 |  |  |
| | |
As mentioned in the Introduction to this Case Study, the Project has produced almost a thousand video programmes of some 20 minutes duration each, and has used them with about 150,000 farmers. This is a considerable achievement, and this section will cover the modus operandi of the Project in this area.
Firstly, it should be noted that the Project activities aim to meet the needs of farmers by researching their information and training needs with them before deciding what materials to produce. The Project also tries to be sensitive to their cultural values and perceptions when planning and producing the materials. However, there are varying opinions as to how much success has been achieved in this aspect of the work. Most of the Project staff claim that it is a routine matter to involve the farming communities in all stages of planning the production of materials. Perhaps, as mentioned earlier, it is a matter of confusion between the "Theoretical Model" i.e. what is being aimed at, and the "Practical Model" i.e. what is actually being achieved under the prevailing constraints.
Be this as it may, many outside observers have commented that there should be much greater farmer involvement in the production process. An objective analysis would almost certainly show that there has not been enough farmer involvement hitherto. This is not because the Project is unaware of the need for it, but rather because the Project has been under such premature to produce materials -- just to ensure its survival -- that it has not been possible to pay the due attention to this issue. (The section of this document devoted to infrastructural and financial matters provides more detailed information on the difficulties that the Project has undergone).
Few of the video producers have specialised training in the subject matter of the programmes they produce. The Project therefore has to obtain the contents of its programmes from other sources. In the main it does so from research institutions, from universities, and from the staff of development projects it is assisting.
The Project produces courses on given subjects, such as irrigation, fertilisers, alpaca production, home vegetable plots, etc. These courses are broken down into a series of lessons. Naturally, some courses are longer than others: that on dairy cattle husbandry contains 17 lessons, but on average there are 8-10 per course. While an average duration for each lesson is about 20 minutes, some are as short as 6-7 minutes and some exceed 25 minutes. The length depends on how the subject Batter can be naturally broken down into chapters, but care is also taken not to exceed the probable attention span of the farmer. There appears to be a tendency to shorten the programmes in recent years, mainly for this reason.
The majority of the commentaries for the programmes are in Spanish, but as necessary they are also made in Quachua and Aymara (the languages of the Sierra) and in Aguaruna (the language most spoken in the Selva).
The programme producers usually work in teams of two, and in close cooperation with appropriate subject-matter specialists to ensure technical accuracy of the content. The producers write a basic script, which is checked with the specialists before field recording is begun. Once the raw material is on tape, the team returns to the Project Headquarters in Lima for the editing phase and to discuss the semi-final version with the subject-matter specialists. With this semi-final version agreed, the team takes the course to the field and uses it with farmers for a trial period that may last over a month. During this period, they discuss the material in detail with the farmers and they note comments and criticisms that are made. If warranted, they modify the material in the light of the findings of this trial period, and only then is the course considered final and copies of it made for general use. Clearly, only the flexibility and easy editing of video makes such an approach possible.
As mentioned in the part of this Study dealing with the Conceptual Framework, it was realised from the early days of the Project that materials would have to be locally specific, (i.e. reflect the same conditions as those in the area in which they were to be used). For this reason, the early strategy was to establish production units in different parts of the country. It was believed that five would be necessary to be representative of the varying physical and human geographies of Peru. Thus, Regional Centres were planned in Puno, Iquitos, Lambayeque, Piura, and Huancayo, and were actually established in all of these except the last.
The approach failed for a number of reasons, the most important being that these Regional Centres never reached that critical mass of trained people, equipment and production necessary to provide continuity, credibility, and impact. Another reason was that it proved difficult to establish proper equipment maintenance units in the Centres, and no equipment requiring repair had to be sent by air to and from the maintenance unit in Lima. This was costly and time consuming.
No deliberate decision was ever taken to give up Regional Centres, and certainly, it was never thought that there could be any substitute for locally specific materials. However, in the extent, it usually proved easier and more economical to send production teams to-the field for the time required to do the recording for a course. Nevertheless, in recent years there has been a tendency for the Project to concentrate its efforts in some particular geographical area of Peru, particularly in the Sierra, and when this occurs, it is usual to open an office in that area.
