by
Bancy M. Mati, International Water Management Institute (IWMI) -Nairobi
General context
The three East African countries comprising Kenya, Tanzania and Uganda (Figure 1) form a region which shares common bio-physical, socio-economic, political and historical characteristics. Agriculture is the most important economic sector and is the main source of livelihood for about 70 percent of the population. However, agricultural production has been declining over the years. With the exception of Uganda, East Africa is dogged by climatic variability with prolonged dry spells and regular droughts, which renders farming a high risk enterprise. In addition, the 1990s saw the agricultural sector decline as a result of structural adjustment programmes in the three countries, with their associated inadequate funding. This resulted in manpower instability, limited research-extension-farmer linkages, weak monitoring and evaluation and inability of farmers to afford farm inputs (Kampen, 1992; Republic of Kenya, 2001). The extension services in the past were government owned and controlled, having long chains of command from the head office to the Frontline Extension Worker (FEW), who were the persons in contact with the farmer. The FEWs were also the most junior and least educated, poorly paid and often quite de-motivated. The structure of the extension service has therefore been one reason for the poor development in agriculture in the region (Sanders and McMillan, 2001).
Analyses of the successes and failures of rural extension work in East Africa (Schwartz and Kampen, 1992) revealed that the transfer of technology approach, which assumed a one way stream of knowledge from research to extension to farmer, was ineffective. This approach ignored the knowledge already existing in the community and failed to recognize the processes by which farmers learn and adopt new practices. In recent years, there has been renewed interest to develop and implement farmer and user responsive extension approaches. These have been described in various ways, namely, as on-farm research, farming systems, agro-ecological research, rapid and participatory rural appraisal, farmer participatory methods or Farmer Field Schools (Norman et al, 1994; Chambers et al, 1989; Haile et al, 2001; Haile and Lemma, 2000). The fact that farmers themselves can contribute towards new technologies in land husbandry and the role of indigenous technologies in soil and water management, as a way to improve farmer-extension linkages has also been recognized (Reij and Waters-Bayer, 2001; Bittar, 2001; Abbay et al, 2000; Haile et al, 2000). It is from this background that the project Promoting Farmer Innovation (PFI) was developed (Critchley et al, 1999).
Responding to the UN CCD
The PFI approach drew its strength from knowledge and experiences latent within communities and from the recognition that farmers are better able to learn and adopt new ideas when they can see them practised by others who have similar resources of land, labour and capital. PFI was designed to respond to concerns about the global nature of desertification, expressed at the UN Conference on Environment and Development which took place in Rio de Janeiro in 1992, which renewed the call for action to combat desertification and requested the UN General Assembly to prepare a “Convention to Combat Desertification (CCD) in those countries experiencing serious drought and/or desertification, particularly in Africa”. Desertification was defined as “land degradation in arid, semi-arid and dry sub-humid areas resulting from various factors, including climatic variations and human activities”. Land degradation includes “soil erosion by wind or water, deterioration of the physical, chemical and biological or economic properties of soil and long-term loss of natural vegetation.” Combating desertification includes activities which are part of the integrated development of land in arid, semi-arid and dry sub-humid areas for sustainable development which are aimed at prevention and/or reduction of land degradation, rehabilitation of partly degraded land and reclamation of desertified land (CCD, 1998). The Convention was adopted in 1994 and ratified in 1996. At least 120 countries are parties to the Convention including Kenya, Tanzania and Uganda.
