4.3 Approaches for the dissemination of conservation tillage technologies 

The objective of this session was to review experiences of approaches for the dissemination of conservation tillage technologies. Four invited papers were presented. 

The first paper was presented by Edward Chuma and Kudakwashe Murwira, reflecting on experiences in the development of conservation tillage techniques in Southern Zimbabwe. A learning process leading to the development of a community focused participatory technology development and dissemination approach based on farmer experimentation was presented. 

Some lessons and conclusions from the presentation follow: 

• For conservation tillage dissemination approaches to work, the social environment should be conducive. This requires a philosophy, strategies and tools to improve communication with and among farmers as well as to strengthen local institutions and capacities.
• Conservation tillage (and other innovations) should be geared towards community activities in order to avoid victimization of the 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, with both husbands and wives being invited to meetings, as otherwise communication within families may not occur.
• The institutional environment (both extension and research) must be favourable. 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 outside interveners (eg researchers and extensionists) and farmers is required.
• An initial process, including initiation and inspiration with relevant technical options, is required for the process of farmer experimentation.
• Farmers should be adequately supported if they are 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.

The authors recommended that, to increase the impact and sustainability of conservation tillage technologies, the dissemination approach needs to be internalized and institutionalized in the national extension services. 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. 

The second paper was presented by Dr Stephen Muliokela and was based on conservation tillage dissemination experiences in Zambia. Three strategies (not approaches) for enhancing the dissemination of conservation tillage technologies were presented. The strategies were 

• appropriate research;
• active institutional support; and
• collaboration with community based organizations.

The author concluded that to increase food production through conservation farming 

farmers should be encouraged and allowed to assume the responsibility for the development, improvement and dissemination of technologies within their communities; and institutions involved in the promotion of conservation farming should enable farmers understand the technology. 

The two papers appeared to agree on the need for farmer participation but tended to disagree on the results. Thus the Zambian paper suggested that if farmers participate in the development of technologies through for example carrying out appropriate research, „appropriate blanket recommendations" can be developed. The Zimbabwean experience, however, suggested that it is not possible to draw up blanket recommendations because of the variability in and dynamics of on-farm conditions, and proposed that farmers should be empowered to develop technologies themselves through experimentation. 

The other two invited papers were on networking. The learnings of the Animal Traction Network of Eastern and Southern Africa (ATNESA) was presented by chairperson Timothy Simalenga, and those of the Latin American Network (RELACO) by secretary-general Ramon Claveran. 

A network was defined as an association of independent individuals, organizations or countries with a shared purpose or goal who voluntarily exchange information and undertake joint activities without reducing member autonomy or independence. A network should include all stakeholders, for example farmers, private sector, NGOs and government support staff. Networks can be national, regional or global. First priority should be the establishment of strong national networks, which can then link to form regional and eventually global networks. 

Both RELACO and ATNESA are regional networks, but it noteworthy that RELACO, in a recent meeting called to reorganize the network, felt this should commence with the reinforcement and re-organisation of its member national networks. ATNESA is based on an informal system of national networks linked through a regional network steering committee. 

Networks can: 

• Facilitate the exchange of information, skills and experiences.
• Avoid the duplication of work and so facilitate a wider overall impact on the dissemination of technologies.
• Link people of different levels, disciplines and organizations.
• Provide the critical mass needed for local, national or international advocacy, action and policy changes.
• Provide members with a source of peer support, encouragement, motivation and professional recognition.

Networks succeed through the enthusiastic participation of the members, who undertake specific activities that allow interaction and sharing. Networks need committed core groups of individuals or organizations to devote time to initiatives, network coordination and management. 

Problems faced by networks include: 

• Inadequately defined objectives.
• Domination by particular organizations or interest groups.
• Centralization of activities.
• Increased bureaucracy.
• Increased isolation of the core group.
• Decreased enthusiasm.
• Technical differences between members.
• Political suspicion and intolerance to criticism.
• Inadequate experience of network monitoring and evaluation.
• Financial differences between members.
• Linguistic differences between members.

Both papers concluded that for a network to operate effectively a small but effective secretariat or coordinating unit is needed. Initially external funds may be required but, for sustainability, it was recommended a system of fund raising by the members be established. RELACO introduced membership fees at its fourth meeting. 

Summary of group discussions 

Based on the invited papers and the experiences of the participants, key issues pertinent to approaches for the dissemination of conservation tillage technologies were identified. These were clustered into the four strategies considered necessary to improve the dissemination of conservation tillage technologies, namely 

• On-farm research and technology development;
• Partnership; new ways of organizing extension;
• Effectiveness of extension agents; and
• Farmers choice of technology.

The group discussions and presentations illustrated the links between the strategies and their potential to strengthen one another. 

A) Farmers choice of conservation tillage technologies 

The improvement of farmers’ selection of conservation tillage technologies is the main objective of dissemination strategies. It was noted that farmers’ choices are always compromises, depending as they do on constantly conflicting goals, interests and capacities. 

The following constraints were identified: 

• Imbalance between top-down and bottom up approaches.
• Social community structures that do not allow individuals to improve.
• Unfavourable land tenure systems.
• Hidden financial risks and social fears.
• Power structures in the community that conflict with progress.
• Lack of practical information on existing technologies.

The existing approaches are often based on two extremes, namely 

1. a top-down transfer of pre-determined packages to farmers; and
2. unguided farmer participation without any technical input.

To counter the weaknesses in both, the potential strengths and contributions of all players (farmers, NGOs, private sector, government) need to be recognised and utilised in the decision making process. It was particularly important that farmers be recognised as, and allowed to play their role of, informed decision makers, and be offered options not solutions. 