It is difficult to be precise about the length of time required to produce a video-taped course, since it varies considerably according to the subject matter. However, an average time for a course of about 10 lessons, from initial research through scripting, recording, and editing, is in the region of 7 months.
The courses made by the Project cover a very broad range of subjects concerned with rural development. They are grouped under the following categories: Agricultural Production Techniques, which accounts for about 30% of all courses; Livestock Production Techniques, about 20%; Natural Resources, about 15X; Health and Habitat, about 15%; Mechanization, about l0%; Forestry, Management, and Aquaculture, the remaining l0%.
As could be expected with courses made over a period of many years, by people at varying levels of training and experience, the quality of the programme" tends to be uneven. However, it should be understood that, in this context, the word "quality" is being used to describe the audio and visual components, and the way the subject matter is structured, as seen through the eyes of an educated person from an industrialized country. This is important because the judgement does not take into account the quality of "utility value" to the audience for which the materials are intended, nor the perceptions of those audiences.
Over the years, there has been much discussion about the word "quality" in relation to video programmes made by the Project. It is certainly true that when the materials are shown within the headquarters of development agencies, there is almost invariably some criticism. It seems that most people automatically judge the programmes by the standards of the TV services they follow daily, and they tend to forget for whom, and for what purpose, the programmes were made. For example, comments regarding the slow pace of the programmes are quite frequent, but in fact, farming communities with a high level of illiteracy would not be able to follow properly if the pace was that of modern TV programmes.
In this respect, it is interesting to note that in the most recent evaluation sponsored by Swiss bilateral aid in 1986, 31% of a sample of 315 peasants found the courses too fast and asked for a repeat, despite all the precautions taken to adopt a very slow pace of presentation.
When the quality of the programmes is criticised, Project staff have tended to down-play the importance of quality in the conventional industrialised country sense; and in discussions, they will often deny that it has any importance at all as long as the visuals and the sound track are intelligible.
It is also true, of course, that conventional quality is achieved not only by a high degree of specialisation and professionalism, but also through the use of sophisticated and professional-level equipment. And for the obvious reasons of economy and cost-effectiveness, such equipment would be out of place in a Project like CESPAC.
However, there is a Puritanical streak in the thinking of many of the Project staff, and this can be illustrated by an anecdote regarding sound tracks. In almost all the programme" made by the Peruvian Project, the commentators have a delivery which is lifeless and without inflexion. In fact, the commentators are Project staff without voice training and without any specific natural talent for commentary reading. But the Project insists on using them because it forms part of the artisanal mystique, avoiding the introduction of standards and procedures from the world of audio-visua1 professionals concerned with journalism or entertainment.
Yet when another project in Latin America, which had received considerable technical assistance from Peruvian staff, began to use a small-time but professional actor to read its commentaries, the Peruvians were reproachful. They pointed out the extra cost of using a professional, and the risk that a professional reader will impose the rhythm of a written text on the presentation, rather than having the images dictate the commentary.
However, the programmes made by the other project seem more lively and attractive, certainly to outsiders, and having a well-voiced, expressive commentary is part of that attraction.
Of course, the final answer to these debates lies in what the peasants most appreciate. Unfortunately, however, research into the way farmers perceive the materials, what catches and holds their interest best, and how they interpret and decodify what they are seeing in terms of their own reality and experience, has been the weakest point of the Project's activities. There are good reasons for this lack of research and on-going formative evaluation, and they will be covered in the section of this Study dealing with the institutional and financial framework of the Project. Nevertheless, it is a great pity that more work has not been done to determine what "quality" is in the eyes of the farmers. To do so would be a first step on the path to trying to improve that quality as a means of ensuring the maximum effectiveness of the materials.
It was mentioned in an earlier part of this document that the video is only part of the methodology developed by the Project; other elements are printed materials, discussions, and practical work.