The Convention states that programmes to combat desertification must adopt a democratic, bottom-up approach. They should emphasize popular participation and the creation of an enabling environment designed to allow local people to help themselves to reverse degradation. Among various programmes arising from CCD was one entitled “Sustainable Water Management in the Drylands”. It was developed by the United Nations Development Programme - Office to Combat Drought and Desertification (UNDP-UNSO) in collaboration with the Centre for Development Cooperation Services (CDCS) of the Vrije University of Amsterdam and other partners from the NGO and research communities. It had strategies and sub-programmes for three situations namely: (i) rainfed conditions; (ii) irrigation with emphasis on small-scale applications; and (iii) pastoral land use systems. Promoting Farmer Innovation under Rainfed Agriculture in the Drylands of Sub-Saharan Africa (PFI) was a sub-programme developed for rainfed conditions. Its aim was to sustainably improve rural livelihoods and improve ecosystem dynamics through the identification, verification and diffusion of local innovations related to soil and water conservation (SWC), water harvesting (WH) and natural resource management (NRM). Thus PFI was implemented as a pilot project in Kenya, Tanzania and Uganda with the aim to:
Needs assessment study
The needs assessment was done in all three countries through stakeholder meetings and a National Planning Workshop. In each case an advisory body was established. Thereafter, stakeholder surveys were carried out and the suitability of the area in addressing CCDs evaluated. A gender assessment study was also done. It recommended gender sensitization and gender skills training for the key agencies, and the necessity to increase the participation of women in PFI through: (i) sensitization of men farmers to appreciate the role of women in innovations, and allow their wives and daughters to participate in training workshops and tours; (ii) review of the selection procedure to make it more gender sensitive; and (iii) to develop a gender sensitive participatory monitoring and evaluation system. The availability of supportive institutions such as NGOs, and good institutional arrangements were also determined.
The Capacity Development Strategy/Programme design and implementation
Location of the pilot project areas in relation to CCD
The choice of the pilot project areas in each of the three countries was guided by the need to work in areas experiencing the threat of desertification, and having a relatively high population of poor smallholder land users. To be in line with administrative units, three districts were selected respectively (Figure 1): Mwingi in Kenya, Dodoma in Tanzania and Soroti, Kumi and Katakwi in Uganda (Soroti District was split into three during the project time). Mwingi and Dodoma are in similarly dry areas with mean rainfall between 500 and 750 mm, although the rainfall pattern is somewhat different, while Soroti has a higher mean rainfall. Mwingi has potentially two distinct rainy seasons: November–December and April–May (Jaetzold and Schmidt, 1983). The Dodoma region has one main rainy season between December and April and a very long dry spell between May and November, while Soroti has an average rainfall between 750 and 1 250 mm and usually extends from March/April to October/November with a dry period from mid-June to mid-July, allowing two crop seasons. All three districts, experience droughts and high intensity, erratic rains leading to regular crop failures. Thus, Mwingi and Dodoma are classified as semi-arid while Soroti is dry sub-humid.
Components of PFI
PFI was designed as a capacity building project meant to empower poor smallholder farmers to learn through innovation, experimentation and exposure visits, with the ultimate goal of having farmers in society who would become change agents. Drawing from the experiences of another project in Tanzania, the Indigenous Soil and Water Conservation Project (Kibwana, 2001; Reij et al, 2001), the PFI project was designed to identify and work with farmer innovators. Farmer innovators (FIs) were defined (Critchley et al, 1999) as “farmers or land users who innovate. That is, they test and try new methods of conservation or production, on their own initiative, while often using ideas from various sources”.
The concept of FI excludes ‘model farmers’ who have been groomed by projects, as well as ‘hobby' farmers who are so well resourced and so exceptional that they have nothing to offer to ordinary farmers. The project was visualized as ten steps of field-based activities (Critchley et al., 1999):
Figure 1. Location of the PFI project in East Africa
PFI STUDY AREAS IN KENYA, TANZANIA AND UGANDA (EAST FRICA)
Each of these ten steps were implemented as follows:
1. Identification of Farmer Innovators
This entailed seeking farmers whose farming practices were innovative, including indigenous practices, which contributed to CCD and food security. This started with stakeholder workshops at district level drawing together government, NGO and private sector practitioners to share experiences and for project planning. This was followed by one-day grassroots stakeholders' workshops comprising field extension workers (FEWs) from the Ministry of Agriculture and NGOs, to sensitize and commit them to the PFI programme and activities. The FEWs were then dispatched to the fields to do preliminary identification of FIs and innovations. The innovations identified went beyond the original scope of land management, water harvesting and soil and water conservation to include other activities like livestock breeding, compost making, pest management, crop production and even metal forging. During the identification exercise, prospective farmer innovators were interviewed and photographs of their innovations taken.
