During the preparatory phase, the Programme did not identify a clear approach for its work. The direction of the approach only became clear when field work had started, and evolved through time and differed between pilot activities.
Agricultural extension can be defined as any form of non-formal education with an agricultural content for rural people. It assists rural people in improving farming methods and techniques, increasing production efficiency and income, and improving their living situation.
This very broad definition implies that there are many different forms of extension and extension approaches. The approach of an extension system is its style of action, and embodies the philosophy of the system. It is like the doctrine of a system which informs, stimulates, and guides such aspects of the system as its structure, leadership, programme, resources and linkages.
Each extension approach can be characterised by seven aspects:
The problems the approach is assumed to solve.
The purpose it is designed to achieve.
The management of the system.
The nature of the field staff.
The required resources.
The techniques used for its implementation.
The measures for evaluation.
FAO identified the major extension approaches, on the basis of differences in these seven aspects (Axinn4, 1988). These approaches are briefly described here.
4 Axinn, G.H. Guide on Alternative Extension Approaches. FAO. Rome. 1988. 148 pp.
| THE GENERAL AGRICULTURAL EXTENSION APPROACH | |
| Assumption | Technology and information exists, but is not available to the farmer. If communicated to the farmer, the production will increase. |
| Purpose. | Help the farmer increase his production. |
| Management. | Controlled by government, and decisions are usually made at national level. |
| Field staff. | Large in number. |
| Required resources. | High, and governments bearing the cost. |
| Implementation. | Through a large governmental field staff. |
| Evaluation. | Success is measured in terms of rate of adoption. |
| THE COMMODITY SPECIALISED APPROACH | |
| Assumption. | The increase in production of a certain crop is realised through an approach that covers all aspects, including extension, credit, marketing, input supply etc. |
| Purpose. | Increased production of a certain crop. |
| Management. | Controlled by a commodity organisation. |
| Field staff. | Supplied by the organisation. |
| Required resources. | Supplied by the commodity organisation, which considers agriculture a good investment. |
| Implementation. | The organisation often targets specific farmers and areas with high potential of adoption. |
| Evaluation. | Success is measured in the increase of production of a certain crop. |
| THE TRAINING AND VISIT SYSTEM | |
| Assumption. | The basic assumption is that the extension staff is poorly trained, lacks supervision and logical support, and has too little contact with the farmers. |
| Purpose. | Increased production of certain crops. |
| Management. | Centrally controlled, with rigid planning. |
| Field staff. | Large in number. |
| Required resources. | Because of the large number of staff and the logistic support the costs are high. |
| Implementation. | Rigid pattern of visits and dissemination of standard packages. |
| Evaluation. | Success is measured in production increase, and in some cases in the number of visits and training's |
| THE AGRICULTURAL EXTENSION PARTICIPATORY APPROACH | |
| Assumption. | Farmers have much knowledge regarding agriculture, and this information combined with outside information will increase production. Effective extension can not be conducted without active participation of the rural population. |
| Purpose. | To enhance the living standards of rural people, often through increased on farm production. |
| Management. | Controlled locally, often by farmers associations. |
| Field staff. | Locally recruited, with appropriate knowledge of the local situation. |
| Required resources. | Tends to be less than with other approaches, and a high proportion may be provided locally. |
| Implementation. | Through group meetings, and local sharing of information. |
| Evaluation. | By participation of farmers, and continuity of local extension organisations. |
| THE PROJECT APPROACH | |
| Assumption. | Rapid change is necessary and not likely with general extension approach. A project in a specific location for a short period may provide better results. |
| Purpose. | Demonstrated what could be done in a short period. |
| Management. | Central Government often with donor assistance. |
| Field staff. | Extra staff for the project area, and increased support for implementation. |
| Required resources. | High, considering the area and time frame. |
| Implementation. | With extra outside assistance and financing. |
| Evaluation. | Short term changes is the measure of success. |
| THE FARMING SYSTEM APPROACH | |
| Assumption. | The technology which fits the needs of the farmers is not available and needs to be generated locally. |
| Purpose. | Provided extension staff with research results tailored to meet the needs and interests of local farming systems conditions. |
| Management. | Evolves slowly as results become available. |
| Field staff. | Highly specialised, and relatively expensive. |
| Required resources. | Carries out field trials in farmers fields and homes, that form the basis of extension message. |
| Implementation. | Research and extension staff together. |
| Evaluation. | Adoption of the technology developed by the Programme, and its continued use. |
| THE COST SHARING APPROACH | |
| Assumption. | Programme is more likely to fit the local situation and serve the people if part of the costs is paid locally. |
| Purpose. | Helping farmers to learn techniques for improvement. |
| Management. | Shared by various levels, responsive to local interests. |
| Field staff. | Locally recruited. |
| Required resources. | Limited. |
| Implementation. | |
| Evaluation. | Success is measured by farmers willingness and ability to provide some share of the cost. |
| THE EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION APPROACH | |
| Assumption. | Agricultural colleges have technical knowledge relevant for rural people. |
| Purpose. | Help rural people to learn about scientific agriculture. |
| Management. | Controlled by those who determined the curriculum of the education institutions. |
| Field staff. | Both extension and education staff. |
| Required resources. | Considerable, but since they are shared between education programmes and extension, the approach can be cost effective. |
| Implementation. | Through non formal instruction in groups, to individuals, or through agricultural extension personnel. |
| Evaluation. | Attendance and extend of farmers' participation. |
The approaches are presented here as clearly separate approaches. In reality however, many extension services consist of combinations of the different approaches. Besides, like any system, extension systems are constantly changing.