The printed materials are of two basic kinds. There is a Guide for the Trainer and a Guide for Course Participants. The former aims at providing more in-depth information on the subject-matter of the course in question for the field technician who is present during the course. He is responsible for discussing the material in the video programme with course participants, for answering questions as necessary, and for supervising the practical work. It is essential that this technician be properly prepared for his role, and since, as in most countries, there is little refresher training for field technicians, the Guide for the Trainer tries to make up for this deficiency. It also provides him with hints as to how to generate good group dynamics during the training sessions.
The Guide for Course Participants is produced in the simplest language possible and with many illustrations to make for easy comprehension. It is handed out to course participants to take home as a source of future reference should they wish to refresh their memory on certain aspects of what they learned during the course.
It has been pointed out that there is a certain contradiction in using such printed materials in a methodology which has been specifically developed to help overcome problems of low literacy. However, the Project feels that there is usually someone in a family, especially among the younger members, who can read and will help the parents to decipher the Guide. It is also believed that the mere taking home of a printed manual, even if the person cannot read it properly, provides a sense of achievement and satisfaction.
The production of so many printed support materials is a very expensive part of the Project's activities. It would seem essential to determine to what extent the materials for course participants meet a felt need -- and are in fact used -- and from that, to carry out a cost-benefit analysis.
The video programmes and the printed materials that support them are known as the "Paquete pedagogico" -- the Training Package.
In the early years of the Project, most of the courses were being provided in the cooperatatives that had been created by the Agrarian Reform Law. Even if the members of these cooperatives made up only about 25% of the rural population, the Government felt that they should be given priority. In addition, the cooperatives all had a committee to decide on education and training needs, and this committee was therefore an easy entry point for the Project. However, with the slow de-emphasizing of the cooperatives over the years, there has been increasing attention given to the needs of the poorest people, especially those in the Sierra, and the Project has become more and more active in that area.
Today, more often than not, the Project works in an area as the result of an agreement or contract with a local authority or with a specific development institution or programme. In such cases, the Project supplies video-based training services under one of three possible arrangements.
The first possibility is that the Project assumes the whole responsibility for planning the training and for carrying it out with its own staff. (This is called Canacitación Directa). The second is that the Project assumes the responsibility for planning the training, for providing the materials, and for training the staff to use them. Once trained, however, this staff is taken over by the contracting institution. (This is known as capacitación Conducida). The last possibility is that the contracting organisation obtains technical assistance from the Project, then purchases its own playback equipment and the programmes, and has the Project train its staff to use them. (This is called Capacitación Implantada).
In the first case, which usually applies in particularly emarginated and poor areas, the Project bears the cost. But in the second and last cases, the contracting organisation makes a substantial contribution, or even pays its way entirely.
The actual training sessions with farmers are usually organised on the basis of one lesson per day. So a course made up of, say, 10 lessons would be spread over 10 days. The time chosen for the day's lesson is decided in conjunction with the farmers when possible, and attempts are made to schedule times that will interfere as little as possible with the farmers' normal activities. For this reason many lessons are given in the early morning, or in the evening.
A point of particular importance is that the training is taken to -- or at least very close to -- the farmers' place of work. This overcomes the problems inherent in systems such as that of farmer training centres. In many countries where they have been established, it has proven difficult for farmers to leave their holdings for the week, or even two-week, duration of training courses in the centres. And of course. even if they are able to leave home, they lose important productive time, unless all courses are scheduled in the dead season. But then, the training centre would lie idle for large parts of each year.
Using the Peruvian methodology, a lesson begins with an introductory discussion on the subject. This is followed by the playback of the video tape for the day, and there are then more discussions on the content of the programme. The task of the subject-matter specialist, who is invariably present, is to help the farmers think about what they have seen in the context of their own circumstances and needs, and to answer questions. Following this very important discussion period, a session of practical work is undertaken, if circumstances permit. A whole lesson made up of the video programme, the discussion, and the practical work will normally last about 2 hours.
It has been said that there is a contradiction in the use of video followed by a session of practical work, for the following reason. One of the advantages of any audio-visual presentation is that it can bridge time and space; for example, audiovisual media can allow farmers to see every step of the production of a certain crop, which in reality spans a whole cropping season, in B very short space of time; and audio-visual media can also show how other people in other places grow their crops. This bridging of time and space is a unique advantage of an audio-visual presentation. It allows training to take place out of season, where farmers have less to do, and it helps to overcome one of the major problems associated with traditional training and extension methods: the necessity of having the trainer/extensionist visit the farm at the proper intervals to ensure that all the most important operations are explained and actually demonstrated. Desirable as this is, it is seldom possible unless there is highly-organized and well equippped extension service, as may be the case under the Training and Visit system.