2. Verification of innovations and recruitment of Farmer Innovators
This stage involved the assessment of the FI to determine whether the innovation was genuine. Ideally, this was supposed to be done by a multi-disciplinary team of researchers, extension agents and peer farmer innovators, but in most cases researchers failed to turn up for this activity. The team checked for the condition of the innovation, its inherent impact on food security and CCD, and the willingness of the farmer to participate in the network. The FIs meeting relevant criteria were then recruited, thereby trimming down the total number of farmer innovators originally identified (for example, in Mwingi 80 FIs had been identified but upon verification only 40 were recruited; in Tanzania 100 FIs were identified but 60 were recruited). In total 125 FIs were recruited and distributed as: 40 farmers in Kenya, 60 in Tanzania and 25 in Uganda.
In trying to verify innovations, the following guidelines were followed:
3. Characterization of Farmer Innovators
The characterization and recruitment of farmer innovators was done by the stakeholders. The farmer was visited and asked relevant questions and the answers recorded in characterization forms. Characterization was followed by analyses of the person, the innovation and the inherent impacts. The innovative activities of the farmer were discussed along with photographs of the innovation. After this, the farmer was declared innovative or non-innovative. In each country, effort was made to ensure that each innovation was different, although some of the farmers had more than one innovation.
4. Formation of clustered networks of Farmer Innovators
Since the districts are large in spatial extents, FIs who live close to each other were grouped into clusters to facilitate easier training, exposure tours and other activities. Effort was made to balance each network for gender, age and types of innovations to improve heterogeneity.
5. Setting up monitoring and evaluation systems
Through discussions between partners (farmers, researchers, extension workers), the methodology to be used for monitoring and evaluation was agreed upon, including the responsibilities of each group (who measures/analyses what and for what purpose). The emphasis was on measurable indicators based on parameters that the farmer can recognise. Researchers from universities and National research stations were involved in analyses of soils, plants and other aspects of soil and water management.
6. FI to FI network visits
This step helped to improve intra-cluster networking and learning from each other. It was found that even farmers living close to each other were sometimes unaware of the innovations of their neighbours, and lack of recognition for the innovation. To encourage this, cluster members visited each other in group rotations, to learn and exchange ideas. Within a short time, FIs were copying innovations from their neighbours. One example is that of Lucia Kakundi, who had innovated planting pits for sugar cane and, until the PFI project, had been the only farmer using the pits and harvesting a large crop. After the FI to FI visits, there were many farmers who started digging planting pits for sugar cane.
7. Study tours for Farmer Innovators
The cluster FIs were also given training both in workshops and through exposure visits. In workshops, they learnt communication, shared experiences, asked questions and this generally improved group dynamics. Exposure tours were usually made to other districts having nearly similar agro-climatic zones, but where farmers were using better methods of land husbandry. For instance, farmers from Mwingi in Kenya were taken to Makueni, while those from Soroti in Uganda were taken to Mbarara for field visits. It was found that FIs who participated in exposure visits had learnt a lot and most of them were already trying out the innovations learnt. In addition, they claimed that their neighbours had already started adopting their innovations, after paying the FIs a visit.
8. Farmer Innovators develop new techniques and experiments
During this stage, farmers were experimenting with new innovations learnt through exchange visits and exposure tours. There was need for monitoring and evaluation, and targeted involvement of researchers to provide technical expertise. Documentation of the innovations was planned to be done and processed into extension messages that could be shared between FIs and other farmers. The most successful at this was Tanzania, where theme-based booklets were published in the Kiswahili language for use by farmers.
9. Farmers visit Farmer Innovators
Farmer to FI visits constituted capacity building among the non-FIs, which was the ultimate goal of the project. It involved dissemination of the extension messages developed to other farmers, through farm visits and meetings. The target was to reach about 1 000 ordinary farmers in each country with at least one innovation. It was assumed that there would be at least an innovation suitable for every farmer, since some of the innovations were rather niche-relevant.
