Abstract
Introduction
Forage networks
Critical factors for success
References
John R. Lazier
ILCA, P.O.Box 5689, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia
The characteristics of networks are described, their advantages discussed, and the organisation and objectives of several forage networks are presented. Two African networks, the Forage Network in Ethiopia and the Pasture Network for Eastern and Southern Africa are examined in some detail. Factors critical to the degree of success of a network formed to develop forage production include the character of the coordinator, the network newsletter and the breadth of membership and programme.
Networks can be defined as associations of individuals with common interests. They can be large, involving hundreds of individuals, or small, with 10 or less, formally organised or casual, with the participants contacting each other as needed or desired. Membership may be open to all with similar interests or exclusive, confined to those meeting specific, defined criteria. These characteristics are normally determined by the needs and philosophy of the members, organisers and funding agency.
Associations of individuals with common concerns are not new, but the term network has become popular recently. Plucknet and Smith (1984) trace the beginnings of agricultural networks to colonial research stations, which were organised in international networks within the holdings of each imperial power, but tended to be exclusive with regard to other colonial powers. In the United States the first formal agricultural networks appeared in the 1920s and the first multinational germplasm screening trial in the 1950s, with the International Stem Rust Nursery. This network involved 150 researchers in 40 countries in testing wheat germplasm for resistance to wheat stem rust. International agricultural networks have since become very popular and there are now more than 100 (Plucknet and Smith, 1984).
The stimulus for starting agricultural network activities can usually be attributed to some combination of the agriculturalists or national agencies who will form the membership, a funding agency, and an International Agricultural Research Centre (IARC) such as ILCA or CIAT.
Some funding agencies have been particularly active in promoting networks; the International Development Research Centre of Canada (IDRC), for example, in its first 9 years spent 51% of its Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Programme budget on network projects (Nester et al, 1980). IARCs have a considerable involvement in networks and they have made a substantial contribution to the initiation and development of larger, international networks, particularly in the field of germplasm screening.
Although the organisation of networks varies greatly, certain features are common (e.g. IDRC networks; Nestel et al, 1980): participants (a few to several hundred), mechanisms to link the participants (commonly a coordinator), advisory committees, outside consultants, training programmes, workshops and publications.
Networks are valuable mechanisms for efficient enhancement of research capabilities. They create links between those with common interests and thus encourage the dissemination of information and germplasm and the formation of groups of scientists in order to solve problems effectively. New ideas are introduced by formal and informal training given by consultants and by peer groups within the network; they also create opportunities for critical examination of work programmes of individuals and institutions and the development of global professional contacts, leadership, and trial designs and local philosophies suited to local conditions. Coordination of research is encouraged, reducing duplication, and the value of trials, particularly screening trials, is enhanced by multilocation testing.
Networks are attractive to funding agencies and to IARCs as research and development tools, due to their cost-effective use of established personnel and institutions and their flexibility in being readily started, altered or terminated, as they usually require little in the way of formal agreements.
Networks are attractive to scientists and institutions as they break the professional isolation that is common in the Third World. They provide opportunities for travel internationally to workshops, training courses and to visit other researchers. Networks can provide internationally recognised consultants to advise on research programmes, and this support, plus the availability of new germplasm and the development of standard and multilocation trials within the network, assures the scientist and his supervisors that he is doing important work of internationally recognised quality. The status of the researchers is thus boosted. There are opportunities for leadership, for rapid publication and for presentation of work and philosophies of the members in the forum of interested peers.
A review of IDRC research networks (Nester et al, 1980) listed a number of factors for success. The goals of the network should be broad and include known resource development, production of research results and the provision of information for planners and development workers. The network should be flexible, changing to meet new needs. A regional, rather than continental, emphasis is more meaningful to participants. Consultants should have continuity and be as widely used in the network as possible, for they, along with workshops and newsletters, are very important in the development of a common philosophy and links within the network. Links should be developed with IARCs and institutions in developed countries. There should be a network coordinator for day-to-day management and an advisory committee of members or consultants to advise the leadership.
