Despite a considerable amount of resources committed to research and extension in Zimbabwe, adoption of research-station generated technologies particularly soil and water conservation techniques is very low and soil erosion and water losses remains rampant. In response to these constraint a systems farmer participatory research and extension approach was initiated and being developed in southern Zimbabwe based on the experiences of the AGRITEX Conservation tillage project and the Intermediate Technology group, food security project. The methodology and tools which are being utilized in the implementation of participatory innovation development and extension as a model for research and extension are presented in this paper. Some results and experiences are also highlighted. The approach is based on Training for Transformation a training programme build on conscientisation through participatory education. The conceptual model consists of three components which are Extension, Research and Farmer. The implementation model comprise the process initiation, seasonal cycle and support system. Experiences so far have shown that the approach has potential to improve innovation development, extension of technologies and strengthen farmers' self organisational capacities. The pilot activities have also shown that it is possible for researchers to get an in-depth understanding of the farmers' farming systems and increase output in terms of innovations and spreading of techniques with this approach. The paper concludes by recommending institutionalisation of the approach and to integrate it into a community resource management concept. 

Introduction 

Agriculture is the backbone of the Zimbabwean economy. It's contribution to Gross National Product (GNP) stands at about 15% in most years and 30% of formal sector employment is agriculture based. In most years, over 95% of all food and beverages are locally produced and agriculture accounts for over 40 % of total national exports (Muir 1994). Yet rampant soil erosion and land degradation are continuing to destroy the Agricultural base. The state of land management has been described as being in a state of a crisis (Elwell & Stocking 1988). The land management crisis has been attributed to the poor adoption of research station developed techniques particularly soil and water conservation systems. This has lead to some increased interest in On-farm research with the hope of improving the capacity of researchers to respond to production problems and opportunities of small holder farmers who operate under diverse circumstances, show conspicuous resource constraints, and cannot easily articulate their needs to researchers directly (Collinsons, M.P 1987, Madondo 1992). However recent reviews have shown that even on-farm research has had very little impact mainly because of the poor integration of on-farm research with disciplinary and commodity research and weak links with extension services (Low, Waddington and Shumba 1991). In response to these constraints, the AGRITEX/GTZ conservation tillage (research focused) and the Intermediate Technology Group food security (extension based) projects initiated the development of a systems farmer participatory technology generation approach based on farmer experimentation. 

This paper presents the methodology and tools which are being used in the implementation of participatory development and extension as a model for research and extension, and also highlights some results and experiences so far. 

The Learning Process 

Phase 1 (1988 -1990): On-station Applied Research 

The conservation tillage project was initiated in 1988 at two sites with the main objective of evaluating the technical and environmental feasibility of five tillage practices. Soil loss, runoff and agronomic performance were measured. The data generated was to be input into the Soil Loss Estimation Model Of Southern Africa (SLEMSA). 

High quality data was obtained but it became doubtful if the overall objective of making available to farmers sustainable conservation tillage systems could be achieved with the approach. 

Phase 2 (1991 - 1992): Adaptive On-Farm Trials 

After a planning workshop, adaptive on-farm trial were initiated in four communal areas in Masvingo Province. Groups of eight to ten farmers in each communal area were selected on the advise of the local extension agent. The farmers selected were invited to the research station and were asked about their main problem. Lack of water was prioritized as the most important problem. They were exposed to different soil and water conservation techniques and favored to test a technique called no-till tied ridging (Elwell & Norton, 1988). Procedures were explained, in particular the fact that farmers should manage the trials themselves, modify and improve the technique. A simple paired design where farmers can observe the difference in the performance of the technique was suggested to farmers. The farmers agreed to participate in the trials but clearly expressed disappointment when they learnt that the project did not provide fertilizers and seeds. 

