova partners. During the technology fair, questionnaires were given to about 100 farmers, to see how they perceived the technologies. This helped to rank the new technologies and learn local criteria. This method adds value to what would otherwise be just a field day. A mid term review was done at two levels: first with the leaders of the 16 communities that work with the project, and then with each community. The method takes time, but the farmers were able to use it to evaluate the project, prioritise interesting topics and propose others to include in the future. They pointed out shortcomings in the training and made a self-criticism about their own attitude in the courses. This information helped adjust the project. Where the Outputs were Validated: See Tables 1, 2 and 3. Who are the Users? The methods to fit research with farmers' demand for technology and the methods to engage farmers into the project cycle are being used by Proinpa, CIAT/Santa Cruz, the Chaco Foundation, the Valley Foundation, and various other services providers. A range of service providers have been given training to apply the methods (Table 4). Table 4. Organization and number of people with basic capacities to apply the methods to engage farmers in project cycle
Where the outputs have been used: See Table 4. Scale of Current Use: The SIBTA Foundations use the methods. The Valley and Altiplano Foundations of SIBTA suggested combining elements of their own monitoring and evaluation system with the participatory mid-term review method. More progress was made with the Chaco FDTA. The participatory mid - term review, is now incorporated in the Chaco Foundation's evaluation system, and is used by the Foundation's supervisors, and services providers which manage its adaptive research and extension projects. The Altiplano Foundation did not suggest any changes in the Participatory Proposal Adjustment method. They consider it to be potentially very valuable, have begun testing it and are waiting to see how useful it is. In the Valleys Foundation a service provider wants to try the Participatory Proposal Adjustment. The Proinpa Foundation decided to institutionalize the methods, and promote their use in its monitoring and evaluation system. See also Table 4. At the moment because of the change of government in Bolivia, instutionalization of the methods has slowed as the new government establishes its own policies for agricultural R&D. The INIS project which is about to start will provide new momentum for further institutionalization. Policy and Institutional Structures, and Key Components for Success: The menu of methods for capturing farmer demand was used to by the project to identify farmers' demands and improve congruence with available supply. Further institutionalization of the methods in SIBTA was inhibited because SIBTAs Foundations engage in little longer term research with a broad range of technologies that could have provided an appropriate context for the application of the methods to assess farmer demand. A demand led innovation system with strong investment in long term research would provide an appropriate context for institutionalizing the methods. The suite of methods for engaging farmers in the project cycle would be assisted by a context in which technical assistance and local adaptive research is provided through competitive funded projects and where users are given a real role in monitoring the quality of service delivery. Lessons Learned and Uptake Pathways Promotion of Outputs: The technologies themselves continue to spread spontaneously, at least in the municipalities where the technologies were validated. Building on the experience of INNOVA, the FOCAM project and FIT Programme, DFID is funding the INIS project (National Agricultural Innovation Systems that Work for the Poor) implemented through CIAT and CIP in Bolivia, Peru, Ecuador and Colombia. INIS will promote the institutionalization of these and other participatory methods in the four countries, measure the impact of the methods and , through the provision of evidence based information, influence policy to promote broader incorporation of participatory approaches and tools in national innovation systems. Potential Barriers Preventing Adoption of Outputs: Bolivia is a vast country, with a sparse population, where roads are long and patchy. Issues of social exclusion have made world headlines, and there have been four presidents in three years. If the Innova methods worked in Bolivia, there is a good chance they will work elsewhere. The Innova methods help to overcome social exclusion, as the poor, women and indigenous people were able to join in. Having said this, the Innova methods have not been applied more in Bolivia because SIBTA actually does very little research. SIBTA mostly funds small extension projects, which have little contact with each other or with other institutions. And even though the SIBTA projects do emphasise extension, because they are so fragmented (a table grape project here, an onion project there), there is little flow of new technology through the system. There is no national extension service. There are centres of competence scattered around the country, but they tend to be fairly small and with a narrow remit; for example one agency produces high quality forage seed, but does not have an extension service. Several NGOs have excellent extension agents, but do no research. This piecemeal situation still hampers the spread of ideas. How to Overcome Barriers to Adoption of Outputs: Policy change leading to a much more substantial investment in agricultural research in a demand led context would be the most important change needed to reduce barriers to adoptions. In addition, organizations that are potential