4. CONCLUSIONS

Has IPM had a social impact in the Office du Niger irrigated rice system in Mali? Chapter 3 and Annex 1 give many encouraging indications. The fact that the study was carried out only one year after the pilot IPM programme means that the social changes observed were indeed only indicative. To obtain further evidence to support the three hypotheses put forward, further field research in the Office du Niger area is recommended, preferably several years on from the programme completion in 1999, to allow changes to become fully institutionalised. Here, some of the findings from the 2000 field research will be summarised and final conclusions drawn.

The structure of this section is as follows. It starts with a brief overview of the conclusions on the technical impacts at farmer level of the IPM project in the Office du Niger, Mali. The rest of the section is structured according to the axes of the conceptual framework of Section 1.4: conclusions on knowledge development (hypothesis I) will be presented first, followed by a sub-section on collective action (hypothesis II), and finally the locus of decision-making (hypothesis III) is dealt with.

4.1. Conclusions on technical impacts

Active farmer participation in field schools is associated with interesting technical content. It is this active, full, and in some cases joint, involvement that enables social change. A technical review of the IPM pilot project^[46], and Office du Niger sources, draw positive conclusions on the technical contents of the project. This despite the fact that only modest yield increases and/or cost savings were achieved due to the limited pesticide use in the Office du Niger region combined with relatively high existing yields.

The 116 farmers questioned in the second field survey in 2000 indicated that the field schools had provided essential technical insights on, for example:

• The existence of natural predators was mentioned by 107 farmers (92 percent). This triggered important reflection processes on the way farmers treat their fields with pesticides (potentially killing off the ‘good bugs’);

• Water: the importance of maintaining a water level between 5-10 centimetres was mentioned by 64 farmers (55 percent);

• The importance of fertilisation (proper timing and quantities) was mentioned by 52 respondents (45 percent); and

• Regular observations have become an important tool to monitor crop growth and insect populations for 21 (18 percent) of the farmers.

All of the above mentioned actions were deemed to be essential for further, low-cost, intensification of production. Farmers explained that they felt more confident about their crop management skills, including the plant development stages and cycles (22 percent), which helped them to independently assess constraints and take appropriate measures. In addition, the results of the field study show that 56 percent of the 116 farmers interviewed in 2000 continued collective farmer experimentation, clearly inspired by the field school experiences. All of the 116 former field school farmers interviewed stated that they applied, individually or collectively, at least some IPM practices ranging from proper plant spacing, conscious fertiliser application, to regular observations of the fields, or conducting field tests. Transplanting in rows clearly stood out as the problematic IPM technique, with 89 farmers (77 percent) saying it could not be done due to labour constraints.

To whom can the above conclusions be applied? An important comment is that they do not only apply to those farmers who participated in the project. In the 2000 field study, 101 of the 116 farmers claimed to have shown fellow farmers IPM practices. The new knowledge on natural enemies, widely acknowledged as one of the key technical impacts of the IPM pilot, spread to many non-IPM farmers. The study even found one non-IPM farmer in Seriwala who had dedicated a whole plot to testing IPM techniques. A group in Kiban had decided to continue with the participation of their spouses, mostly women, who had previously not been included in the project. The 25 women farmers residing in the field school villages and interviewed in 2000, could all provide some details on IPM, and as many as one third had reviewed new cultural practices in the fields with FFS farmers. It should be noted that these 25 women commented that information provision was entirely at the discretion of men or the co-operatives, which, in three cases, had invited women to share their IPM experiences.

A major conclusion is that besides having a direct impact in the field (e.g., better plant spacing facilitates weeding), new technical insights triggered active reflection by farmers not only on the way they obtain information about crop protection and the production of rice but also on other crops. Many farmers indicated that they could now better assess and comprehend technical information provided by outsiders. Eight farmers (seven percent) and 33 of the 35 women (94 percent) said that they were eager to experiment with non-rice crops such as vegetables, or try fighting birds using IPM methods.

This body of evidence leads to the conclusion that the field schools have clearly enhanced farmers’ technical competencies and analytical skills. What this means in a social sense is discussed in the remaining sub-sections.

