 |  |  |
| | |
Two districts had been selected by the Ministry for initial campaign concentration, one in the "lowlands" of the Northern Region of the country (Butha Buthe), and the other in the Mountainous interior (Thaba Tseka). In both districts it was decided that the District Agricultural Officers (DOAs) and Subject Matter Specialists (SMSs) should carry out the needs assessments and prioritise the key development objectives to be supported by communication campaigns. The initial meetings with the AIS planning team at the pilot District Headquarters were thus spent in firming up, and setting into a communication context, the decisions taken. Coincidentally, the themes selected in both districts revolved around maize production, in the case of Butha Buthe to increase maize yields through adoption of high yielding seed varieties and recommended cultivation practices, and for the mountain district to increase the supply of an early maturing, high yielding, single strain highland maize variety found only in that area (seed multiplication). Reducing post-harvest losses through the construction of stone and cement silos would be a common aim for both districts.
The focus on maize production coincided well with the development priorities of the Ministry of Agriculture. Maize is the staple food in Lesotho but the nation has been unable to produce even half of its domestic annual requirements. In 1986, for example, only 43% of national consumption was locally grown leaving 57% to be imported from other countries. With this perspective in view, the broad goal of the campaign was to contribute toward the national development priority of achieving self-sufficiency in maize production. Specific communication objectives evolving from the goal would be 1) to significantly increase knowledge levels where warranted, and 2) to meet farmers' expressed information needs with respect to recommended seed varieties and methods of maize production, and reducing post-harvest losses. Content emphasis for both objectives would be set forth following the results of a baseline survey.
The campaign was set for the 1987-1988 cropping season which runs roughly from September through April. With the FAO Field Communication Consultant's arrival in Lesotho during the first week in July, this meant that the planning and preparation period prior to kicking off the first campaign presentations in mid-September would be restricted to about eight to ten weeks.
The immediate priority of the planning team was to determine the specific information units to be concentrated upon, which would form the basis for assessing target audience information levels through the baseline survey. The AIS team responsible for producing media materials again met with the crop specialists in the target districts. Further discussions were held with maize specialists in Maseru, and relevant research literature on the topic was examined. Out of this content research, nine specific maize production operations were delineated:
With the content units in view, a baseline questionnaire was developed which concentrated on knowledge levels - practices - and felt Information needs. The rationale for this line of questioning was to determine where areas of knowledge were weak, which practices should be changed, and perhaps most important, to provide a framework for communication inputs based directly upon the target audience's expressed information needs. Since up to 70% of Lesotho farms are run by women in the absence of their husbands seeking employment in the mines of South Africa, we were also interested in determining if they made individual decisions such as seed selection, fertiliser applications, and hiring outside plowing and planting operators. A concluding section of the questionnaire assessed media access, frequency of exposure to agricultural radio broadcasts, predominant listening times, and farmers' perceptions of the most useful of all available sources of information. (Appendix II includes a copy of the Questionnaire.)
By the end of the third week in July, the questionnaire was ready to be taken to the field. Initially, we had planned to survey the interior mountain district first before moving down to the lowland area. Unfortunately, the timing coincided with a severe snow storm which blocked the mountain roads for virtually a whole week. Because of schedule pressures, we thus decided to concentrate our baseline survey efforts on the northern district of Butha Buthe.
The primary target area within the district consisted of ten villages spread out over a length of about ten miles along a secondary road. Four of these villages were randomly selected for head of household interviews. Our strategy was to interview about twenty people in each village chosen on the basis of 1) indication that they would be planting maize during the forthcoming season, and 2) their wish to take part in listening to and viewing audio-visual presentations which would come to their village over a seven month period, as well as tune in to a weekly radio broadcast dedicated to their area. Questions were given in Sesotho with responses simultaneously recorded in English. Altogether, 71 farmers were included in the baseline survey (65% female, 35% male) which was undertaken over a three day period. The interviews were conducted by four staff members from the Planning Department of the Ministry of Agriculture as well as the Campaign Director and his assistant.
The results of the survey were tabulated during the fifth and sixth weeks and grouped according to each of the sections of the planned campaign. Thus, for each maize production operation, the results indicated which information points needed particular reinforcement, where recommended practices were weak, and what specific information points were requested by respondents. Interestingly, a strong correlation was noted between areas where knowledge levels were low and specific requests for information. Content guidelines units were then developed for media producers as to where emphasis should be placed in each of the information units to achieve maximum effectiveness in the campaign.