Plucknet and Smith (1984) listed factors important for the success of IARC-based networks, particularly those based on international nurseries. They contend that such networks should be based on a widely shared problem that is clearly defined by the network, the solution to which is sought using a realistic research agenda. They should have strong and effective leadership. The self-interest of potential participants should be appealed to such that those with sufficient training and expertise to contribute will participate and be willing to commit resources. Outside funding is necessary in order that the acquisition of foreign exchange is not a problem.
As can be seen from the two lists of criteria, the IDRC networks and goals are much more general and open than those of the IARC nursery networks, which are essentially exclusive and have narrowly-defined research agenda and goals. The IARC nursery networks commonly concern a single crop and may emphasize one aspect of the crop. The International Rice Research Institute (IRRI), for example, has separate networks for genetic testing, agronomy, cropping systems, soil fertility and fertilizer efficiency, and farm machinery development (IRRI, 1982).
The Australian-South East Asian and Pacific Forage Research Network
This network was started in 1984 (Evans 1984) with the appointment of an Australian coordinator, and is funded by the Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research (ACIAR) and the Australian Development Assistance Bureau (ADAB). It was started in response to increased interest in pastures and forage production in the region, aroused by reports of successful research on pastures in tropical areas of Australia and through bilateral and multilateral forage research projects.
The aims of the project are to increase the effectiveness of research in the region by providing support and encouragement in research and to help overcome communication problems. Specific goals are to (i) improve research planning, (ii) encourage research in areas of mutual interest to participants, (iii) strengthen technological capacity at all levels, (iv) strengthen each country's information base, (v) help to provide extension of research developments, and (vi) to develop a network base for long-term contacts.
A primary network has been formed of 10 leading scientists (core members) active in research, based at institutions involved in significant forage research and at which the quality of staff and research are at a level to benefit from and contribute to network activities. Five countries in the region have such a capacity.
The network is thus, at present, exclusive, with well-defined institutional and individual membership criteria but broad research goals. Its impact so far seems to be very limited.
The CIAT International Tropical Pastures Network (RIEPT)
The Tropical Pasture Programme of CIAT, with funding from IDRC, has acted as a catalyst with national research institutions in the formation of RIEPT for its area of research emphasis, the tropical forests and savannas on acid, infertile soils (Toledo, 1982; Toledo et al, 1984).
The objectives of RIEPT are to:
1. Study the range of adaptation of forage grass and legume germplasm in low altitude tropical ecosystems,2. Encourage the testing of promising germplasm in pastures at research institutions in the region, and to
3. Promote technical development in pasture production in the regions of expanding livestock production in tropical America and to assist in the exchange of scientific information and research methodologies. so far, the network is based on a progression of germplasm screening trials; the most promising lines in early trials are subjected to more intensive testing in later trials:
Series
A Evaluation of the survival of a large number of entries (100-150) in a few highly representative sites in a major ecosystem.B Determination of the dry-matter productivity of 20 to 30 lines from CIAT and national programmes in as many sites as possible.
C Evaluation of about 10 lines in small mixed grass-legume plots under grazing.
D Measurement of pasture productivity and persistence in terms of animal products.
E On-farm evaluation of improved pastures.
The network was started in 1979 when the first organisational meeting was held and a CIAT coordinator was hired. Work has reached series C trials and series D trials are being established. The network has biennial meetings, at which participants present their network research results, and workshops, which are usually held at the same time as the network meetings.
RIEPT thus follows the common pattern of IARC networks in being rather narrow in scope, limited to researchers who participate in network trials, and being rather heavily dependent on the IARC.
International/Regional Working Groups on Natural Grazing Resources
The Grasslands and Pasture Crops Group of FAO has been involved in international networks since 1977 (F Riveros, personal communication). It has started two networks in South America, and one each in the Caribbean and Mediterranean regions, the Himalayan highlands and Malaysia. Another network is planned for the highlands of the Andes.
The objective of these networks is to encourage better forage research by linking researchers working in similar environments. The two South American networks, for example, link researchers in several countries into separate networks for the Chacos and Campos environments.
The networks have such activities as annual meetings/workshops, group monitoring, training and coordinated research. A wide range of research activities are undertaken to solve local environmental problems: biological N fixation, dynamics in natural grasslands, ecological surveys, large-scale grazing trials, control of weed grasses.