4.2. Knowledge development and attitude changes

Technical knowledge was described as ‘information as a resource’ in Section 1.4. In a social sense, new information or knowledge only results in empowerment if it is accompanied by changes in awareness and confidence. The attitudes that matter here are:

• Whether farmers consider themselves uninformed recipients, dependent on external advice, or experts in their own fields;

• What farmers think of extensionists and other intervening actors, in particular projects and local researchers;

• What do extensionists think of farmers.

Many significant indications of the changing attitudes of farmers have been presented in Section 3.2, leading to the conclusion that IPM has boosted their awareness, learning and confidence.

The issue of farmers’ appreciation of other actors takes us further down that road. All the farmers interviewed stated that they had obtained new and relevant insights, particularly with regard to the existence of natural predators. None of the farmers had ever heard about natural enemies through extension or commercial services. Based on what they saw as this important omission, they concluded that these external actors either did not know, or perhaps that they did not care to tell. This resulting reflection, by farmers, on information provision, and the reliability of information, can be considered as one of the successes of the project^[47].

It is important not to forget that the effect of IPM on farmers’ confidence and awareness takes place in a decade-long context of irrigation management transfer and State disengagement (Section 3.1). This suggests that farmers are increasingly aware that, unlike in the past, intensive assistance and ‘having their thinking done for them’, be it comforting or threatening, cannot be expected in the future. On the other hand, it also implies that farmers are acquiring a new sense of competence and confidence, which is built on earlier changes, and is encouraging them to take more initiatives on their own.

The third issue concerns the attitudes of external actors, especially extension personnel^[48]. IPM activities can only be ascribed a limited influence, as many other factors also determine extension personnel’s attitudes. These include organizational structure and the culture of the extension services. These can take a long time to change but, encouragingly, some surprisingly positive attitudes to change were found in the study. Where fertile ground is found, farmers’ knowledge seems readily accepted by both frontline extensionists and more-senior officials.

The farmers in the Office du Niger area know that there is a premium on knowledge that is considered ‘scientific’ and generated through official channels. For decades, the prevailing ideology in Mali was that appropriate knowledge was provided by the State or donor projects. Simon^[49] explains this process as follows: “An inventory of the beliefs of even the most self-consciously rational among us would show that most of those beliefs gain their credibility, not from direct experience and experiment, but from their acceptance by credible and ‘legitimate’ sources in the society.” The IPM pilot is unique in the sense that, on the one hand, it gives knowledge the seal of an official programme, and on the other hand, that body of knowledge is clearly located at farmer level. These two aspects of knowledge help the farmers get locally generated insights and knowledge accepted by a broad range of stakeholders, something previously unheard of.

4.3. Collective Action

As described in Section 2.2, collective action is collaboration among people to realize common objectives. The issue here is whether there is movement, and if in what direction, along a continuum that ranges from complete non-collaboration to collective action. One of our objectives was to see whether IPM generates social capital at the village level.

The study identified two forms of collective action that are likely to be caused by field school experiences:

• The sharing of agricultural production information through joint activities such as the test plots. Basically, this concerns the continuation of field school activities by groups of farmers after the initial, season-long, pilot project was completed; and

• Other collaborative self-help efforts, including the establishment of complementary savings/credit groups receive additional impetus.

The case study sections, and the tables in the Annexes, outline various, but always positive, developments in terms of the indicators of collective action proposed in Section 2.1. On the quantitative side, these concern the number of activities, the number of farmers, and the widespread evidence of diffusion through small groups. On a more qualitative note, there is evidence of agreements on roles and activities, solidarity, and creativity in a wide variety of IPM follow-ups.

Prior to the project, some field school villages such as Sériwala and Siengo already showed more communal action and spirit than other ones such as Kangaba. This raised the question as to whether IPM makes the biggest difference in a situation where collective action is already high, or, conversely, where farmers work towards their objectives in a more individual manner. The answer would seem to be that it doesn’t matter. A well-functioning village co-operative does make collective action on the basis of IPM much easier, but some positive examples were registered of people collaborating in a variety of other situations (with weak co-operatives or even where there was complete institutional breakdown in the village). To establish if there is a correlation between social cohesion and collective action before and after the field schools further study is needed.