Of further specific interest to the campaign planners was the size of the general radio listening audience, which the survey revealed to be about 90% of the sample. About 65% tuned in to agricultural broadcasts; and among the listeners, 72% said they tuned in to only the evening broadcasts, with 19% listening to both morning and evening programmes and 9% to morning programmes only. Clearly, the evening slot would be the most favoured for campaign broadcasts. Agricultural radio was also named as the most important of all available sources of information.
With the baseline survey complete, the sixth week of the FAO Field Communication Consultant's mission was spent in planning the content of the campaign in detail and fixing the presentation schedules. Initial planning suggested that the campaign should unfold in a timely manner with presentations coinciding with decision points in the seasonal calendar. Thus the first presentation during mid-September, for example, should concentrate on land preparation and the choice of recommended, certified, high yielding seeds. This would be followed in mid-October with proper use of fertilisers, in mid-November by weeding methods, disease and pest control, and finally in mid-March by harvesting techniques and methods to reduce post-harvest losses. As well, it was decided that the campaign would revolve around two delivery approaches, what we termed a multi-media Intensive strategy and an audiocassette listening group strategy. The multi-media intensive approach would centre on ten villages in the primary target areas in both Butha Buthe, the lowland district and Thaba Tseka, the mountain district. Presentation teams would move out in Land Cruiser vans from AIS headquarters in Maseru on a two-week-out, two-week-return basis. One village would be covered each working day during the two-week-out period; listening/viewing groups of between fifteen-twenty farmers would be organized per village. Additional media support would include posters changed every four weeks to support each presentation, handouts to participants covering the essential points of each session, and radio broadcasts dedicated to each of the districts over the duration of the campaign. At least one evening broadcast per week per district would be aired on Radio Lesotho.
The audio-cassette listening group strategy was intended to cover the remainder of the districts in villages serviced by extension agents and provide a campaign multiplier effect. During the time the exercise was undertaken, there were about ten extension workers per pilot district. The eight or nine extension agents in each district not involved in the full campaign would be supplied with radio/audio-cassette players, the rationale being that listening groups of about 15 to 20 farmers would be set up in clusters of eight villages per extension agent. The presentation format would follow the AIS Introduction - Playback - Discussion - Demonstration format suggested for the multi-media intensive portion of the campaign. Similarly, posters and handouts would support the sessions and radio would target both areas once per week. New topics would be introduced every other two weeks. All materials would be produced and/or assembled for distribution at AIS headquarters.
The final week of the seven week baseline survey and planning phase was given over to providing a field communication orientation for the extension agents and crop specialists who would be involved in the campaign. Two and one-half day workshops were organized in each of the two pilot districts. The content ranged from an overview of the role of communication in rural development to a detailed explanation of all facets of the campaign, including a discussion of the results of the baseline survey. In addition, one afternoon was devoted to a village based demonstration of how to set up and conduct an audio-cassette listening group session.
While at one of these sessions, the true value of the practical exercise was dramatically revealed. The content of the audio-cassette demonstration centred on seed bed preparation and correct methods of ploughing. At the end of the play-back one of the listeners in the group jumped up and ran off in what appeared to be an agitated state. Rather than being offended, however, he returned minutes later carrying a plough and enthusiastically asked for more specific instructions on correct settings! (See Photo #1)
During the closing day of the workshop, the extension agents were taken through a detailed explanation of methods of keeping attendance at the listening group sessions, and asking for comments from participating farmers on sequences of high or low interest, understanding of the main points of the presentation, and whether or not they intended to card, out the recommended practices. These "monitoring" information sheets would then be fed back to the AIS production team on a monthly basis to allow feedback on the effectiveness of production strategies used and where changes might be warranted.
Photo 1: Ploughing demonstration following cassette listening group exercise.
Even though the AIS production team had a vent, short lead time of only one month to prepare the first group media session, the campaign kicked off as planned in mid-September. Four presentations were scheduled to cover the first half of the campaign, namely, the September to December portion, with the one remaining presentation on harvesting to be delivered later during April. In order of appearance, they were:
Due to gaps in the availability of appropriate visuals, however, only the first two presentations included a slide-tape presentation. The remaining three presentations were primarily conducted with audio-cassettes and support print materials. All were reinforced by a dedicated radio broadcast each week with 15 minutes allotted to Butha Buthe and 15 minutes to Thaba Tseka on the Thursday evening programme.