10. Farmer Innovators as outside trainers.
This step was visualized to have developed capacity among farmers to the extent that they would go out as extension agents, through farm visits, addressing barazas, radio programmes. This was based on the principle that farmers often learn best from other farmers. The normal extension agent would act as organizer and facilitator. However, this step did not take off very well because it was difficult to organize incentives for farmers to leave their normal work and go out as extension agents. The local people were too poor to pay for extension services, while the Government had its own extension staff, and therefore could not finance that aspect.
Factors associated with the success of PFI
Capacity building
Capacity building under PFI was provided at two levels: that of the stakeholders, and that of the farmers. During the training of the farmers, they prepared lessons on flip charts, and made presentations of their innovations. It was observed that farmers were very proud of their innovations and presented their lessons with pride. The farmers indicated that learning from each other was the greatest benefit they got through the PFI programme. Participation of farmers was voluntary, without payment except for sponsored events like workshops and exposure tours. It has been noted that material handouts can distort the good objectives of the PFI project and thus incentives to FIs were channelled in the form of prizes after a competition, exposure tours and training. The most important aspect of capacity building was the farmer-to-farmer interaction, and learning from tangible activities on the ground.
Documentation and publications
There was regular documentation of PFI activities in the form of annual, semi-annual and quarterly reports and work plans. In addition, proceedings of workshops, minutes of Advisory Board Meetings and Tripartite Review reports were all well documented. At the grassroots level, FIs were trained and encouraged to keep records of their farming activities, such as costs of labour, inputs and yields. In addition, farmers retained a visitors book in which they recorded all visitors associated with their innovations.
Impacts and potential of PFI
The farmers participating in PFI indicated that they had gained new knowledge after exposure tours organised by PFI and the networking workshops, and they were experimenting new ideas on their farms. They were happy at the opportunity to interact with other farmer innovators, and were proud to be recognised as innovators (Thomas and Mati, 1999). PFI was having a positive impact in enhancing extension work in land management, water harvesting and soil and water conservation, through farmer-to farmer contact. The practices promoted as a result of PFI were generally valuable whether strictly innovative or not and, in so far as they were improving the availability of water and nutrients for crop production, they can be extremely useful in dry areas. The practices that were particularly promising and popular among farmers in the three countries were:
Institutional arrangements and technical backstopping
PFI was implemented as a UNDP-UNSO project. On the ground, PFI was coordinated by the National Project Coordinator (NPC) in each country, hosted by an NGO or government. In Kenya the implementing agency was GTZ/IFSP-E; in Tanzania it was the NGO INADES-Formation ( Institut Africain pour le Développement Economique et Sociale) ; while in Uganda it was the Ministry of Agriculture, Animal Industry and Fisheries (MAAIF). PFI worked closely with the Ministries of Agriculture in each country, research institutions and the National Action Plans (NAP/CCD Focal Point). In addition, the project worked with local NGOs and CBOs at grassroots level in each country.
Gender aspects
One of the tenets of PFI was to have gender parity at all levels, especially among the farmer innovators. After all, women in the target communities play a major role in food production However, gender balance among the FIs and PFI staff in the three countries was poor. In Kenya, only 6 out of 40 FIs were women, in Tanzania the ratio was 40 percent, while in Uganda only 4 out of 25 were women.
The reasons for the poor gender balance were found to be:
Problems faced
The value of farmer to farmer extension as shown through PFI is clear but one of the risks of the programme was that certain farmers were given very high profiles. They were singled out as experts in certain respects and trained how to pass on their knowledge and experience to others. They were taken on tours within the country and the region and some even given prizes. They received many visitors and became the envy of the village. This elevated them socially thus rising above their peers, and undermining the FI to farmer interaction. This situation could be reduced by working more with farmer groups than with individuals.
