Needed: Farmer centred agricultural development

by Ranjit Mulleriyawa

"Progress in human affairs, whether in science, history or in society, has come largely from the bold readiness of human beings not to accept piecemeal solutions to the way things are done, but to offer fundamental challenges in the name of reason to the accepted way of doing things and the (hidden) assumptions on which they may rest." – Ralph Waldo Emerson

(November 03, Colombo, Sri Lanka Guardian) Historically, the functions of exploring and testing new techniques in farming (what we now call research), and then sharing information on what works, and what does not work (what we now call extension), were activities carried out by farmers themselves. With the advent and professionalisation of agricultural science, farmers’ research tends to have been marginalised or de-legitimised and farmers began to be seen as mere recipients and adopters of technologies developed by ‘scientists’, and their role in generating and adapting ideas was played down. The process of disempowering farmers began by making them dependent on outsiders (scientists, extensionists and government agencies). Politicization, liberal disbursement of handouts and further entrenchment of bureaucratic forces leading to the control of rural institutions, cemented the process of dependency, and pauperisation of the small farmer in Sri Lanka.

Control and accountability

When research and extension systems grew in size and complexity and began to be controlled by governments, farmers lost control. Whoever owns and operates an organisation, also controls it and determines its program and staff. The personnel employed by these organisations feel more accountable to their employers or professions than to their farmer clientele. This is reflected in the lack of relevance to local needs of many research and extension programmes.

Relevance

The academic environment in which researchers are trained and in which research is conventionally conducted has promoted a strong elitist attitude. The conventional approach to agricultural technology development is top – down. Technology is designed by scientists (researchers) who make decisions on what to recommend to farmers without giving farmers a direct say in the process. " This conventional approach is like a doctor – patient relationship. The researcher (like the doctor) is supposed to formulate a prescription to cure the farmer – patient’s ills. When the doctor or scientist cannot diagnose problems correctly, or formulate appropriate prescriptions because farmers’ needs are so many and so diverse, this approach breaks down (Ashby, 1995).

Small farm systems are so diverse and locations so specific those public sector institutions cannot afford to adapt new technologies to each set of local circumstances. As a result, their recommendations frequently end up as poorly - focussed blanket recommendations which fail to meet the unique social and environmental constraints of marginalised farming communities operating on highly complex and variable eco-systems.

The conventional approach to agricultural extension in Sri Lanka is transfer of technology oriented and operates on the premise that researchers and extensionists know what is best for the farmer. Accordingly, extensionists see their role as transferring technologies designed by researchers (scientists) to farmers. Frequently, such technologies are in the form of a ‘package’ of practices (high yielding varieties, fertiliser, pesticides, irrigation etc). The farmer needs to adopt the entire package in order to reap the anticipated benefits. However, not many farmers have the capacity to do so in practice. It is frequently the more affluent farmers whose access to resources (credit, new seeds, and irrigation) is greater that are able to benefit from such technologies. Farmers unable to afford the new technologies promoted by the extensionists are naturally unable to adopt them and tend to be labelled as ‘lazy’, ‘non-responsive’ and ‘resistant to change.’

Policy constraints

Recent government policies advocating increased commercialisation and promotion of horticulture under irrigation, together with an obsession for transferring ‘modern technologies’ will result in further marginalisation of the majority of poor farmers, increased social differentiation and increased social inequalities, contributing to increased social unrest within the country.

Donors and governments are beginning to realise that uniform, hierarchical government bureaucracies are not the best way of providing a much needed flexible service tailored to the different categories of farmers and different ecological and economic conditions. Thus, there is an urgent need to seek for alternative approaches to agricultural extension, which are more cost effective and better able to address the needs of poorer farmers.

Needs of resource – Poor farmers

Extension approaches and messages designed for so called ‘progressive’ (resource-rich) farmers cannot be equally appropriate for poorer farmers. Major focus on high value (high-risk) horticultural crops (which need careful handling, good storage and efficient marketing) does not suit poor farmers who lack the necessary resources and risk taking abilities. This accounts for poor farmers preferring to grow cereals and grain legumes, which are easier to handle and store.

Many resource poor farmers in Sri Lanka operate in environments which cannot be unified through irrigation (rainfed ‘chena’) and purchased external inputs, which are remote from markets, extension and urban centers, and in which the natural resource base is fragile.

Poor farmer responsive programs need to be more participative, less ambitious and effectively address their site-specific needs.

