3.7 Challenges facing FSD

Contents - Previous - Next

A number of challenges face FSD if it is to continue playing a significant role in facilitating the process of agricultural development. Some of these are:

• Better Incorporation of Farmers, Incorporating farmers into the research process was one of the most important principles underlying the evolution of the farming systems approach. The basic justification for this was that farmers could improve the efficiency of the research process. At a minimum, it was argued they could prevent the use of research resources on types of technologies that they would be unlikely to adopt, while even more Importantly, it was anticipated they could, in their own right, contribute positively to the research process. Unfortunately, farming systems workers often have not sufficiently recognized this positive and interactive contribution of farmers. Consequently, this spawned the farmer participatory research (FPR) movement [Farrington and Martin, 1988]. The problem of not utilizing the farmer sufficiently in FSD activities is not due to inherent deficiencies in FSD itself but rather with the way in which it has been applied, Techniques of FPR or PRA need to be incorporated into FSD, a subject which will be discussed later (see Section 8.4).
• Continued Evolution of FSD. FSD is relatively new. Therefore, the methodology is still evolving and, as a result, universally accepted 'standard texts' on the 'nuts and bolts, of how to do it are still to emerge. Related to the methodology issue is that time and cost-efficient (i.e., money and people) methods for undertaking FSD still need further development. This is important because of the limited resources available for undertaking research, both on-station and on-farm. In this manual an effort has been made to address this issue in a number of places -- particularly in Chapters 7 and 8.
• Greater Incorporation of the Policy/Support System Perspective. As has been stressed already' the farming systems approaches implemented to date have focused mainly on the technology dimension (i.e., FSR). However, a basic principle of the FSD approach is that the farming systems perspective is critically important in formulating and adapting policy/support systems in ways that will facilitate and accelerate the agricultural development process, Once again, discussions relating to the policy/support system are scattered throughout the manual, and it is highlighted as an essential component of FSD in Figure 3.1. Failure to incorporate this dimension in FSD activities is likely to have an impact analogous to playing soccer on one leg, Nevertheless, because of the lack of much proven experience and documented material on the farming system perspective with respect to the policy/support system, this manual does not deal with this dimension to the extent that would be desirable. Hopefully, this lack of experience will be rectified in the fairly near future. An example of the potential value of using a policy/support perspective in FSD is given in Box 3.8.
• Incorporating Equity Issues -- Intra and lnter-Generational. FSD tries to help the farmer with the problems he or she has identified. Of course, the reason for this is the necessity to introduce an intervention in which they are interested, It its likely that these 'felt, problems of farmers are likely to have a short-run focus (i.e., particularly when the farmer is operating very close to the survival level). Also, it is possible that helping to solve the individual farmers' problems creates others for the society as a whole. Although the example given in Box 3.9 pertains to inter-household relationships, equity considerations within a particular generation also apply to what is happening within farming families. As will be discussed later (see Section 4.4), it is wrong to assume that all farming households or families operate in such a way that distribution of effort and benefits is equitable. For a positive example of the benefits of understanding intra household relationships, see Box 3.1(). When designing a technology to help farmers increase their productivity, consideration must be given to the possible long-term effects (e.g., decreasing the amount of productive land available) of that intervention. Therefore, if farming system (FS) workers are not careful, their work can result in creating two types of inequalities, that is, helping some farming households -- or even certain individuals within those households -- at the expense of others and/or reducing the quantity and quality of land that can be productively farmed by future generations. Avoiding the development of such inequities constitutes a major challenge to FSD teams who need techniques to be able to screen out proposed technologies and policy/support systems that would encourage or exacerbate such trends. Once again, issues relating to equity matters, although generally recognized as important, still need attention in farming systems type activities. This will require continued evolution of FSD towards the FS 'in the large' approach mentioned earlier (Section 3.3).
• Assessing Agricultural Research Impact. Related to the research resource issue is the importance of devoting some effort to assessing the impact of the research process - something that often has been done inadequately. More attention needs to be paid to adoption/diffusion studies. Such studies, of course, are the best measure of the impact of the agricultural development process, Therefore, the credit for favourable results from such studies cannot be allocated to FSD activities alone. However, FSD teams, because of their on-farm location and pivotal linkages with other actors, are often in the best position to take a leadership role in their execution. Also, as suggested earlier (Section 3.2), such studies can and should be used for other purposes, such as feeding back priorities for further research and providing evidence for adjustments in the policy/support system to encourage greater adoption,
• Improving Credibility of FSD. Establishing credibility for FSD-related activities is a major challenge and is necessary to ensure that some of the limited research resources always will be allocated to them, As argued earlier (Section 2.4), FSD staff constitute only one set of the 'actors' in the agricultural development process. Additionally, FSD helps facilitate a process and does not result in a product by itself. Thus, FSD cannot claim sole credit for any technologies developed for, or adopted by, farmers. However, it achieves credibility through its linkages and cooperative efforts with other 'actors' in the agricultural development process. These 'intermediate products' need to be documented and publicized to a greater extent than often has been the case.