Only man came for the visit to the research station. In follow up visits to discuss farmers' choice of fields, it became apparent that most farmers had not reported the visits to their wives and general the wives were ignorant of the trials and in some cases the wives even boycotted the trials. It was a major lesson that communication in the family was weak and therefore there was need to address the family as a unit. Although it was explained to farmers that they should feel free to modify and experiment with tied ridges, generally farmers hardly modified anything and in some cases even waited to be advised by researchers to carry out agronomic practices. The farmers also tended to praise tied ridges even when it was obvious that the crops did worse on the `improved' technique. With time, due to the intensive weekly interaction based on dialogue and partnership, trust was built up and openness improved slightly but the women were still rather disinterested. It revealed that farmer participation is not a method but a process which developed rather slowly. It was clear that the interaction between farmers, researchers and extensionists based on top-down communication has resulted in a culture which can not be broken by asking farmers about their opinion and trying to involve them in the researchers trials. It also showed that farmers have to gain confidence in their own experimental capacities before they feel free to experiment. The entrypoint with tied ridging proved to be good and a lot of formal and informal data was collected which enabled a deep understanding of the farming system, the rural livelihood with its potentials and constraints and the extension system. Based on this experience it was planned to develop tools to increase farmer participation in the following season and make the process more farmer led. 

With regard to the collection of quantitative research data, the paired design worked well. The detailed monitoring and intensive interaction with farmers provided a good basis to analyse the effects of the improved technique. 

Phase 3 (1992-1994) Farmer Participatory Research 

Before the start of the next season, workshops with farmers, researchers and extension workers were organised. The goal was to catalyse participation and the spirit of experimentation and to gain a greater understanding of farmers' problems. A philosophic framework was introduced in the form of Training for Transformation (TFT). Training for Transformation was developed in Kenya in 1974 and adapted to Zimbabwean conditions by Hope and Timmel (1984). It originates in the pedagogy of Freira (1973) and is built on consietisation through participatory education, where learning is based on experience in the own living world of the actor. Teaching therefore consists of dialogue via problem posing, which means facilitation of communication flow and asking questions to help groups find the causes and solutions themselves instead of teaching of foreign knowledge and realities. TFT provides concrete methods to implement Freire's approach and empowers local people to control their lives through active participation in their own development and sharing of ideas and knowledge. It stresses the importance of participation and cooperation in organisational development in order to build institutions which enable people to become self-reliant. It aims at strengthening peoples confidence and integrates social analysis to help groups find the root causes of problems (Hope and Timmel, 1984). Fraire´s key principles form a philosophical framework which is relevant for any individual living in a society and can be applied in almost all situations in life. The link between TFT and farmer experimentation was created through the principle that problems can only be solved through trying out of ideas and through the development of innovations rather than through ready-made recipes. 

In the workshops a set of flexible methods (including group discussion, role plays, codes, poems, exercises on perception, proverbs, songs etc.) which could be adopted to many different situations and requirements (Hagmann et. al., 1992). 

The workshops revealed very strong socio-organisational and cultural problems. It was learnt that farmers perceived social problems as more severe than technical problems. In a problem ranking exercise the highest priority was lack of cooperation among people. The major cause underlying the social problems was identified as socio-cultural change which has split the rural society into the mostly younger people who want to follow a 'modern' life and the traditional people who accuse the latter of not sticking to the traditional values and rules. The generation conflict and an increasing individualization and monetarisation has created an atmosphere of mistrust, jealousy and discouragement, which besides political factors has weakened the traditional leadership structures (Hagmann 1991, Nyagumbo, 1995). New leadership structures which are capable of integrating the various social streams and buffering conflicts have not developed and are easily undermined by the individualization and hierarchical communication structures. A solution to this leadership and co-operation crisis would require that community members identify with a common vision and a common philosophy which is strong enough to generate enough will to cooperate. 

In terms of innovations, the tense atmosphere was given as a reason for the prevailing 'fear of new things'. Despite farmers insight for a need of innovations to cope with the social and ecological changes the fear of 'being laughed at' in the case of a failed experiment or innovation was stronger as it attracted all the blame from other people. With a generally negative attitude people preferred to prove that things do not work than endeavor to make things work. A general apathy and reluctance to experiment was the result. 

Another constraint for development of innovations and knowledge transfer were weak communication structures in the local institutions. It revealed that people did not feel represented by their leaders and the approach in groups was considered unparticipartory. In addition a permanent power struggle between the traditional leaders and the modern/political leaders aggravated the situation. Such an atmosphere does not encourage a joint 'learning' process, nor does it help to solve the crisis of the community managed land. Therefore socio-organisational developments must be addressed in technology development and social innovations should be part of the process. 