users of the methods need to be trained (capacity building). Manuals and other users' guides need to be adapted for new situations, edited and translated. Study visits and other exchange of experiences will also be useful to promote spillover of the methods into neighbouring countries and into new geographical contexts. Lessons Learned: The methods are intended to be used by R&D organizations rather than the poor directly. Poverty Impact Studies: Bentley, Jeffery W. 2005a Technology Fair in Qhochimit'a: Desperate to Experiment. Cochabamba: Innova Project report. Bentley, Jeffery W. 2005b Technology Fair in Kellhuiri: "What They Learned in Seven Years, We Learned in a Week": Cochabamba: Innova Project report. Bentley, Jeffery W., Graham Thiele, Rolando Oros & Claudio Velasco 2004 "Cinderella's Slipper: Sondeo Surveys and Technology Fairs for Gauging Demand." London: ODI Agricultural Research & Extension Network (AgREN). Network Paper No. 138. Bentley, J.W., R. Botello, A. Devaux, A. Guidi, D. Horton, P. Meneces, F. Rodríguez, G. Thiele, C. Velasco, M. Webb & B. Siderman-Wolter 2005 Innovating for Prosperity: Bolivia's Innova project. Cochabamba: Innova. 16 pp. Bentley, Jeffery W., Graham Thiele, Claudio Velasco, André Devaux, Morag Webb, Félix Rodríguez, Rolando Oros & Rubén Botello. In press. "Unspoken Demands for Farm Technology." Submitted to the International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability. Devaux, André 2005 Strengthening Technical Innovation Systems in Potato-Based Agriculture in Bolivia (Innova). Final Technical Report. Lima: CIP. Devaux, André 2006 Project Innova (Extension Phase). Final Technical Report. Lima: CIP. Focam 2005a Evaluación Participativa Final del Modelo Innova de PITA Mejoramiento en la Calidad de Papa para la Industria y Consumo en la Provincia Manuel María Caballero, Departamento de Santa Cruz. Cochabamba: Focam. Focam 2005b Evaluación Participativa Final del Modelo Innova de PITA Mejoramiento en la Producción de Forrajes para la Alimentación Animal en la Provincia de Tiraque. Cochabamba: Focam. Siderman-Wolter, Benedikte (ed.) 2005 Did You Know? A Focus on 17 Natural Resources Projects Across the Developing World, Managed by NR International. Aylesford, Kent, UK. 44 pp. How the Poor have Benefited (including gender and other poverty groups): In the first Focam study (2005a) 19 farmers representing seven communities evaluated their experience with Innova in Comarapa, Santa Cruz. Using the Focam method of participatory project evaluation, the farmers gave the project a satisfaction rating of 85%. Farmers liked the project because it was participatory and they also valued their new organisations. All of the communities now had CIALs and one was organised to grow certified seed potato. In the second study (Focam 2005b) 28 farmers representing five communities in Tiraque, Cochabamba gave Innova a slightly lower rating, 73%. They liked the project most because of what they learned from it. Some of them were pleased that they were now producing, and even selling, the seed of new fodder varieties. All 28 farmer-evaluators said they had learned to produce new oat varieties, and most had learned to grow other forages, but they also complained that they had not learned more, or not produced more forage because the farmers themselves did not show enough interest in the project at first, and because there had not been enough seed available. There was a dramatic improvement in Innova's technologies between 2003 and 2005. During the technology fairs in 2003, the plots were broken into small, random blocks: perfect for gathering statistically-valid data, but difficult for farmers to see. Some of the trials were barely growing at all, and occasionally the agronomists hovered over the farmer-experimenters like ventriloquists. By 2005, all of the experiments were described in indigenous languages (Aymara or Quechua) by extremely confident farmer-experimenters. And although there were slightly fewer technologies, all of the trials were thriving, and the treatments were large enough for the audience to immediately grasp the differences between them. On the Altiplano, visiting farmers were astounded by the bright green patches of barley mixed with vetch, and everyone could see that the 'improved potato' (a native variety, planted with an ox plough and fertilised with chicken manure) would yield twice as much as the other fields. At the trial in the high valleys, after showing and explaining their successful trials, the farmer-experimenters handed out 50 gram packets of seed. The other farmers rushed in to snatch up the little bags of seed, so they could try the new crops and varieties on their own land (Bentley (2005a, 2005b). The technologically conservative peasant is a myth. Smallholders are keen to try innovations that look promising. The problem with research in the past has been that much of the innovations are too expensive, take too much labour, or simply do not work on farms. For overviews of Innova see (Bentley et al. 2005, 2005, Devaux 2005, 2006, Siderman-Wolter 2005). Direct and Indirect Environmental Benefits: The methods are environmentally neutral and would not be expected to have any environmental impacts. Adverse Environmental Impacts: None. Coping with the Effects of Climate Change, or Risk from Natural Disasters: Research results that fit the needs of the poor, and which articulate them to research, help make communities more resilient. Relevant Research Projects,
with links to the
|
For relevant research projects, with links to further information Geographical regions included: Bolivia, Ecuador, Peru,  Target Audiences for this content:Crop farmers, Livestock farmers, Fishers, Forest-dependent poor, Processors, Traders, Consumers, |