PFI concentrated mainly on innovations that lead to improvements in the management and production of cropland. Less attention was given to grazing land. In all three areas where PFI operated there were larger portions of grazing lands than crop land. Desertification is usually more conspicuous on grazing land due to the pressure of livestock. It would have been good for PFI to look for innovative ways of managing livestock and grazing land that would lead to improved production without degradation.
There were conflicts regarding the role of extension staff in case farmers succeeded being the new exchange agents. However, there was a need to define the roles of each group. This was because each extension worker has a very important role in helping to answer questions that farmers had not been trained on. The exposure visits, though quite effective, were also very expensive to implement and it was not possible for the farmers to continue with them without project funding.
Conclusions
PFI made a good impact in all three countries, and the approach was well understood by those involved. There were significant results in the form of farmer innovators who had been encouraged and trained to share improved methods of LM/SWC and WH with other farmers. There was also an increasing number of farmer adopters who took up new methods that they had seen through the opportunities created by the project; with a total of 125 innovations, the wealth of knowledge among farmers was impressive. While there was a bit of overlap in some of the innovations, most were new, at least to the areas where they had been adopted, and were different from each other. It should be noted that these innovations were not exhaustive. In addition, the innovations varied in each of the three countries. The need to be more inclusive of other innovations beyond the original mandate enriched the experiences of the farmers and complemented their efforts.
The mode of capacity building in PFI through networking workshops, training of trainers (TOT) seminars and exchange visits was effective in reaching many farmers faster. Other than identifying innovations, documenting them for posterity and motivating FIs, the greatest contribution of PFI to the livelihoods of farmers was in capacity building. Exchange visits were rated highly by the farmers although the networking workshops had also helped especially in teaching farmers record keeping and learning from each other. However, the target of 1 000 farmers to be trained through PFI in each of the three countries was too small compared to the total population in each project area.
In terms of institutional arrangements, the underlying concepts of PFI were equally relevant to Ministries of Agriculture and to NGOs. It was important that the Ministries of Agriculture got closely involved for several reasons. In the first place, the Ministries have staff in all parts of the country and have a natural channel for the extension of new and successful technologies or approaches. Secondly, the Ministries have trained staff and therefore a permanent presence in each part of the country. On gender, the PFI programme was male dominated, having low participation of women as only 10–40 percent were women farmer innovators, 5–10 percent adopters, while only 30 percent participated in routine meetings. These achievements fall short of the 50 percent target for women involvement in PFI, even though gender sensitization was done.
The PFI concept relied on finding out what the innovative farmers were doing and extending their knowledge and experience to other farmers. This raises questions about the role of the existing extension workers and the extension system. PFI had an important role to play in changing attitudes of extension workers. It was necessary to train the extension workers on how to facilitate farmer to farmer learning and how to disseminate the technologies that would help them improve production and incomes. Information dissemination through publications (Critchley et al, 1999; Mutunga and Critchley, 2001) helped promote the ideals of PFI beyond its borders, and the methodology was incorporated in the Farmer Fields Schools (Duveskog, 2001) Phase II project.
It was hoped that the impacts of PFI on desertification would become more apparent as innovations spread to more farmers. Even then, there were excellent examples of improved land management, soil and water conservation and water harvesting techniques adopted by farmers, who were not innovators themselves. Thus, PFI made an important contribution to CCD in all three countries and was one of the few programmes arising from CCD that made an impact on food security and rural poverty by promoting forms of land management that make better use of soil and water resources and minimize degradation.
References
Abbay, F., Haile, M. & Waters-Bayer A. 2000. Identifying farmer innovators in Tigray, Ethiopia. In: Farmer Innovation in Land Husbandry. Mitiku, H.; Waters Bayer, A.; Lemma, M.; Hailu, M.; G/Anenia, B.; Abbay, F. and GebreMichael Y. (eds), Proceedings of Anglophone regional workshop, 6–11 February 2000. Mekelle, Tigray, Ethiopia. 11–14.