Mutual economic benefits drive social processes, but so also can considerations of a social-moral kind. Many farmers felt a moral obligation to pass on knowledge to fellow villagers, thus giving a normative underpinning to post-field school collaboration in addition to simple self-interest. The field schools showed a rare combination of characteristics: interesting, non-politicised content, yielding tangible benefits, and meeting moral standards. This leads us to conclude that the field schools did indeed create social capital.

A particularly noteworthy observation was that, in the more cohesive villages, the role of women in rice production was acknowledged, as field schools ran on subjects that are explicitly considered to be the domain of women, such as transplanting. The importance of their participation in future field schools was emphasised by several members of farmer co-operative boards. More importantly, all of the women in the control group had heard about IPM, and 95 percent of them expressed keen interest in being included in a future IPM programme, particularly one about vegetables.

4.4. Locus of Decision-Making

In Section 3.4 we posed three questions: do farmers, due to enhanced information, awareness, and confidence:

• Take decisions they previously did not take? The desired process is that farmers decide and act more independently, based on enhanced local knowledge, so that the centre of decision-making gravitates to the local level;

• Change their behaviour towards external actors? The idea being that farmers behave as critical clients, rather than passive recipients, when dealing with irrigation officials, extensionists, traders and pesticide salesmen;

• Cause changes in the behaviour of local authorities? Ideally, a critical and pro-active attitude of farmers is met by responsive officials.

Concerning the locus of decision-making, the farmers who participated in the field schools confidently signalled that they were now able to independently take crop and pest management decisions. The follow-up study period showed that, in practice, decisions, especially on fertiliser application, water management and pest management, were indeed taken in a much more conscious way. Beforehand, farmers used to either blindly follow outsiders’ advice regarding pesticide use, or sometimes simply apply fertiliser when money was available regardless of actual needs. Section 3.4 explained the mechanisms that encourage the IPM farmers to take more decisions autonomously, and to engage critically where they run into decisions that are taken without their consent.

Moreover, a trend towards monitoring the results of crop management decisions was observed, with farmers using methods of comparison derived from the field schools. It is debatable whether the research has sufficient data to draw empirically valid conclusions, but considerable empowering momentum has been gained with the realisation that farmers can themselves monitor, alongside extensionists. This is especially important because monitoring the effect of crop management decisions suffers no elite bias: poor farmers can do it as easily as the better-off^[50].

Part of the decision-making process takes place in the framework of the participatory arrangement for irrigation management (the details of which can be found in Section 3.1). In committees and commissions, officials and farmer-delegates take decisions about money, land, and water that influence what and how farmers cultivate. We saw in Section 3 that this is a very participatory arrangement on paper, but that it took time, effort, and donor project support to make it work in practice. The extent to which the delegates represent their constituency is good in some villages, while it is more questionable in others.

The key issue is how the delegates act when decisions are taken in meetings. Here, they themselves reflect an important likely contribution of the IPM activities: their formal position in the participatory arrangement is fine, but they need complete information, analytical skills and knowledge, to make their influence most felt.

A change in behaviour in interactions with external actors should complement the above shifts. This was the second question about changes in decision-making processes. In Section 3, we saw that two levels matter: the level where farmers interact with extensionists, water bailiffs and pesticide salesmen directly, and the level where representatives of the farmers participate in committees and commissions.

There is a fundamental tension in farmer-outsider interactions in the Office du Niger area. On the one hand, there is the distrust generated by decades of domination by the State, and by more recent scams involving traders. On the other hand, there is the long-term recognition of extensionists’ authority in technical matters, and the perceived threats to crops are sometimes so severe that farmers tend to automatically and rather uncritically rely on outsiders’ advice. The knowledge development mechanisms, and the realisation that outsiders may be wrong, will help farmers to gradually overcome their reflex actions, determined by history or coincidence, and define their own interactions. This view is substantiated by the interviews with IPM farmers who indicated that they now have clearer ideas on when to contact extensionists, on what subjects, and how to interact with them. Over time, it is expected that these changes will gain strength, but this also needs to be verified through follow-up field research.