Phase 4: 1994 - : a new approach for participatory research & innovation development and extension, Kuturaya. 

During the early stages of the development of the approach, farmers in Masvingo (southern Zimbabwe) were asked to provide a word for research or experimentation in their local dialect. It revealed that there are several words and expressions that mean research. It was finally agreed that "Kuturaya" (which is derived from trying) best describes research. The name (Kuturaya) now describes an approach that incorporates both research and extension. It is built on combining farmers' indigenous knowledge with western knowledge. Its goal is the management of natural resources and food security in small holder farming areas of Zimbabwe. The approach aims at developing and spreading sustainable farming practices and at enabling rural communities as a whole and individual families as units (men and women together) to solve their problems. 

The Philosophical and Developmental Framework 

of "Kuturaya" is based on Training for Transformation (TFT) (described above). The strong acceptance of and agreement on TFT principles by various characters with different attitudes and in different mainstreams is its major strength. It manages to integrate and unite these often conflicting interests under one umbrella, the key principles. In shona society socio-cultural change has weakened the social coherence and security which was based on traditional rules and regulations. Therefore a new umbrella which can replace or partially substituted the old security is particularly important as the desire of social harmony is extremely strong and dominates most decisions of individuals. 

The Conceptual Model 

consists of a research, extension and active farmer participation components (fig 1). The development of innovative techniques is based on the trial and error principle. Farmers are encouraged to experiment with ideas and techniques emanating from their own knowledge or from external sources (research and extension). Farmer experimentation stimulates the re-evaluation and appreciation of traditional knowledge, its combination with new techniques and a synthesis of the two. Through experimentation farmers gain knowledge and this strengthens their confidence in self help and increases their ability to choose options and to develop and adapt solutions appropriate to their situation-specific ecological, economic and socio-cultural conditions and circumstances. Problems during the experimentation process are the base for the research agenda and on-farm trials in which more focus is put on quantitative data to support the findings or for taking the farmers' ideas to the research stations for further research under controlled conditions. Extension of innovative techniques is stimulated through strengthening of the self-organizational capacities of the rural communities and institutions. Improvements of communication structures and skills is facilitated in order to enable people to create an environment where they feel obliged to communicate and share their skills and experiences. Experimentation with technical options rather than promotion of strict recommendations is promoted. In annual review/evaluation workshops farmers share experiences and this also facilitates the farmers to have the same understanding on issues pertaining to the management of common property resources. Active participation by all actors is the mainstay of "Kuturaya". Farmers' participation is core the component of Kuturaya. Farmers contribute to an understanding of their goals, needs and potential solutions. They also take part in leadership and communication training thereby contributing self-organizational improvement. Farmers identify technical solutions to the defined problems, design/plan experiments and most importantly of all experiment with technical options. 

The Implementation Model 

consist of three major components which are closely interlinked. These are: the process initiation, seasonal cycle and support system (fig 2). A preparatory phase is also essential and takes place before "Kuturaya" is initiated. In the preparatory phase agro-ecological, socio-economic and farming systems information is assessed using RRA and PLA tools (Theis and Grady 1991). Most importantly is an institutional survey to identify the institutional basis of the intervention. In interviews with community members, roles, strengths and weakness of existing local institutions are identified. Community members also recommend implementing institutions. A household needs assessment is carried out on the basis of different wealth ranks in semi-structured interviews. 

