Transcript A) FARMER PARTICIPATORY RESEARCH AND ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT

Farmer First Revisited
12 – 14 December 2007
at the Institute of Development Studies, Brighton, UK
Presentation, Theme 1a, Farmer Participatory Research and Adaptive Management
Discussant: Adrienne Martin, Natural Resources Institute
Theme 1. Agricultural Innovation
Systems – putting farmers first?
A.
FARMER PARTICIPATORY
RESEARCH AND ADAPTIVE
MANAGEMENT
Experiences of participatory research
and technology development in a
range of settings – methods,
practices and politics.
Papers

Cecilia Turin (National Agricultural University, La Molina, Peru) – Advocacy coalitions to
build participatory processes in the Peruvian Altiplano: increasing human capacities to
adapt to changes

Ravi Prabhu et al (CIFOR) - Action research with local forest users and managers: Lessons
from CIFOR’s research on Adaptive Collaborative Management

Yan Zhaoli (ICIMOD) – Co- management of rangeland resources in Hindu Kush Himalayan region: involving farmers in the policy process

Todd Crane (Wageningen) - If we put farmers first, where do the pastoralists go? Political
ecology and participation in central Mali.

Edward Chuma and Jürgen Hagmann (PICOTEAM) - Start anywhere – follow everywhere;
a systemic journey over 17 years in Africa, Asia and Latin America to find the triggers for
making participation and innovation/extension systems work.

Jean Claude Rubyogo & Louise Sperling (CIAT) – Developing seed systems with and for
the poor and marginalised: case of beans in east, central and southern Africa.

Rob Tripp (ODI) – Crop management innovation and the economics of attention.

Norman Uphoff (CIIFOD) – Farmer innovations in the system of rice intensification (SRI)
Main themes 1

Four papers (Turin, Prabhu, Zhaoli, Crane)
address participation among key actors for
natural resource management, - issues of
governance, conflict, social organisation, equity,
power relations, cultural differences.




emphasise the importance of analysing and strengthening
social, cultural, political and human capital, noting that these
are interlinked with other forms of capital.
see this is essential for empowerment
found that capacity strengthening for participatory action
research was needed, e.g. training for transformation
increased confidence and engagement
stress the importance of linkages and communication and
access to information.
2

Action research with forest dependent communities to
improve livelihoods, equity and forest systems, used
the approach of Adaptive Collaborative Management
(ACM), involving planning, action, learning, innovation
cycles and self monitoring and joint reflection.

Conflict and power differences were addressed
through social learning, governance innovations and
active facilitation. BUT challenging. ACM approaches
created space for negotiation and enhanced ‘voice’.

Equity assessment process - cross checked
participation and community forestry benefits against
wealth and diversity ranking – made visible extent to
which equity objectives were matched by decisions
and actions
3
Two papers address participation specifically in relation to pastoralist
groups and management of rangeland resources (Zhaoli, Crane).

Enabling pastoralists voices to be heard - promoting political and legal
environment for pastoralists to participate in decision making and
influence policy e.g. researchers and farmers convinced government
authorities to set up trials on controlled burning

Conflicts between stakeholders addressed through processes of
community regulation (pasture management sub committees). Visual
model built to facilitate discussion of boundaries and agreed regulations.

Participatory approaches and capacity building enabled farmers and
herders to address management problems and develop social networks,
institutions and problem solving skills to address conflict over NRM

Importance of cultural analysis and sensitivity to local social processes
to understand divergent visions of competing ethnic groups (farmers and
herders) and different scales of operation and integrate these into
participatory technology innovation.
4

Exploring participatory approaches in research,
extension and natural resource management strengthening the demand side (Chuma/Hagmann).



challenge to make research and extension initiate & sustain
the innovation development process as part of a broader
stakeholder platform for service delivery.
analysed and identified systemic blockages, encouraged
innovation
New roles and competences for research and extension,
through coaching and mentoring and use of a range of
dissemination methods and tools
5

Support to informal seed systems in the absence of
commercial seed sector – linking with sources of
improved varieties, information and quality seed. (Rubyogo)







Long standing work on bean variety development through
participatory plant breeding with end users, but lack of farmer
access and awareness.
Decentralised seed systems identified by farmers as most
appropriate way to access improved varieties.
Integration of formal and informal seed systems to speed up
access to new preferred varieties
Multisectoral approach - extension agents, NGOs, government
services, traders, seed companies, farmers organisations,
national seed services.
Farmer training and training of trainers
Local seed production and farmer to farmer or local trader
dissemination
Promotion through different media and field days
6

‘The economics of attention’ : crop management
research makes many competing and disconnected
demands on farmers’ attention – a scarce resource (Tripp)




Low external input technology - poorer subsistence oriented
households, less likely to participate or take up
Re-examination of strategies promoting farmer centred
technology development is needed.
More time efficient methods for engaging in technology
generation and presenting information to farmers.
Need for mechanisms to allow farmers more efficient access to
information and improve ability to share knowledge and
sustainable institutions that support these
7

System of rice intensification - yield increases through farmers
changing their management practices, rather than increasing inputs;
‘producing more from less’. (Uphoff)
 Farmer innovations – many new methods for raising seedlings,
marking out fields for transplanting, direct seeding, tillage and
weed control.
 Diversity and ingenuity. “Farmers can and will innovate if the
production systems and options are presented to them not as a
final finished product for adoption (or turning down) but rather as
an opportunity, for which thought and innovation on their part are
expected”.
 NGOs and farmers worked on adapting system to dryland and to
other crops and for diversification - complex transformations of
farming systems under influence of new ideas.
 … paternalism of any sort will be a barrier to realising the full
extent of the opportunities that an understanding of SRI presents.
New methods or dimensions

Methods build on earlier approaches, but have important
new dimensions
 Importance attached to analysis and strengthening of
social, human, cultural and political capital
 Capacity strengthening as an enabler of participatory
engagement and empowerment
 Greater engagement with issues of power and conflict
 Focus on time requirements and efficiency of
approaches in participatory technology development and
knowledge access
 Clearer recognition of innovation as a process and the
challenges of creating a broader stakeholder platform
Questions for discussion

Are minimum levels of social and human capital a
precondition for participatory action research ?






How can these best be strengthened?
What are the mechanisms for sharing learning and
promoting these processes over a wider area?
How far should participatory research /adaptive
management engage with issues of power and conflict?
How can research and extension be supported in the
innovation development process as part of a broader
stakeholder platform for service delivery?
What strategies could improve the efficiency of
approaches in participatory technology development
and farmers access to knowledge?
What lessons on farmer innovation can be drawn from
the SRI experience to inform future practice?