Photo 2: AlS-organized cassette-listening group.
All audio-cassettes were designed along the following format:
The primary purpose of the audio-cassette programme was to introduce the presentation topic and provide recommendations (SMS voice-piece), discuss the 'pros and cons' of the recommendations with farmers, and then to show through a drama sequence how the recommendations fit into the existing village farm system (Photo #2). Each cassette would then be followed by a discussion, and where practical, a field demonstration by the extension agent (Photo #3).
The multi-media intensive portion of the campaign was carried out by two AIS teams using mobile vans to deliver the village based group media presentations. A typical session would involve the van moving into a village at a time previously agreed upon with both the area and village chiefs. With traditional music blaring from its two loud speakers, the presence of the van could be heard throughout the village, even though it might be spread out over a half-kilometre or more. A "gathering time" would then follow in which the intended target group would begin to arrive in the village square, or what is termed a "pitso" in Lesotho. Often, this would involve several of the members dancing to the music and in general having a good time. Overall, at least one hour and sometimes up to two would be taken up with assembling the group. Once gathered, a welcome address would be given by the village or area chief. Again, this might go on for some time, but generally at least one-half hour was planned for. The order of presentation then normally included the following sequence:
Photo 3: Field demonstration by extension agent.
Problems were experienced in keeping to the original schedule almost from the start, however, because of highly unusual heavy rains which blanketed the lowlands for two months. And in the interior the situation was particularly severe in Thaba Tseka which experienced heavy snowfalls, resulting in the death of several draught animals and small livestock. In the face of these constraints some presentations had to be cancelled; and most had to be pushed ahead to correspond to the shift in the agricultural calendar.
In spite of the delay, the original target of ten villages was adhered to in Butha Buthe and expanded to thirteen in Thaba Tseka. Correspondingly, the extension agents in both districts not involved in the intensive area were to set up and conduct organized listening groups on an eight village per agent basis. Reports compiled by the AIS suggest that because of transport problems and battery supplies for the cassette players, an average of five villages per agent would be a more accurate estimate of the number actually covered.
Two impact evaluations were undertaken. The first, or mid-term exercise in December 1987 provided an excellent opportunity to not only gather quantitative data on knowledge gains and changes in practices early in the campaign, but also to gain a broad range of impressions from front line extension workers at the field level. It was carried out in the same four villages as the baseline data collection, and attempted to reinterview as many of the original respondents as possible, provided that they had attended the presentations. All interviews during this round were undertaken by the Campaign Manager (see Photo #4), and two newly appointed production assistants. For the Manager, the exercise was invaluable in providing first hand impressions of the effectiveness of the campaign to that point. And for the production assistants, the process allowed them to sharpen their interviewing skills with regard to asking focussed questions and probing for additional information, techniques they could transfer to radio production. The additional benefit inherent in using media producers to undertake surveys was the direct experience in getting to know their farming community radio audience. While admitting to the possibility of a certain bias entering into a given interview with a member of the target group, the positive benefits of using production staff to conduct field evaluations would seem to far outweigh any negative consequences. Certainly, in the case of Lesotho there was general concern on the part of materials producers to faithfully record the comments of farmers, even if they reflected unkindly on the media contents per se or the way in which the campaign was conducted. Altogether, three days were spent in the field to re-interview 37 respondents representing 52% of the baseline population; 35% of these were male, and 65% female, a ratio which matched perfectly that generated in the original survey.
Photo 4: Post maize-campaign interview with participating farmer.
Immediately following the mid-term field survey, a two day evaluation workshop was held in Maseru which assembled the extension workers from both pilot districts. Eighteen extension personnel were able to attend, with the ratio split evenly between the DEO and eight extension agents from each district. As well, two AIS officers participated as observers. The FAO Field Communication Consultant was aided in the conduct of the workshop by the AIS Campaign Manager, and by a DSC Officer from FAO Headquarters who was in Maseru on a technical backstopping mission. The DSC Officer's contribution was particularly beneficial since it involved a number of applications of video.