Process initiation starts with an awareness raising workshop. The purpose of the process is clarified and information obtain in the institutional survey is fed back to the community. Training for Transformation principles are introduced in five session which show the process of technology development from problem identification to technology evaluation. The link between experimentation and development of solutions is underlined. On the basis of community's priority needs and problems are organized. The second step of the process initiation stage is exposure to options. The aim is to inspire farmers with ideas so that they may choose some to experiment with. Visual teaching aids to explain soil erosion processes are used. For soil erosion two models are used. The first one is a simulation of three soil management treatments (mulch ripping, tied ridging and conventional bare) in small trays (0.5m x 0.3m). Rainfall is simulated by spraying water with a watering cane. Soil loss and runoff are collected in transparent glass beakers. A second set of beakers collects deep seepage water which represents ground water in wells and boreholes. Thus the process of soil erosion and impact on soil nutrient loss, siltation of dams and water table recharge are demonstrated. The second model links soil erosion, reduction of soil depth and drought. Two soil glass boxes one with a soil column of 30 cm and another one with only 15 cm are used. The same amount of water is poured into the boxes and the amount retained in the soil and thus available to plants is recorded. The shallow column only retains about half the total amount of water poured while , while the deep soil retains almost all of it. Thus the shallow soil which is due to soil erosion is drought inducing to crops. During these field days, the experimentation is initiated and planned. Competitions among all individual farmers in the communities for the best ideas and among communities for the highest number of farmers participating are introduced. They stimulate the process of experimentation and the revival of farmer knowledge. Competitions between individuals are linked with competitions between communities to minimise the danger of victimization of the innovators. That way the innovators are important for each community and are respected and appreciated even if failures occur. Farmers elect a committee for organisation and judging of competitions. For these elections farmers are encouraged to consider the leadership qualities they would have defined as important in awareness raising workshops. 

The seasonal cycle follows on process initiation at the on-set of the cropping season. Farmers choose options and ideas they think are most responsive to their individual problems and test them preferably in a simple paired design. During the first year it is advisable to focus on a limited number of technologies in order to create the necessary entry point. As farmers become more confident they can try out more ideas. The major tool in the experimentation phase is the paired design. Every innovative idea is tested in comparison to the conventional technique side by side in one field. This allows farmers to carry out continuous qualitative assessment of the performance and therefore helps them to understand the factors which contribute to the differences. For researchers and extension staff, the paired design allows the collection of quantitative data provided check plots are put in and regular monitoring takes place. In the middle of the growing season judging of trials in communities is carried out by committee members of a neighboring community who uses criteria set out by the farmers. Farmers organize an evaluation tour/fieldday after judging of trials. All farmers in the community are invited to go round the fields to see the trials. Each individual farmer who runs interesting experiments presents his/her fields, ideas and findings to the group where they are further discussed and sometimes challenged. The objective is effective sharing of knowledge among farmers and increased confidence due to presentations. For researchers and extension farmers' evaluation is of great interest as it reveals there knowledge and criteria, often not spoken out in extension meetings. At the end of field-day farmers screen techniques and ideas for further research, promotion or dropping out. Techniques screened for further research are put in proper on farm trials or fed back to on-station in the following season. The technologies which are classified as ready for promotion are being further promoted as options in the neighboring areas. 

Just before the start of the next season, a feedback review and planning workshop is organized by the community. Researcher feed back quantitative data to the farmers. The results of the whole process are reviewed with regards to the initial objectives for next season. The testing strategy for the following seasons is clarified. 

The support system is constituted by Research and Extension and guides and supports the process without dominating the farmers. Documentation of farmer knowledge and experiences as well as production of guidelines and fact sheet are all important roles of extension. Extension is also a link to research in case farmers define problems where researchers are needed. Agricultural research plays the role of a demand driven service institution. Farmer oriented extension defines an outline of relevant topics which require research and would demand the services of the department of research. Except for some basic research, which require strictly controlled conditions, most research is carried out in an interactive way in order find applicable solutions to farmers problems. Researchers join farmers in "Kuturaya", and provided they utilise simple paired trials and carry out constant monitoring are able to collect quantitative data. The most interesting of farmers' ideas are taken back to the research station in-order to look into detailed processes. Research stations are open and used as "think-tanks" for look and learn tours to inspire farmers on technical options. 

Results and Experiences 

Results and experiences with the approach emanate from the implementation of "Kuturaya" by ITDG Chivi food security project, the AGRITEX/GTZ conservation tillage project and the Indigenous Soil and Water Conservation Project jointly coordinated by the Institute of Environmental Studies and the Intermediate Technology Group. Initially ITDG and Contill were testing and developing the approach at first independent one another and in close collaboration in the past two years. Three major aspects are highlighted, research and innovation development, strengthening of self-organizational capacities in communities and extension. 