The social issue constraints (community structures, land tenure and social fears) could be addressed by 

• Taking a community approach in the planning and implementation of projects.
• Working with groups rather than with individuals.
• Focusing on education and awareness creation.
• Any message needs to have a distinctive value to a considerable group of farmers to qualify as promotable.

Farmers tend to have little confidence in the extension service, mainly due to the lack of support they receive from extension workers. Extension workers in turn are often not given the technical information to be able to understand or advocate the underlying concepts of conservation. 

Possible ways of supporting farmers included: 

• Training on technical aspects and principles;
• Information on various opportunities and conditions; Promotion of farmer-to-farmer extension;
• Promotion of technologies that include explicit short-term benefits.

Farmers also require access to appropriate conservation tillage equipment and other inputs. The involvement of the private sector could contribute to the sustainable supply of conservation inputs by delivering goods on a commercial basis. Governments should create conditions that allow competitive private sector participation, and groups of farmers could create sufficient demand to attract suppliers. 

An effective extension service has the potential to be the key to farmers’ technology choice, but extension agents tend to be unfavourably disposed towards conservation tillage. 

B) Effectiveness of extension services 

An improvement in the effectiveness of extension services could contribute to improved conservation tillage technology dissemination. 

The main constraint to the effectiveness of extension was identified as the frequent inability or unwillingness of extensionists to encourage or enable „real" farmer participation. This was often due to the lack, on the part of extension workers, of motivation, information, or technical, social or communication skills. To address the lack of farmer participation in decision making, participatory approaches should be institutionalised. Extension agents should be orientated towards these, and extensionists encouraged to change their role from knowledge providers to decision facilitators. 

This could be achieved by the following: 

• Training extension agents in participatory and facilitation skills.
• Establishing of farmers’ working groups.
• Developing dynamic demonstration programs in farmers’ fields.
• Organising farmer to farmer exchange visits and field days.

A participatory approach might attract sustainable funding. To achieve this, funds would need to be mobilized from different sources (eg. donors, NGOs and private sector) and long term commitments from the funder secured. Participatory approaches could be supported by 

• Making operational resources and training materials available to extension agents.
• Mobilizing resources.
• Decentralizing the distribution of resources.
• The coordinated management of resources.

Other constraints identified were deficiencies in extension management and the shortage of extension staff. Deficiencies in extension management could be addressed by 

• The development of comprehensive extension management programs.
• The initiation of an appropriate organizational structure.
• The creation of a team-based interactive management approach to facilitate the definition of work plans and targets and enforce accountability.

To address the shortage of extension staff it was suggested partnerships be formed with other extension service providers and each providers role be clearly defined. A co-ordinated program could facilitate the development of innovative extension thrusts. 

C) Partnerships: New ways of organizing extension 

Addressing issues of partnership and the development of new ways of organizing extension could contribute to a more effective extension service for the dissemination of conservation tillage technologies. 

A number of stakeholders were identified. These included farmers, government policy makers, government technical officers, NGOs, schools, church leaders, traditional leaders, farmer’s associations, livestock owners and the private sector. It was noted that these numerous stakeholders generally do not collaborate. Constraints leading to this lack of collaboration include 

• Differences in views and interest of different parties.
• Unwillingness of the different institutions to work together.
• Lack of political support.
• Conflicting messages.
• Donor competition.

New ways of organizing extension for the promotion of conservation tillage could be based on harmonizing partnership between the different stakeholders. This could be achieved by the formation of a National Coordinating Body (NCB) to develop a national action plan. Farmers would be key members of such a NCB, probably represented by associations known to be accountable to the farmers. The NCB could clearly define complementary roles, focus donor support and enhance policy support. The NCB could stimulate communication between the research systems, extension systems, farmer groups and the private sector, and at district level develop concrete collaborative efforts between researchers, extensionists, private sector, farmers and community organizations. Successful on-the ground efforts could then be used to highlight the feasibility of such collaborative approaches and be replicated elsewhere to facilitate further dissemination. 

Conservation tillage should be integrated into input supply, credit and marketing activities. It should also be included in school and University curricula. 

D) On-farm research and technology development 

Appropriate technology development approaches such as on-farm research could contribute to more effective extension, particularly if there is also an effective partnership between support institutions. 

The main constraint to improved on-farm research was identified as a lack of training in and understanding of on-farm experimentation, resulting in poor problem identification and the use of inappropriate on-farm research methods and experimental designs. Training was the main intervention required, especially in 

• Project management.
• Farming systems research and extension.
• Training for transformation.
• Participatory approaches.
• On-farm experimental designs and data collection.

New and innovative ways of setting out and evaluating on-farm trials are constantly being developed so it is important that regular updates be conducted with researchers and extensionists. 

The second major constraint to the utilisation of on-farm research was the unwillingness of the interventionists to cooperate, resulting in poor communication between researchers and extensionists and the disillusionment of farmers. This constraint could be partially alleviated by training. Every attempt should be made to make researchers, farmers and extensionists equal partners in the on-farm process and to build up the trust between cooperators. Mutual trust and respect between interventionists and farmers can be achieved by involving farmers in the monitoring process and incorporating farmer criteria. Government agencies may need to be sensitised to the value of local knowledge. 

Farmers should be encouraged to take the lead in technology development and on-farm research. Simple experimental designs and a little training can enable farmers take over a substantial part of the monitoring process, which in turn can substantially reduce staff and travel expenses. The identification by farming communities of extensionists from among themselves can also reduce costs while increasing the accountability and effectiveness of extension.