This brings us to a final issue concerning farmer-extensionist interactions. Since the 1994 downsizing of the extension service, farmers increasingly have to go to the extensionists instead of the latter giving their unsolicited advice in ‘campaigns’. The field schools enable the farmers to ask ‘better’, more focussed, questions. This is important for empowerment, firstly because farmers do not have a lot of advisors to choose from^[51]. Secondly, farmers and the extension service must find their way in a dynamic context where the private sector is effectively out of their control. This is difficult for them, both in terms of power and information. When farmers critically engage with extensionists on field school-generated questions, opportunities open up for a dialogue in which no-one’s authority suffers. One of the key social impacts of IPM, in combination with the downsized extension service, is that the meaning of empowerment changes: not the reluctant handing over of decision-making power, but more of a win-win situation. This, along with newly introduced funding mechanisms such as in-kind and cash contributions by farmer groups, will help to enhance sustainability of IPM farmer field schools.

References

Arnstein S.R. (1969), ‘A ladder of citizen participation’ IN American Institute of Planners Journal no.35 pp.216-224.

BSIC (1994), 'Bilans et comptes d'exploitation des AV/TV de la zone de l"office du Niger excercise 1993', BSIC consultancy report, Segou (Mali).

Bressers, J.Th.A. and Hoogerwerff, A. (red.) (1991), ‘Beleidsevaluatie’, Samsom H.D. Tjeenk Willink, Alphen aan de Rijn (the Netherlands).

CILLS, Rapport, Bamako-Mali, juin 2000

CEFE (1999), 'Audit de quinze associations et tons villageois de l'Office du Niger', CEFE consultancy report, Niono (Mali).

CICF (1996), 'Etude sur le remboursement du credit agricole en zone Office du Niger', CICF consultancy report, Niono (Mali).

Coenen F.H.J.M., P. Hofman and D. Huitema (1998), Green participation? Public participation and its effects on the quality of environmental decision making - paper for the twenty fourth international congress of administrative sciences, Paris 7-11 September 1998’, University of Twente, Enschede (NL)

Cohen J.M. and N. Uphoff (1980), ‘Participation’s place in rural development: seeking clarity through specificity’ IN World Development vol.8 no.3 pp.213-235, Pergamon, London (UK)

FAO Intercountry Programme for IPM in Asia (1996). ‘Country brief PAC Meeting Viet Nam National IPM Programme’

FAO Technical Assistance Indonesia National IPM Programme (1998), ‘Community IPM: Six Cases from Indonesia’

Global IPM Facility (2001), ‘Guide d'Execution du Programme GIPD (GCP/INT/813/NET)’

INSAH (2001), ‘Etude Socio-économique de l'utilisation des pesticides au Mali’, series Les monographies Saheliennes, no. 12.

Introna L.D. (1997), ‘Management, information and power’, MacMillan.

Jamin J.-Y. (1994), ‘De la norme à la diversité: l’intensification rizicole face à la diversité paysanne dans les périmètres irrigués de l’Office du Niger’, CIRAD PhD thesis, Montpellier (FR).

Musch A. (2001), ‘The small gods of participation’, University of Twente, Enschede, the Netherlands.

Nacro S. (1999), ‘Rapport Technique sur le Projet Intérimaire de Formation Participative en Gestion Integrée des Deprédateurs du Riz à Travers des Champs Ecoles de Producers en Zone Office du Niger’, Global IPM Facility report, Rome (I).

Nelson N. and S. Wright eds. (1995), ‘Power and participatory development: theory and practice’, ITP, London (UK).

Office du Niger (1986), 'Bilan des activites de la division cooperation agricole', Office du Niger evaluation report, Segou (Mali).

Ostrom, E. (1992), ‘Crafting Institutions for Self-Governing Irrigation Systems’, ICS, San Francisco (USA).

Pretty, J., Guijt, I., Thompson J. and Scoones I. (1995), ‘Participatory learning and action: a trainer’s guide’, IIED, London (UK).

Scott J. (1998), ‘Seeing like a state: how certain schemes to improve the human condition have failed’, Yale, New Haven (USA).

Serageldin I. (1996), ‘Sustainability as opportunity and the problem of social capital’ in Brown Journal of World Affairs 1996 no.3 pp.187-203.