It can not be said that one extension approach is better than another, but it is true that some are likely to fit better than others under specific conditions, or for specific purposes. Since the approach determines the whole mode of work of the system, the selection of which approach to use is the most critical decision in the planning and implementation of an extension programme. Table 1 compares the different approaches by programme characteristics.
Table 1: Characteristics of various extension approaches
| Programme characteristics | ||||||||||||
| Scope | Information | Goals | Message | Feed-back | Focus | |||||||
| National | Area | Outside | In side | Production | Consumption | Standardized | Flexible | Responsive | Not | Farming | Quality of Live | |
| General Agricultural Extension Approach | XX | XX | XX | XX | XX | XX | ||||||
| Commodity Specialised Approach | XX | XX | XX | XX | XX | XX | ||||||
| Training and Visit Approach | X | X | XX | XX | XX | XX | XX | |||||
| Participatory Approach | X | X | XX | X | X | X | XX | XX | X | XX | ||
| Project Approach | XX | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | XX | X | |
| Farming Systems Development Approach | XX | XX | XX | XX | XX | XX | ||||||
| Cost Sharing Approach | X | X | X | X | X | X | XX | XX | X | XX | ||
| Education Institution Approach | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | |
after: Axinn, G.H. 1988
X = applicable,
XX = strongly applicable
The main justification for ALCOM was that aquaculture, despite the demand for fish and the availability of certain culture technologies, had not developed as expected in many developing countries. The Programme was therefore set up to identify methodologies for the development of more appropriate aquaculture technologies.
The information for this development had to come from both the farmers as well as technicians, which meant that messages had to be flexible, and responsive feedback was expected. Moreover the Programme focused on the improvement of the quality of life, through increased production and consumption. These characteristics led to the conclusion that the Programme had to follow an extension approach with strong participation of the rural population.
Table 2: A typology of participation: how people participate in development programmes and projects
| Typology | Characteristics of each type | |
|---|---|---|
| 1. | Passive participation | People participate by being told what is going to happen or has already happened. It is a unilateral announcement by an administration or project management without any listening to people's responses. The information being shared belongs only to external professionals. |
| 2. | Participation in information giving | People participate by answering questions posed by extractive researchers using questionnaire surveys or similar approaches. People do not have the opportunity to influence proceedings, as the findings are neither shared nor checked for accuracy. |
| 3. | Participation by consultation | People participate by being consulted and external agents listen to views. These external agents define both problems and solutions, and may modify these in the light of people's responses. Such a consultative process does not concede any share in decision making and professionals are under no obligation to take on board people's views. |
| 4. | Participation for material incentives | People participate by providing resources, for example labour, in return for food, cash or other material incentives. Much on-farm research falls in this category, as farmers provide the fields but are not involved in experimentation or the process of learning. It is very common to see this called participation, yet people have no stake in prolonging activities when the incentives end. |
| 5. | Functional participation | People participate by forming groups to meet predetermined objectives related to the project, which can involve the development or promotion of externally initiators and facilitators, but may become self-dependent. |
| 6. | Interactive participation | People participate in joint analysis, which leads to action plans and the formation of new local institutions or the strengthening of existing ones. It tends to involve interdisciplinary methodologies that seek multiple perspectives, and make use of systematic and structured learning processes. These groups take control over local decisions and so people have a stake in maintaining structures or practices. |
| 7. | Self-mobilisation | People participate by taking initiatives independent of external institutions to change systems. They develop contacts with external institutions for resources and technical advice they need, but retain control over how resources are used. Such self-initiated mobilisation and collective action may or may not challenge existing inequitable distributions of wealth and power. |
| (After: Pretty, J.N. 1995) |
There are many ways the term participation is interpreted and used. These range from passive participation, where people are involved merely by being told what is to happen, to self mobilisation, where people take initiatives independent of existing institutions. Pretty5 (1995) identified seven clear types of participation (Table 2).
The dilemma of ALCOM as well as aquaculture departments and projects, was that their role was to promote aquaculture, while this may not be the priority or a perceived need of small-scale farmers. The initiative of introducing the concept of fish farming thus came from the Programme, not from the people themselves. Within the concept of the Programme it was also not possible to work with other problems the farmers perceived. However, once the idea of fish farming was raised, an equitable relationship between farmers and extensionists developed through the establishment of dialogue. According to the typology of participation as presented in Table 2, ALCOM used an approach of participation by consultation.
Aquaculture technology has been developed for a variety of combinations of species and culture systems. Biology and culture techniques are well known for many fish species, including African species. This research was primarily undertaken by government departments and was mostly bio-technically oriented and concerned primarily with reproduction technology, comparative growth studies of selected species and different levels of management.
Bio-technicians have always taken a predominant role in the planning and execution of the research programmes. As a result, research often concentrated on adaptation of fish culture technologies to local physical conditions, and was not governed by social and economic considerations. Technically adapted culture systems were then promoted without considering the system's social and economic requirements and consequences.
Not all farmers' priorities are production oriented as is sometimes believed, and for aquaculture technologies to be adopted by farmers, they should fit the farming production strategies, resource base and social desires of a farm family. Besides, small-scale aquaculture can not be conceptualised as a purely technical activity. Opportunities for aquaculture not only depend on environmental conditions, access to means of production and farming systems but also depend on social relationships within and beyond the household. Therefore, if aquaculture is to be integrated into farming systems the interactions of aquaculture with the physical, socio-cultural and institutional environment has to be understood.
A participatory approach combines indigenous knowledge and scientific information to identify a technology that is optimally appropriate under local conditions. Although in most rural communities in southern Africa there was little or no aquaculture knowledge, good knowledge on water sources, input availability and farmers' production priorities was available. This information was used for the development of optimal technologies.