BOX 3.8: FSD CAN HELP IDENTIFY APPROPRIATE DEVELOPMENT STRATEGIES

On-farm systems studies were carried out in village areas south of Bangalore, India [Rushton, 1994] to determine the appropriateness of the current livestock policy.

Farmers without irrigated crop land are the poorest in this area and at greatest risk from the effects of climatic and biological variations. These farmers depend on small livestock herds for cash income and on subsistence cropping for home consumption. When their small-scale livestock production fails, farmers are forced to seek outside employment for cash, and thus cropping activities suffer.

This farming system study identified two improvements that would contribute to better livestock productivity: control of epizootics and a 'preventative veterinary medicine service' focused on improved fertility management among small herd-owners. Previously, veterinary service policy had been to target larger herds where the immediate payoff had appeared to be much greater.

Such a livestock policy change should lead to greater stability in the production of animal products for local markets; less reliance on seasonal employment and, therefore, greater stability of the household labour force; and more stable subsistence cropping activities.

BOX 3.9: INTER-HOUSEHOLD RELATIONS AND TRADE-OFFS: AN INTRAGENERATIONAL ISSUE

In Botswana, farmers have a tradition of sharing draught power, In this semi-arid environment, field operations such as ploughing and row planting depend on access to draught in a timely fashion (i.e., days on which there is adequate soil moisture for ploughing/planting).

If a technology system is introduced that requires more draught, rather than less, it may mean that the household controlling the draught may not be able to routinely allow other households to also use their animals under a sharing arrangement. Thus, helping one household may harm other households in the community.

BOX 3.10: INTRA-HOUSEHOLD DECISION MAKING AND TRADE-OFFS: ANOTHER INTRA-GENERATIONAL ISSUE

An FSD programme in Amphoe Pharao, Thailand [Shinawatra et al, 1992] discovered a positive and unexpected benefit from interaction at the intra-household level. The introduction of improved and more commercially oriented poultry operations was targeted towards women members of households, because they traditionally manage and derive income from poultry. However, improved technological interventions not only required new inputs by men but were discovered to provide profitable use of under-employed male labour in many households.

This example demonstrates decision making with interactions between members of the household that are desirable for all: a win-win situation. Often, however, decisions for change favour one segment of the household, while adversely impacting on another.

4. Some key concepts important in the farming systems approach to development

4.1 Objectives of the chapter

The objectives of this chapter are to:

• Briefly define a farming system.
• Describe the status, goals, and appropriate technology for limited-resource households.
• Briefly discuss issues relating to equitability,
• Describe the recommendation domain concept.
• Briefly describe the significance of a participatory approach to FSD.

4.2 Definition of a farming system

To design appropriate or relevant ways of helping farmers, it is essential to understand the conditions under which farmers are operating. They have in fact, very complicated farming systems. Figure 4.1 shows some of the factors that have an influence on what the farming system will be. The operator of the farming system is the farmer or the farming family. To farmers, the way in which they earn their living and the economic, social, and cultural well-being of their households are linked closely and cannot be separated.

The members of the farming household have three basic types of inputs: land, labour, and capital. Management involves allocating these to three different activities or processes, that is, crops, livestock, and off-farm enterprises. In making decisions on how to allocate their inputs in producing one or more products, farmers have to make some difficult decisions. These decisions will involve using their knowledge to come as close as possible to fulfilling the goal(s) for which they are striving. These goal(s) may vary from farmer to farmer (e.g., maximizing their income, producing enough food to feed the family, etc.). Many farmers are likely to want to maximize their incomes, once they have made sure they are producing enough food to feed their family and have met other societal obligations. The resulting combination of products (i.e., crops, livestock, and off-farm enterprises) they are producing with their inputs results from the farming system they have adopted. Nevertheless, the extent to which the farming system fulfils the goal(s) they have chosen will depend on the managerial skills of the farming family and its ability to make good decisions in the allocation of inputs in a very uncertain production environment.