Research and Technology Development. 

The conservation tillage project started with "no-till tied ridging" a system of semi permanent ridges (Elwell and Norton 1988) as an entry point. As a water harvesting system it addresses one of the major problems in crop production in the semi-arid. Farmers tested the system gained self confidence and become familiar with the approach during the first year while the process was mainly researcher driven. Researchers used the first year to develop a close relationship with farmers and to understand the farmers' systems and decision making processes through the application of informal interviews and observations methods (Chuma 1994). In the second season farmers started adopting the system and experimenting with other techniques. The dynamics increased continuously and with it the number of farmer-initiated experiments. By the third season some farmers had up to 12 different trials mainly based on knowledge gained on their fields. The initial "fear of new things" was continuously addressed by Training for Transformation principles and was replaced by the "spirit of trying". Farmers experimentation revived the indigenous knowledge systems as farmers became confident enough to talk about traditional knowledge and share it with fellow farmers. The competitive spirit among farmers supported the process as everybody tried to be innovative. 

Origin and Nature of Innovations. 

About half of the innovations were adoptions and modifications to externally introduced ideas and options. The other half originated from farmers. In most cases ideas from outside were modified and jointly further developed by researchers and farmers. Discussions with farmers also revealed constrains in the farming system and this inspired researchers to develop some innovations. In the area of implement development considerable success was achieved. Implements developed include: An improved ridger (Hagmann 1994), a donkey drawn-tool bar (Hagmann 1995), a knife ripper tine, planting device and donkey harnesses. Other innovations tested and further developed are: the modified fanya juu (Hagmann 1994), basin tillage system for soil and water conservation, innovative planting techniques, various methods of making compost, planting and use of hedges, a relay cropping system, natural pesticides, water saving irrigations for gardens and rill reclamation methods ( Hagmann and Murwira 1995, Chuma & Hagmann 1995). During the development of the approach it was evident that ideas from outside (research and from other sources like innovative farmers) and the input from researchers and extensionist were crucial to stimulate farmers. This showed that facilitation by research and extension is a requirement for successful implementation of the approach. 

Formal Research in the "Kuturaya" Process 

The paired treatment design (side by side in one field) enabled farmers to continuously evaluate the performance of the new technique and also enabled researchers to obtain quantitative data. The quality of the data improved with the building up of farmers experimental capacities. For high quality data frequent visits and monitoring was required. Intensive long term observations of trial farmers and the use of a combination of evaluation methods provided a basis for understanding rural dynamics and decision making patterns influential to the adoption or rejection of technologies (Chuma 1994). The result showed that it is possible to match a participatory process with quantitative research. The range of technical aspects which emanate from farmers' problems and ideas required open-ended and multidisplinary research. The conservation tillage project started with research on conservation tillage and ended up with topics from implement development to social research. This requires a genuine desire for researcher and extension staff to learn from farmers and it revealed that such an attitude and communication skills are as important as academic qualifications. 

Strengthening Self -Organizational Capacities 

In the food security project, farmers chose farmers' club and garden clubs as an institution which should implement the project and other local institutions would play a supportive role. The weakness of these two institutions were identified and steps taken to improve on them. After Training for Transformation awareness workshops, community members selected leaders to attend TFT training course. After TFT course which included leadership training most clubs/groups restructured their leadership to ensure a better representation characterized by a better democratic participation of all. Members of clubs were no longer confined to the elite and were no longer led exclusively by master farmers. Number of clubs rose from 9 with 120 members to 34 with 800 members and that of garden groups rose from 10 with 250 members to 44 with more than 1100 members. In the some cases women were also elected to leadership positions. It was clearly evident that through participation farmers had strengthened their institutions. 

An evaluation of farmer participatory research and extension revealed that farmers have realised several positive aspects of the approach. Three major aspects of the approach were improved participation of everybody, dialogue and process based approach to extension and encouraged cooperation and sharing of knowledge. 