So, to use the video programmes when practical work on a given crop in possible may appear as an inefficient use of the medium. An extensionist once pointed this out when a Video programme on the proper selection of seed potatoes was immediately followed by a physical demonstration of what had been seen on the screen, and by a session during which farmers actually selected seed. He argued that the video had added nothing to the session. His case was strengthened by the fact that the video programme was low in visual quality, and therefore the physical demonstration was much clearer.
However, that extensionsist's view overlooked another very important function of that video programme, or of any such programme: it standardises and updates the information that the technician passes on to farmers. Everyone has played the game of starting a message going from person to person in a group of people and seeing with amusement how the information is distorted by the time it has reached the end of the chain. One can well imagine how extension workers, isolated as they so often are, with little if any updating of their knowledge and skills, are bound to pass on information that is incomplete and/or inaccurate; and what is more, unless they have proper training as extensionists, or a natural gift for communicating, the manner in which they pass on the information is unlikely to be well-structured. In fact, many of the technicians who work with the Project's methodology praise it precisely because it sets norms for content and structure and thereby facilitates their work.
Farmers themselves now express their almost unanimous satisfaction with the video-based methodology. In the 1986 Swiss Aid-sponsored evaluation, 92% of the sample of 315 farmers commented to the effect that video was most helpful in making a subject understandable because it was like "actually being in the field".
Of this same sample, 80% said they would like more video-based training; this was exactly the same percentage as that revealed by the analysis of a sample of 153 farmers carried out in 1978, when the methodology was still in its infancy. Another interesting finding of that early analysis was that 67% of the farmers in the Costa, and 78% of those in the Sierra had asked questions and made comments while attending courses, thus denoting a good degree of participation in the learning process.
There were some other very important findings during that 1978 analysis which, even if they have been superseded by subsequent events, are still important for future planning and for avoiding mistakes. At the time of-the analysis, most of the courses were still being given in the context of the cooperatives formed under the Agrarian Reform programme. It was found that, in many cases, the cooperative managers agreed on a certain course being given, without any discussion with the cooperative members, and then ordered them to participate. More important still was the fact that many course participants did not feel that they could put into practice what they had learned. This, in effect, was because farmer training was being considered an aim in itself, and not enough attention was being given to follow-up in terms of input. supplies, and so on. For example, the course on dairy cattle husbandry might be given-in a cooperative when there was no real dairy development scheme at work in the area. Some of the information assimilated by farmers regarding, for example, correct milking techniques, would be applicable, but those requiring inputs and services from outside, such as artificial insemination or concentrated feedstuffs, might not be. In sum, this finding reinforced the principle that training should not be isolated from other inputs and services, or it can lead to disaffection and frustration among trainees.
Fortunately, the tendency of recent years by which the Project is working more and more within the context of specific local development actions has overcome this problem, and there can be little doubt that today the training being provided has much more relevance to the circumstances and possibilities of the trainees. There is also a willingness on the part of most of the institutions to respond favourably to requests for simple inputs from farmers who have participated in courses. For example, quite recently a course on home vegetable gardens in the Sierra prompted the farmers to tell the local authorities that the quality of vegetable seed available in Puno was just not good enough: the local development corporation immediately undertook to obtain better seed and make it available.
From its inception, a hypothesis of the Project was that it would carry out training in rural areas on a massive scale. For the period 1981-1984, the objective was to reach no less than 159,000 farmers, but in fact, only 59,119 were reached. Even if this is still a noteworthy number, it is also a noteworthy shortfall. It raises the issue of the difficulties in actually organising the training in rural areas.