Figure 4.1: Schematic representation of some farming system determinants

However, some parts of the environment that influence what the farming system will be are outside the control of the individual farming family thus causing uncertainty as far as the farmer is concerned. The 'total' environment in which farming households operate consists of two parts: the technical (i.e., natural or physical) element and the human element [Nonnan et al, 1982].

• The technical element determines the types of, and physical potential of; livestock and crop enterprises. For example, in some areas, the low level of rainfall allows sorghum, but not maize, to be grown on rainfed land. The technical element includes physical and biological factors. These often are modified to some extent through technology developments -- for example, increasing water availability through irrigation Improving soil quality by adding fertilizer, breeding for yield stability during drought, etc.
• The farming system that actually evolves, however, is only part of what is potentially possible. The human element is important in determining what the actual farming system will be. The human element consist of two types of factors: exogenous and endogenous.

Exogenous factors (i.e., the social environment) are largely out of the control of the individual farming family. These factors will influence what the farming family can do and can be divided into three broad groups:

• Community structures, norms, and beliefs.
• External institutions, which include extension, credit, and input distribution systems on the input side and markets on the output side.
• Other influences, such as population density, location, and infrastructure.

Endogenous factors, on the other hand, are those the individual farming household controls to some degree. These include the types of inputs mentioned earlier, that is, land, Iabour, and capita]. It is important to recognize that these resources and managerial ability vary among households and regions. The resources vary on the basis of quantity and quality, both of which influence the performance and the potential of the system. In addition, these inputs or resources may or may not be owned by the household. Access to one or more of these resources may be on another basis of use (e.g., borrowing draught animals), which may limit or restrict the ease or intensity of use and thus, in turn, affect the goals and performance of the farm family.

Nevertheless, it is the fanning family that decides on the farming system that will emerge. However, this system will be influenced and sometimes constrained by the technical element and exogenous factors.

The farming system is obviously complex, and the results can vary greatly because of differences in the 'total, environment. These facts help explain why some technology thought to be relevant often has not been adopted, or when it has, why the degree of adoption has varied widely. Not considering the human element in agricultural research has contributed to many socalled 'improved' technologies being irrelevant.

4.3 The limited-resource household: status, goals, and appropriate technology

Typical limited resource farm households in low income countries generally are characterized as follows [Ellis, 1988: p. 12]:

"Farm households, with access to their means of livelihood in land, utilizing mainly labour in farm production, always located in a larger economic system, but fundamentally characterized by partial engagement in markets which tend to function with a high degree of imperfection."

Important points to note about this definition are that:

• Such households often are subordinate to some other external forces. That is, they do not have complete control over their own destiny and are in a process of transition. This is because of not being integrated fully in the market economy.
• They have access to land to pursue their livelihood. They cultivate the land largely with family labour, in conjunction with only small amounts of capital.
• The input or factor markets (i.e., land, labour, and capital) work poorly. Concerning land, non-market rights of access or non-price forms of tenure are more likely to operate than a freehold market. The capital markets usually are developed poorly and variable production inputs are often not available. As a result [Ellis, 1988: p. 12]:

"Credit and interest rates may be tied to other factor prices like land and labour within a dependent economic relationship. Thus factor markets may be locked together contractually rather than being independent."

Also, market information may be highly imperfect (i.e., not available or readily accessible). Thus, it is not surprising that sharing and reciprocity often exist between households. In these non-market transactions, exchange of unlike goods and services take place, which are not valued by market prices. Sometimes, such relationships exist between households that are related to each other.

• Another reason why such households are integrated only partially into the market economy is because they consume a proportion of the product they produce. This enables them to have some ability to survive independently of the larger system, which may be important in explaining their economic behaviour.

A number of microeconomic theories have been developed in an effort to explain the economic behaviour of farm households. These are based on various assumptions about household goals and the characteristics of the markets within which households make their decisions. Ellis [1988] notes that these theories are not mutually exclusive, sharing as they do certain key assumptions such as:

• The household is a single decision-making unit for economic analysis purposes. As a result, it maximizes a single utility (satisfaction) function that represents the joint welfare of its members.
• Profit maximization and utility maximization coincide where income is the only variable in the utility function. Profit maximization is always one of the components of utility maximization" when all the input and output markets are fully formed and competitive.

Ellis [1988] suggests that the theories predict different results because of different assumptions about the working of the factor and product markets, rather than because of differences in assumptions about household goal(s). In fact, an important characteristic distinguishing many of the theories results from different assumptions about labour markets and the allocation of household labour time, In support of these assertions, Ellis [1988] then discusses a number of these theories of economic behaviour. He calls these profit maximization, risk aversion, drudgery aversion, farm household theories, and share tenancy. In doing so, he recognizes the impossibility of separating short-run household decisions from the wider social relations of production.