Old approach 

• Forceful methods were used
• Only few people could benefit
• Intercropping was forbidden
• Failed to address Soil and Water Conservation convincingly
• We were told to do things without questioning
• Usefulness of conservation works never explained
• No dialogue between farmers and extension
• Little cooperation among farmers
• Extension agents treated our fields as theirs

New/participatory approach 

• Everyone to benefit as all are free to attend
• There is dialogue
• Farmers are the drivers now
• Intercropping is encouraged to boost yields
• Farmers are treated as partners and equals
• No discrimination against poor or rich, educated or uneducated
• We are given a choice of options
• We are being encouraged to try out new things

Spreading/Extension of technologies 

In ward 21 in Chivi where the ITDG food security project has been actively involved in soil and water conservation extension, about 80% of households are practicing soil and water conservation techniques. Technologies in practice include mulching, tied ridges, use of clay pipes and plastic sheets and inverted bottles for irrigation in gardens, infiltration pits, intercropping and rock catchment water harvesting. Despite very limited animal draught power, farmers continued to construct tied ridges by hand. Twenty three out of 34 farmer clubs are involved in the technology. In 1992/93, 28 farmers were practicing the technique and in 94/95, the number rose to more than 500. Infiltration pits have increased in popularity and have spread beyond the ward boundaries through farmer to farmer extension. Mulching in fields is one technology that has not been very popular with farmers. This is because farmers associate mulch problems of mice and termites. In gardens however 60% of the group members are practicing mulching for water conservation purposes. Spreading of ant-hill material for soil fertility improvement is a traditional technique which was revived by motivating farmers to improve soil fertility. Implements testing has mainly focused on draught power saving and the use of donkey power. Water saving techniques for irrigated gardens are very popular as they contribute directly to a reduction of labor and increased production. The adoption of different techniques from 1992 to 1995 is shown in Table 1. 

Table 1: Adoption of Soil and Water techniques in Chivi (Ward 21) 1992/93, 93/94 and 94/95 

* Groups out of a total of 37 

Farmer experimentation has lead to an increase in self-confidence and building up of knowledge based on experience. With increased confidence and experience, farmers have initiated and organized field days by themselves. Up to 200 people participated in some of the field days. In these field days, researchers and extensionists were invited as guests. The increased self-confidence was also shown in the use of natural pesticides. Extension workers initially generally discourage farmers from using "unproven technology". Despite this, farmers have spread knowledge on natural pesticides from garden to garden. Many extension workers in the programme areas are now very supportive of the use of indigenous knowledge. 

Conclusions and Outlook 

The application of "Kuturaya" has initiated a participatory process which show a lot of potential to revive indigenous knowledge and farmers' confidence. This is a process which requires continues support and flexibility in its application. The following are some of the important factors for farmer experimentation realized in the development and application of "Kuturaya": 

• The social environment must be conducive. This requires a philosophy, strategies and tools to improve communication with and among farmers and to contribute to strengthening of local institutions and capacities.
• The intervention should be geared towards community activities in order to avoid victimisation of individual and to increase the acceptance of the process. A very high level of participation must be reached to overcome social constraints.
• The activities should address the households as units i.e. husbands and wives should all be invited to meetings as otherwise communication in families is not guarantied.
• The institutional environment (extension and research) must be favorable. All players must be fully involved right from the start, trust one another and be willing to "let it happen".
• An entry point to build trust between researchers/extensionists and farmers is required.
• An initial process initiation and inspiration with technical option is required.
• Farmers must be supported to gain confidence in small scale experimentation.
• Conservation extension and research has to focus on integrated land husbandry as single conservation measures can not provide an appropriate solution to land degradation, nor do they generate enough economic benefit.

To increase impact and sustainability, the approach needs to be institutionalised. This requires a paradigm shift and a change of attitude of all players involved which is a long term process that requires patience and continuous support. That is our major challenge for the future. Also at present the concept of "Kuturaya" is geared towards innovation development and extension on individual arable farm holdings. In order to achieve sustainable management of common property resources it is necessary to integrate the concept into a wider community resource management concept. That is also our challenge for the future. 

Acknowledgments 

We would like to thank Ms P. Mushandebvu and Mrs. M. Tamirepi from ITDG, and Mr. O. Gundani and Mr. M. Diza from Contill for their valuable and dedicated field work. 

References