Farmer centered agricultural development (FCAD)

FCAD, also referred to as ‘Participatory Technology Development’ (PTD), is an extension approach which has been specifically designed, and found to be highly effective in assisting small and mrginalized farming communities increase their agricultural productivity. Effective agricultural improvement work grows out of years and years of trying one approach after another, constantly searching for more effective ways of working with farmers. ‘World Neighbours’- a small private voluntary agency working with a variety of local, national and international organisations in several countries (Guatemala, Columbia, Mexico, Indonesia and India) have found the FCAD approach to be a more convincing alternative to the transfer of technology approach to agricultural development in addressing the needs of resource-poor farmers operating in diverse risk prone environments. A World Neighbours Publication titled ‘Two Ears of Corn’ contains the distilled wisdom of 30 years of struggle attempting to improve small farmer agriculture in the Third World. These experiences can be very valuable for Sri Lanka at the present time. As such, some of the most valuable learning experiences contained in this World Neighbours publication are highlighted below.

Programme goals

FCAD is based on the philosophy that "the goal of an agricultural development programme should be on the one hand, to train and motivate farmers to teach each other the innovations introduced and, on the other, to teach them how to improve on these innovations by themselves. In short, the goal should not be to develop the people’s agriculture, but to teach them a process by which they can develop their own agriculture." Programmes that teach only technological innovations are either destined to become permanent fixtures in the area, or pull out, leaving the farmers to gradually slide back to their previous levels of production.

Start small

"A great deal of heartbreak which in the past has too often turned over optimistic idealists into later cynics, would be avoided if those who wish to help in agricultural development could learn to be content to do good slowly." (This advice seems particularly relevant to us Sri Lankans who like to do things with a big bang!)

Small and simple programmes can play a unique invaluable role in small farmer agricultural improvement. They can meet the specific needs of specific cultures, markets and microclimates and can build upon existing local resources such as traditional knowledge, exceptional leadership and indigenous forms of organisation. They have the ability and flexibility to be creative and respond to changing needs without bureaucratic delays. "Organising large and complex programmes make meaningful farmer participation impossible. Once this error is committed, programmes invariably take one of two courses of action. The first is that of ‘outsiders’ running the programme in perpetuity. The second alternative is to turn the programme over to villagers before they are at all capable of running it." (Sound advice it would seem, for agencies involved in promoting ‘farmer companies’ in a frenzy.) "Large programmes run the risk of being poured in concrete before the wrinkles are worked out, or they wind up living with the wrinkles for a long time, spending a lot of extra time and money to smooth out hardened concrete."

Avoid handouts

"Giveaways (handouts) can blind people to the need of solving their own problems. When the only progress villagers see is accompanied by handouts, they can easily become convinced that they are incapable of making progress by themselves. This feeling of inadequacy, in turn, creates dependency and subservience, robbing people of their self respect."

Likewise, doing things for people also creates a sense of dependency and inadequacy. The "please won’t you give us something, changes to the equally obsequious, "please won’t you do something for us?" We should do only those things that the people cannot, or in the beginning will not do themselves." (This may be a particularly bitter pill for our politicians to swallow!)

Limit the technology

It is better to teach one idea to hundreds of people than hundreds of ideas to one person. World Neighbours experience has shown that in several cases a simple change in farming practice may be most strategic in removing bottlenecks and providing a basis for accelerated development. "When we work with only one or two practices, we can select those that combine simplicity and low risk with major increases in productivity. In this way we have the best chance of achieving a high rate of success. The programme gains credibility not only because of its success, but also because it wastes little of its own, and peoples’ effort on less effective innovations."

Appropriate technology

The World Neighbours publication – ‘Two Ears of Corn’ also lists many practical questions that need to be asked in determining the appropriateness of a technology or farming practice for a particular area. They are:

1. Does the technology meet a felt need?

Agricultural programmes have frequently scratched where there was no itching. If farmers are to adopt a programme innovation, they must become convinced that it meets an important felt need.

2. Is the technology financially advantageous?

Even subsistence farmers become interested in an innovation only to the degree that it promises them a substantial and dependable increase in food supply, or income at locally available prices.

3. Does the technology bring recognizable success quickly?

If a programme’s early interventions do not bring recognizable success within a year or two, not only will the programme lose momentum, but also its credibility may be called into question.

4. Is the technology relatively free of risk?

Poor farmers simply cannot take the same risks that more prosperous farmers do.

5. Is the technology culturally acceptable to poor farmers in the particular location?

6. Is the technology aimed at adequate markets?

- Are market prices adequate and reliable?

- Is the market accessible to small farmers?

- Does the market have sufficient depth?

7. Is the technology safe for the ecology of the area?

8. Is the technology simple to teach?

Simple technologies are learned sooner and spread faster. They also result in fewer failures, and permit modification without being discarded as a whole.

9. Is the technology simple to understand?

10. Does the technology arouse enthusiasm among farmers?

Technologies that fail to arouse farmer enthusiasm will spread only as far as the paid extensionists take them. whereas those that do create enthusiasm will spread with phenomenal rapidity from one farmer to another with very little outside stimulus. - Sri Lanka Guardian