Consequently, there is likely to be a certain universality in the aspirations of limited-resource farming households. The most important elements are income, effort avoidance, and risk avoidance. In economic terms, this means such households try to increase their utility or satisfaction, which increases with income but decreases with greater effort or higher levels of risk. This can be restated as maximizing income for any given level of effort or risk. Alternatively, it can mean reducing risk, or effort, for a given level of income [Norman, 1982].

Attempts to maximize utility or satisfaction take place within a set of constraints. As implied above, differences in the constraints, rather than the aspirations, lead to the most important differences in farming systems. As discussed earlier (Section 4.2), Figure 4,1 indicates some of the determinants of the farming system. It is easy to visualize constraints relating to the technical element causing differences in the type and productivity of farming systems, However, also important in the differentiation process are the factors relating to the human element. The quantity, quality, and ratios (i.e., particularly between land and labour) of the endogenous factors (i.e., factors of production -- land, labour, and capital) play an important role in further differentiating farming systems. The extent to which they can be modified will depend on the degree of integration into the factor markets (i.e.? input markets). Also the products resulting will be influenced to some extent by community norms and beliefs and the degree of integration into the product market.

The above discussion has important implications for what is appropriate technological change. For example, limited resource households often are likely to be very little above survival level and, hence, will place a very high premium on improved stability of production. The levels, qualities, and relative proportions of the factors of production are important in indicating the most appropriate route for improving the productivity and profit of the farming system -- which is maximizing the return to the most limiting factor. For example, in areas of high land/labour ratios (i.e., low population densities), labour saving (e.g., mechanical, extensive livestock production) types of technology/systems are likely to be most appropriate. In contrast, in areas of low land/resident ratios (i.e., high population density) land saving technologies/systems (e.g., biological and some chemical, intensive livestock production) will likely be more appropriate. However, as Table 4.1 shows, increasing the return to the most limiting factor can have an indirect positive or negative impact on the use and productivity of other inputs. Thus, in view of the imperfect operation of the factor markets, care has to be taken in evaluating what would be the most relevant technologies.

For example, in a semi-arid area, initial superficial examination may indicate that because of the high population densities, strategies designed to increase the productivity of land would be most important. However, given the seasonal nature of agriculture in semi-arid areas, there will be periods of intense labour activity during the year. These will create labour bottleneck periods, followed by periods of underemployment. Thus, land-augmenting strategies using labour at critical labour bottleneck periods -- when the opportunity cost of labour is high (i.e., there are good alternative uses for labour that can yield an equally high return) -- could be unattractive to the household (see Box 4.1 ). This is likely if adoption of such strategies involves the use of more labour at such labour bottleneck periods. It will also be likely if the productivity per unit of labour applied at that time is higher in alternative uses.

TABLE 4.1: RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN TYPES OF REQUIRED TECHNOLOGY AND LAND/LABOUR RATIOS

a.

D = Direct impact
+ = Positive impact
I = Indirect impact
- = Negative impact

BOX 4.1: TECHNOLOGIES ARE RARELY SUPERIOR IN TERMS OF RETURN PER UNIT AREA AND LABOUR

In the early 1970's, three technological packages were tested with farmers in Northern Nigeria [Norman et al, 1982]. Farmers involved in testing them used animal traction and, operating in a semi-arid production environment, were faced with a major weeding bottleneck in June-July. The three technological packages were compared with each other and, in the case of sorghum and cotton, with indigenous practices, Summarized results were as follows:

a. Indigenous practice , for maize could not be compared because maize was rarely grown in that area at that time.
b. Average of the results in 1973 and 1974 seasons.

The results indicated the superiority of the improved maize technology over both improved or indigenous practices for sorghum and cotton in terms of both return per unit of land and labour. Note that for both the sorghum and cotton improved technologies, the return per unit area was higher than that from employing indigenous practices; but that the return per unit of labour used during the June/July period was the same or lower. Unlike the sorghum and cotton improved technologies, the improved maize technology was, from a profit viewpoint, suitable for farmers whether they were faced with a labour or land limitation.

Not surprisingly, since the 1970s, improved maize technologies have been adopted widely in Northern Nigeria, in a mini-Green Revolution [Smith et al, 1994]. Although, initially the prime motivation for growing maize was as a cash crop, it eventually became a more important dietary item as farming households made trade-off decisions between growing the high yielding maize rather than the low yielding sorghum.

Contents - Previous - Next