The first morning kicked off with an overview of the mid-term campaign results and viewing examples of presentations in the media intensive area which had been video-Taped by the DSC officer the previous week. In the afternoon, participants were spin into two groups by district and asked to discuss several evaluation issues including equipment durability and battery supplies, communication strategies and media combinations, timing of village presentations and number of visits per month, and the effects of unforeseen problems such as weather, supplies of technological inputs, and MOA ploughing and planting operations. The goal of these discussions was to provide a focus on what worked well, what worked badly, and how the remainder of the current and future campaigns might be improved.
Participants were also asked to comment on the monitoring methods which were outlined at the start of the campaign. The focus here was on the size of the listening groups, number of villages covered per extension worker, interest in and understanding of the content of the presentations, whether the timing of the presentations fn into the agricultural calendar, and how much of the learning that was taking place was being put into practice. At the end of the period the DEO from each group summarised the main points arising from the discussion and subsequent recommendations. Both presentations were video-taped.
The morning of the second day started with a video playback of the previous days evaluation reports as a lead-in to a discussion on issues related to future campaigns, especially within the context of field communication support for extension workers. Discussion groups were again organized by district with summary reports delivered by DEOs back to the full workshop. These reports were also video-taped, in this case for presentation to the Director of Field Services. His reply to the concerns raised, in turn, was recorded for future reference. Overall, the video methodology employed sewed to sharpen the focus of the group reports and there is little doubt that it added greatly to the lively interaction experienced during the sessions. Its potential for similar workshops of this nature should definitely be underscored.
The post-campaign impact survey was conducted during June 1988, or approximately one month after harvesting had been completed. In this case we were interested in assessing reactions to the second had of the campaign, namely, knowledge levels and practices with regard to reducing post-harvest losses. As well, a section of the questionnaire was devoted to assessing whether the intensive media campaign respondents had been listening to radio broadcasts dedicated to their area, whether they would like to see more slide-tape programmes in their village, and if so, the range of topics they would like to have information on. The latter question was intended as feed-forward for other potential campaigns and regular radio broadcasts.
Again because of problems encountered in the presentation schedule, only two villages out of the original four in the baseline survey had been exposed to the final campaign materials. Our impact survey was thus confined to a maximum total of 35 respondents, out of whom 24 (30% male, 70% female) had actually attended the "post-harvest losses" presentation. Two days, or one day per village, were spent in reinterviewing the relevant respondents.
Figure 1 presents the overall comparative picture of knowledge levels for each maize production operation before, and after, the intensive multi-media campaign presentations. Figure 2 in turn shows the mid-term and post-campaign levels compared with the pre-campaign knowledge base. The knowledge levels are based on a maximum score of 42 for the mid-term survey and a maximum score of 11 for the post-campaign survey. On a percentage basis the mid-term scores (which combine i and Preparation through Disease Control) increased from a baseline level of 21% to 39%; and knowledge of how to reduce post-harvest losses increased from a pre-campaign level of 25% to a post-campaign figure of 47%. Overall, these figures translate into a relative gain of 83% for the mid-term survey and 85% for the post-campaign survey.
Figure 1: Pre and post-campaign knowledge levels by maize production operation
Figure 2: Comparison of pre-campaign maize production knowledge base with mid-term and post-campaign levels.
Closer inspection of Figure 1 shows that solid gains were made in knowledge of - and Preparation Techniques, Use of Fertilizers, Disease and Pest Control, and Reducing Post-Harvest Losses. Also impressive was the learning acquired with regard to recommended Weeding Methods which all respondents demonstrated after attending the campaign presentation, an observation also mentioned in extension agent reports.
Another interesting finding was noted in comparing those who listened regularly to the radio broadcasts dedicated to the maize campaign and those who did not. In the mid-term survey, for example, 76% of the respondents were radio listeners. Their information level was raised from 21% in the baseline survey to 41% in the mid-term evaluation for a relative gain of 98%. Non-listeners on the other hand went from a baseline level of 22% to 32% at midterm for a relative gain of 42%. The more than doubling of relative information gains made by the listening group forcibly demonstrates the influence of radio to reinforce reaming from group media presentations and to rightfully take its place as a powerful component in a campaign media mix.