While FAO plays an important role in guiding the networks, each network has its own part-time secretariat composed of a senior researcher/administrator and a secretary, and each country has its own part-time national coordinator for each network in which it is involved. FAO provides funds for these coordinating activities, for the annual meetings/workshops, small research equipment, operating funds, training, consultants etc.
While narrow in the sense of concentrating on researchers and on individual environments, these networks are flexible and broad in terms of the research activities undertaken and apparently have a substantial impact on research for small financial inputs.
The Forage Network in Ethiopia (FNE)
Before the FNE was formed there was little forage research in Ethiopia, due partly to an emphasis on food crops. and partly to a lack of trained personnel. Individual government ministries and research and development organisations worked in almost complete isolation. Ill-conceived and poorly planned work was not uncommon, a narrow range of germplasm was available for testing, results were based on screening at a limited number of sites, efforts were duplicated, and results were not publicised.
The FNE was organised to promote forage production. It aims to achieve this by increasing communication between those interested in forages at all levels, and by encouraging testing, seed production and extension of promising forage germplasm.
Formed in October 1980 by forage researchers from ILCA and three government organisations (the Ministry of Agriculture, the Institute of Agricultural Research and the Arsi Rural Development Project), its activities were based initially on participation in multilocation trials. It has since grown to include participants from a wide range of Ethiopian Government and non-government organisations, including aid and development groups, colleges, the Alemaya University, workers from other fields of research and development and farmers. Researchers in Djibouti have recently joined the Network.
Network activities are planned by a steering committee composed of elected officers and representatives of all the participating groups. Only those committee members based near Addis Ababa manage to attend the meetings, but the views of the other committee members are sought whenever possible.
The annual general meeting is one of the most important network activities. At this meeting officers are elected, research results of attending organisations and FNE multilocational trials are presented, new trials for the coming season are discussed, and talks are given on various forage-related topics.
Another regular activity is the annual field trip which provides the opportunity for members to view each others work and to visit development projects.
The FNE Newsletter has proved to be very popular. Published four times a year it contains the minutes of FNE meetings, local and FNE forage news, news of other networks and meetings, designs and results of FNE multilocation trials, activities of FNE members and advisory notes on the production and utilisation of forage species. The newsletter has created a great deal of interest in the FNE, both in Ethiopia and abroad, and has a wide readership, from ministers to extension workers and farmers. It has done much to create a positive attitude toward the network in government circles, to encourage better coordination of research efforts, and to provide a local medium for publication of ideas and results.
The multilocation trials organised by the network are very popular and form a system of screening not dissimilar to that used by CIAT's pasture network. The levels of screening to date are:
1. Natural grassland inventory (including DM production estimates).2. Initial adaptation trials. These are mainly strip trials in which rainfed or irrigated grasses, legumes and browse are planted in unreplicated strips, normally under two fertilizer rates, zero and minimal P (and N for grasses). Detailed observational data are taken, and the strips may be cut or grazed once established. Legume and browse trials are usually planted in natural or sown pastures.
3. Replicated yield trials, pure sward.
4. Replicated yield trials, mixed sward.
There is a wide range of environments and farming systems in Ethiopia, and thus network trials have to be more flexible than those in the CIAT network. Species are chosen for specific environments and farming systems. The work so far has delineated a number of major forage environments (Table 1), using altitude as the primary consideration followed by soil type (mainly drainage and pH) and then rainfall and farming system. There are a large number of forage environments, as most altitude environments have rainfall regimes ranging from humid to semi-arid and there is considerable variation in local farming systems, which have management systems ranging from nil in communal grazing lands to high in such systems as intercropping and reserved fodder. The degree of management is usually related to population density and the importance of livestock in the area. The results of the first series of multilocation trials have been analysed and published in the FNE Newsletter.
Table 1. Some major forage environments in Ethiopia.
|
Altitude |
Soils |
|
2600 + |
Alfisols, Vertisols |
|
2000 - 2600 |
Alfisols, Vertisols |
|
1000 - 2000 |
Alfisols, Inceptisols, Ultisols |
|
0 - 1000 |
Alfisols, Vertisols, Ultisols |
The individual ministries and organisations meet the travel costs and per-diems for their staff attending the FNE meetings and field trips, and the expenses of the multilocation trials that they undertake. ILCA provides transport for the field trips, germplasm, computer facilities, and publishes and distributes the FNE Newsletter.