Bittar, O.J., 2001. Water conservation and harvesting - Busia Experience. Water Conservation, harvesting and Management (WCHM) in Busia District, Kenya - A minor field study. Soil and Water Conservation Branch, Ministry of Agriculture.
CCD. 1998. United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification in those countries experiencing serious drought and/or desertification, particularly in Africa.
Chambers, R., Pacey, A. & Thrupp, L.A. (eds) 1994. Farmer First. Farmer innovation and agricultural research. Intermediate Technology Publishers. London
Critchley, W., Cooke, R., Jallow, T., Njoroge, J., Nyagah, V., & Saint-Firmin, E. 1999. Promoting farmer innovation: Harnessing local environmental knowledge in East Africa. Workshop Report No. 2. UNDP - Office to Combat Desertification and Drought (UNSO/SEED/BDP) and Sida's Regional Management Unit, Nairobi.
Duveskog, D. 2001. Water harvesting and soil moisture retention. A study guide for Farmer Field schools. Ministry of Agriculture and Farmesa, Sida, Nairobi.
Haile, M.,Waters-Bayer, A., Lemma, M., Hailu, M., G/Anenia , B. Abay, F. & GebreMichael, Y. (eds). 2000. Farmer Innovation in Land Husbandry. Proceedings of Anglophone Regional Workshop (6–11 February 2000) Mekelle, Tigray, Ethiopia.
Haile, M. & Lemma, M. 2000. Analysis of innovators and innovations in Tigray. In: Farmer Innovation in Land Husbandry. Haile, M.,Waters-Bayer, A., Lemma, M., Hailu, M., G/Anenia , B. Abay, F.and GebreMichael, Y. (eds). Proceedings of Anglophone Regional Workshop (6–11 February 2000) Mekelle, Tigray, Ethiopia. 65–67.
Haile, M., Abay, F. & Waters-Bayer, A. 2001. Joining Forces to discover and celebrate local innovation in land husbandry in Tigray, Ethiopia. In: Farmer Innovation in Africa. A source of inspiration for Agricultural Development. Reij, C. and Waters-Bayer, A. (eds). Earthscan, London. 58–73.
Jaetzold, R. & Schmidt, H. 1983 Farm management handbook of Kenya. Vol. II/B. Central Kenya. Ministry of Agriculture, Nairobi.
Kampen, J. 1992. East Africa. In: Agricultural Research in an era of adjustment. Policies, Institutions and progress. Tabor, S. R. (ed). The World Bank, Washington D.C. 133–146.
Kibwana, O.T. 2001. Forging partnerships between Farmers, Extension and Research in Tanzania. In: Farmer Innovation in Africa. A source of inspiration for Agricultural Development. Reij, C. and Waters-Bayer, A. (eds). Earthscan, London. 51–57.
Mutunga, K., Critchley, W., Lameck, P. Lwakuba, A. & Mburu, C. 2001. Farmers' initiatives in land husbandry. Promising technologies for the drier areas of East Africa. Technical Report No. 27. RELMA, Nairobi.
Norman, D.W., Siebert, J.D., Modiakogotla, E. & Worman, F.D. 1994. Farming systems research approach: A primer for Eastern and Southern Africa. F.S. Programme, UNDP, Gaborone, Botswana.
Reij, C. & Waters-Bayer, A. (eds) 2002.Farmer Innovation in Africa. A source of inspiration for Agricultural Development. Earthscan, London.
Republic of Kenya 2001. Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper for the Period 2001–2002. Ministry of Finance and Planning, Nairobi.
Sanders, J.H. & Macmillan, D. 2001. Agricultural Technology for the Semiarid African Horn. Vol. 1: Regional Synthesis. IGAD/INTOSORMIL/USAID-REDSO. Djibouti.
Thomas, D.B. and Mati, B.M. 1999. Promoting farmer Innovation in Rainfed Agriculture in Sub-Saharan Africa. Mid-term evaluation of PFI programmes in Kenya, Tanzania and Uganda for the UNDP/UNSO. A consultancy report. Nairobi.