Simon H.A. (1983), ‘Reason in Human Affairs’, Basil Blackwell (UK).

Stiglitz J. (1999), ‘Scan globally, reinvent locally: knowledge infrastructure and the localization of knowledge’, Keynote address for the Global Development Network, Bonn (GER).

Ter Weel and Van der Wulp (1999),’Participatory Pest Management’, DGIS Policy and Best Practice Document no.3, The Hague (NL).

Uphoff N. (2000), ‘Demonstrated benefits from social capital: the productivity of farmer organizations in Gal Oya, Sri Lanka’ in World Development vol.28. no.11 pp.1875-1890.

Wade R. (1988), ‘Village Republics, economic conditions for collective action in South India’, IDS, Cambridge (UK).

Annex 1: Experimentation and Changed Practices in the Office du Niger area, Mali

In the 1999 season, 23 rice field schools were organised in the Office du Niger irrigation system in Mali. The survey in 2000, one season later, was held in all villages which had field schools in 1999. In 2000, a total of 115 former field school farmers, of whom ten were women, were interviewed. As a special gender component, the survey also focused on 25 women farmers residing in the field school villages but who were not part of the field school programme themselves. Most interviews took place in the interviewees’ fields. The survey particularly focused on the following aspects:

i. Farmers collectively getting together in field schools;

ii. Continued individual farmer experimentation; and

iii. Changed practices in the farmers’ regular fields.

At the time of the field research in 2000, an IPM project by the State extension service and supported by FAO had yet to start. The evidence found of collective IPM experimentation is listed in the following table.

Annex 2.1: Data sources in 1999

The data sources used in 1999 are listed in the following table to provide an indication of their depth and spread. For details of the interviews held in 2000 see Annex 2.2.

Annex 2.2: Interviews held with former FFS participants in August 2000, one year after completion of the pilot project

* In Sériwala, one person was found using an IPM test field who had not been an FFS-participant.

Annex 2.3: Interviews held with non-FFS participants (all women) in August 2000, one year after completion of the pilot project

People's Participation Series

N. 1 Microempresas asociativas integradas par campesinos marginados en America Central. Aspectos juridicos e institucionales, 1994, Spanish, 46 pp., ISBN 9253034645, Price US$ 11.00.

N. 2 Experiences from the FAO People's Participation Programme in Sri Lanka. Who participates?, 1994, English, 110 pp., ISBN 9251034656, Price US$ 14.00.

N. 3 People's Participation Programme in Pujehun, Sierra Leone. Post-project study, 1994, English, 44 pp., ISBN 9251034664, Price US$ 11.00.

N. 4 Small Farmer Development Programme in Thailand. Post-project study, 1994, English, 70 pp., ISBN 9251034672, Price US$ 11.00.

N. 5 FAO collaboration with Asian NGOs for participatory rural development. The case of ANGOC, 1994, English, 35 pp., ISBN 9251034680, Price US$ 11.00.

N. 6 People's participation in rural development in the Philippines. FAO's partnership with NGOs in project formulation, 1994, English, 68 pp., ISBN 9251034699, Price US$ 11.00.

N. 7 Participación campesina para una agricultura sostenible en paises de América Latina, 1994, Spanish, 51 pp., ISBN 9253035196, Price US$ 11.00.

N. 8 The development of independent cooperatives in Zambia. A case-study, 1995, English, 61 pp., ISBN 9251036055, Price US$ 11.00.

N. 9 Participation et risques d 'exclusion. Reflexions á partir de quelques exemples sahéliens, 1995, French, 90 pp., ISBN 9252036539, Price US$ 11.00.

N. 10 People's Participation Programme in Ghana. Post-project study, 1995, English, 88 pp., ISBN 9251036985, Price US$ 11.00.

N. 11 La dynamique des sociétés rurales face aux projets participatifs de développement rural, Reflexions et propositions d'action á partir d'expériences d'Afrique de I'Ouest, 1997, French, 150 pp., ISBN 9252038698, Price US$ 19.00.

N. 12 Capital formation in Kenyan farmer-owned cooperatives. A case study, 1999, English, 44 pp., ISBN 9251043302, Price US$ 12.00.