The network has done much to stimulate and coordinate forage research in the area both within the network and as cooperative research between institutions, with only very small financial inputs. ILCA, for example, has cooperative seed production and research programmes with the Ministry of State Farms, Horticulture Development Corporation, at one site, and the Ministry of Agriculture at two sites. These sites are also used for FNE demonstrations and training.
The FNE is thus similar to IDRC networks in being broad in its goals and membership. These factors have contributed much to the network's success.
The Pasture Network for Eastern and Southern Africa (PANESA)
PANESA started at the instigation of IDRC. The original members were the participants in a regional workshop held in Zimbabwe in October 1984, at which 14 countries in eastern and southern Africa were represented.
The aim of the network is "to improve effectiveness in pasture research in participating countries and to expedite the application of improved technology by farmers and grazers at all levels of management (extensive, semi-intensive and intensive). In this context, pasture is defined as encompassing natural pasture, planted grasses, legumes, browse and fodder (including crop residues)" (PANESA, 1984). The objectives of the network are thus much broader than those of the networks described earlier in this paper. The detailed objectives are to:
1. Develop national capacities in planning and management of practical pasture research and development programmes,2. Expedite utilisation of research developments,
3. Strengthen technological capacity through training and improved communication,
4. Provide a means for introduction and exchange of germplasm,
5. Encourage communication among farmers and extension and research personnel,
6. Encourage participating countries to undertake coordinated research programmes of practical application in areas of mutual interest,
7. Cooperate with other organisations interested in pasture research both within and outside the region, and to
8. Assist in allocating external funds for pasture research and development programmes in the region.
Membership is open to all of those interested in pastures and forages, including farmers and extension and research workers.
PANESA is managed by a working committee consisting of a chairman and four members elected at an annual general meeting/workshop by representatives of national and subregional networks. Representatives of technical and financial supporting agencies can be coopted onto the working committee. The network coordinator is also a member.
The annual general meeting reviews the progress of the network and elects and provides guidance to the officers and coordinator on the coming year's programme and its implementation.
An important feature of the organisation of PANESA is that it encourages autonomous national and sub-regional networks. These networks are able to mobilise interest to carry out network activities of local concern. Two such networks already in existence are the Zimbabwe Grasslands Society and the Forage Network in Ethiopia. The formation of PANESA has initiated activity in other countries, as a result of which the Forage Network of Kenya (FNK) and the Tanzanian Forage Resources Network were formed in 1985 and other networks are being organised in Botswana and Malawi. Countries that have few researchers and similar forage interests are encouraged to form subregional networks.
PANESA activities to date have included three working committee meetings, held in Zimbabwe, Nairobi and Addis Ababa. These meetings organised the network, prepared a funding proposal, held discussions on the possible role of ILCA and its programmes in supporting the network, and planned a newsletter, training course (on forage plant introduction and initial evaluation) and the 1986 workshop and general meeting. The 1986 workshop will be held in Nairobi, 11-16 November and will be on the topic "Feed Resources for Small-scale Livestock Producers".
IDRC will provide funding to ILCA to cover part of the costs of PANESA, initially for 2 years. This will provide PANESA with support for a coordinator, a typist, a vehicle and office expenses. The coordinator will be an ILCA staff member, based at ILCA Headquarters in Addis Ababa and will be selected by ILCA, IDRC and the Working Committee. ILCA will provide support for the network in the form of two short training courses, ILCA staff as consultants, germplasm and computing and training facilities.
USAID has also expressed interest in supporting pasture networks in Africa. Areas in which further funding is required include research activities, seed production, training (both short, locally-based courses and longer term training at universities and colleges overseas), national networks, including travel and greater newsletter support, and group monitoring.
PANESA is thus another network which is broad in its goals and membership.
Three factors may be critical to the success of a network dedicated to the improvement of forage production: the character of the coordinator, a newsletter and the degree of openness of the network.