An attempt was made to gauge the level of practice changes, if any, made during the short time-frame of the campaign. By and large, we noted a very large increase in the use of ploughing for seed bed preparation (from 15 respondents in the baseline survey to 29 at mid-term) and in the application of top-dressing fertiliser (from a baseline of 15 to 26 at midterm). Perhaps the most impressive of all the campaign initiatives, however, was in the promotion of stone and cement silos to reduce post-harvest losses. In the baseline survey 12, or 50%, of farmers said they would like to build a silo; this had increased to 23, or 95%, in the post-campaign survey. And out of the 23 expressing interest, 21 said they planned to build a silo as soon as circumstances permitted. As tangible evidence of this expression, one farmer had already built a silo during the campaign period capable of storing 4 200 kilograms (60 x 70 kg. bags) of maize for a total cash outlay of 100 Maluti, or about US$45 at the time. The structure stands as a model for other villagers to copy (Photo #5). It even attracted the attention of the Minister of Agriculture who travelled to the village for a close-up inspection of the silo.
The campaign was not, however, without a variety of constraints. Some of these were due to natural causes; others resulted from scheduling conflicts and delays in inputs from the Ministry, or supplies from cooperatives. During the early portion, as noted earlier, heavy downpours of rain delayed both village visits and planting of maize. And when the campaign was fully underway, on more than one occasion the team would arrive in a village only to discover that the village chief had thought that the visit was scheduled for another day! At times extension workers would be assigned to duties in villages outside the campaign area; and some male heads of households who were chosen as part of the original listening groups left the area to work in the mines of South Africa. This situation was particularly difficult for the evaluation team who wanted to compare before and after campaign results with the same people.
The more serious of all constraints occurred in one of the four villages chosen for the baseline and impact surveys. The context involved the preparation of land for maize seeding, most of which is hired out to private tractor owners or undertaken by the tractor operations section of the Ministry of Agriculture. In this case, the village had opted for Ministry ploughing.
Photo 5: Stone and cement silo promoted during maize campaign.
After experiencing numerous delays in the arrival of the tractor, the end result was that the maize planting period was exceeded and farmers were forced to opt for shorter season crops, such as beans. When the AIS team showed up to conduct the mid-term evaluation they were met with less than hospitable villagers who assumed that, since the team was from the Ministry of Agriculture, they were part and parcel of the reason for their being unable to plant maize. No amount of reasoning would persuade them otherwise and they refused to participate further. They were thus reluctantly dropped from the group of campaign target villages. This incident served to confirm, as emphasised in the first stage of our communication process model, the importance of technology inputs and services arriving in a timely manner.
For the most part, however, the anecdotal comments and impressions garnered from the AIS campaign team and extension agents were highly positive. In spite of the numerous problems encountered in the initial three month phase, the post-campaign evaluation team visited the target area when record maize yields had been gathered and when the majority of villagers were contemplating not only sufficient food for the coming year, but income generated from selling portions of the harvest as well. Demonstrably, farmers were only too pleased to show us their harvest piled high in rondavels or covered with plastic sheets next to their homes (Photo #6). Similar reports were forthcoming from the mountain district. Much of this success must be shared with plentiful rain, and good weather during harvesting, but certainly the AIS team could be pleased with their first efforts in mounting a multi-channel communication campaign.
In the wake of the maize campaign, discussions were held with the District Agricultural Officer concerning possible topics for further concentration. Based upon suggestions given by farmers during the post-campaign survey, and the fact that a full 97% of them expressed a desire to see more village based presentations, H was decided to redo the media intensive maize campaign in Butha Buthe district, but in a new area. The ten villages included in the previous area would revert to cassette-listening groups organized by the local extension agents. And in Thaba Tseka, where the emphasis on seed multiplication had been successfully moved along, the theme for campaign continuation changed to livestock rearing and range management, topics of high priority for this part of the counts.
Photo 6: Sample of maize harvest after the campaign
While the two original pilot districts were planning their second year of operation (1988-89), a third district was added to the roster for FAO assistance to further improve AlS's capacity to undertake field based communication campaigns. In preparation, an FAO consultant with expertise in campaign production management spent three months with the AIS during the June through August planning period. Additional field playback equipment was purchased (Public Address sound system, radio/cassette recorders) as well as a Toyota Land Cruiser. Video would be added later to the AIS range of media production with training workshops organized during the September through November period, not early enough to be included in the new pilot district, but certainly to be considered in later campaigns. Finally, the same FAO Field Communication Consultant involved in designing and evaluating the first campaign exercise moved directly to assisting the AIS team with the background target audience KAP survey necessary to coherently plan the production, delivery, monitoring and evaluation of the campaign in the new pilot area.
| | |