1. Coordination may be done by a committee or by an individual. Commonly one person has the day-to-day responsibility for leading network activities and a committee provides general guidance. The success of a network is thus largely dependent on the coordinator. His enthusiasm, character, experience and attitudes are of great importance. Some important characteristics of a coordinator are listed below; the absence of any one of these can markedly affect the success of a network.- sufficient time and enthusiasm- open, friendly, flexible, tactful, mature, socially inclined
- must not be out to make his scientific reputation
- keen to advance the careers of others, and to encourage the development of local leadership
- be able to provide tactful, indirect leadership
- flexible and unbiased in his/her scientific outlook. Must not have particular philosophies, trial designs or plants which he feels are superior and will promote to the exclusion of others
- broadly experienced in both research and developing countries so as to know what is feasible and what is of importance
- organised, answers correspondence promptly and meets deadlines, able to run an office
- able to write, newsletters will depend on him
- prepared to spend a great deal of time travelling
- not be tight with money as his social costs will be higher than his per-diems.
2. A newsletter is an important part of a network. Published regularly it creates links between members of the network as well as with outsiders. It should be of reasonable quality and even if simply produced have an interesting mixture of opinions, news and scientific articles written by members and others. It should be widely distributed, going not only to network members, but to their supervisors, to those who are potential members and to those with an interest in the subject. Wide distribution will allow non-members to keep up with developments and to gain from the experiences of the network. The newsletter will do much to create a favourable impression of the network with administrators and funding agencies.
3. A forage network that has broad goals, a flexible approach and open membership will be more successful than one that is narrow in its goals and exclusive in membership. The narrower philosophy is exemplified in many of the IARC networks, which are often uni-crop, unitrial and whose membership involves only those who are participating. Undoubtedly such networks suit some crops and situations where farming systems are uniform in extensive environmental zones. They are probably easier to manage and fund, and may achieve results more rapidly due to their concentration of effort. However it is difficult to envision how, certainly in the context of sub-Saharan Africa, a uni-crop, limited membership network could have any impact on forage production in the multiplicity of environments and farming systems. It is apparent that a much broader concept is required, with stimulation of work in many fields and environments at the same time, e.g. cut-and-carry, fodder banks, grazing etc. While regional interests and major environmental zones must be recognized, the creation of separate networks for separate areas of work and environments would be disadvantageous.
A wide membership is advantageous; limited membership can create apathy or negative attitudes on the part of those excluded and limit the enthusiasm, exchange of ideas and flow of information. Ideally all those interested in forage should be involved and feel responsible for, and part of, the network even if they are not active members. Administrators, researchers, extension agents and farmers should all be involved in the production and exchange of information. Those who are not directly involved in forages but who have an interest, should be encouraged to participate also. The advantages of the involvement of those involved with soils research and conservation, pulse crops, forestry, development projects and planning is obvious.
Networks are thus valuable tools that can assist in the development of forage production in Africa. They are currently being formed in many countries in East and southern Africa and ILCA will shortly begin work on initiating networks in West Africa. The experiences of networks already in existence should be carefully examined to guide the development of new ones.
Evans T R. 1984. The Australian-South East Asian and Pacific Forage Research Network. Eastern and Southern African Workshop on Tropical Pastures, Harare, Zimbabwe, 17-21 Sept. 1984. 11pp.
IRRI (International Rice Research Institute) 1982. A plan for IRRI's third decade. IRRI, Los Banos, Philippines. 69 pp.
Nestel B. Hanchanlash J and Tono H. 1980. IDRC project networks. Mimeo, 121 pp.
PANESA (Pasture Network for Eastern and Southern Africa). 1984. The second meeting of the steering committee for the formation of a Pasture Network for Eastern and Southern Africa. Nairobi, 26-29 November 1984. Mimeo, 6 pp.
Plucknett D L and Smith N J H. 1984. Networking in international agricultural research. Science 225: 989-993.
Toledo J M, Li-Pun H H and Pizarro E A. 1984. The network approach in pasture experience: tropical American experience. Mimeo, 31 pp.
Toledo J M. 1982. Objectivos y organizacion de la Red International de Evaluacion de Pastos Tropicales. Manual pare la evaluation agronomica. Series CIAT 07SG (82): 13-21. CIAT, Cali, Colombia.