It has been calculated that when the Project itself carries out the whole training operation with its own staff, ("Capacitación Directa") a single playback unit can be expected to provide 9,450 participant/lessons in the course of a year. However, experience has shown that when the responsibility for using the methodology is handed over to others, the number of people reached drops in proportion to the degree of remaining involvement of the Project. Under "Capacitación Conducida" it can be expected to reach 80% of the 9,450 participant/lessons, i.e. 7,560 per annum, whereas under "Capacitación Implantada" it is likely to be running at only 65% of maximum capacity, i.e. 6,140 participant/lessons per year. This drop in efficiency is a natural reflection of the lower degree of commitment to the methodology among people not so directly involved with the Project.
It should also be stated that when the Project began operating, its calculations on how many people it might be able to reach were based on the assumption that it would continue to work extensively with the cooperatives of the Costa. The relatively good roads in that area, and the fact that the people were already grouped in their cooperatives, made it easier to reach large numbers. But when the emphasis turned to the Sierra, new problems emerged. Firstly, the scattered nature of the population makes it difficult to reach large numbers, and secondly the roads are very poor. These factors make it almost impossible for a playback unit to give the average of 2.5 lessons per day which has been proven possible in the Costa, and which was the basis for the calculation of Project objectives.
At one stage, it appeared that the shortfall in farmers reached might seriously warp the cons/benefit ratio of the methodology, but as will be seen from the section of this Study devoted to costs, they are still very reasonable. Nevertheless, the Project is concerned about the difficulty of reaching people on a sufficiently massive scale, particularly in the Sierra, and for this reason it in seriously thinking of an experiment with a small, portable TV transmitter. Such a transmitter could send a signal to say 10 or 12 playback units simultaneously in an area. It seems that such transmitters are relatively cheap, but before one can be tried, there are organisational and legislative issues to be settled.
It will be remembered that early in this Case Study, mentions were made of the use of video as an open-ended communication channel for improving participatory development planning, for creating a two-way dialogue with the authorities, or for enabling the exchange of information and experience between communities. However, these functions have not been realised in the Peruvian context, where the use of video is confined mainly to a training role. Some explanation of this limitation is called for.
When the Project first began, it was certainly envisaged that video would be used in its wider role in social communication and mobilisation, but events have made such a role difficult. In 1976, the Project made a video programme near Piura, in northern Peru. It was a description of historic, social' and economic conditions in a 30,000 sq. Em area in which the Government was interested in starting an agricultural development programme. The programme included many interviews with people, from farmers to local authorities. It also examined the economics of sorghum production in the area, and it emerged that there was a loss of $10 per hectare for any farm growing sorghum under the prevailing price conditions. The final interview was with a cooperative member who commented that the same people who fixed the price of farm inputs such as fertiliser also fixed the price of sorghum.
This tape was shown to the then Minister of Agriculture and the local authorities. They judged it extremely interesting, but instructed that it was to be shown to no one else. And at that moment, the idea of using the methodology for real development communication was stunted before it was properly born.
Nevertheless, in 1978 the Project did again become involved in a communication process that went well beyond its normal field of training and transfer of technology to farmers. Swiss Aid was helping a settlement project in the Selva, at Genaro Herera, about 3 hours by boat from Iquitos. The objective of the project was to establish a production cooperative for about 180 families, and an important element was the introduction of Brown Swiss cows. The project was not going well, and about 60 families abandoned the settlement. Swiss bilateral aid asked CESPAC to make a series of video programmes to analyse, with the local people, the ecological, sociological, technological, and economical suitability of the project design. The 6 programmes produced revealed a number of failings in that design, especially on the technological level. The Swiss changed a number of elements in the project as a result, including changing over from Brown Swiss to Zebu cattle.
And again in 1984, the Project carried out some very interesting work that was not connected to pure training. At San Pedro de Cotta, about 80 km from Lima, there is an area of about 6,300 ha of ancient Incan terraces that have fallen into disrepair. Yet, about 1,300 ha could be quite easily brought back into use.
A small project, with minimal financing from UNESCO, was set up to pay farmers for work they did in reclaiming the terraces However, from among about 350 heads of families in the area, only 22 actually began to work on the terraces.
CESPAC made a video documentary with the 22 farmers after the, had sown their first crop of potatoes, and this programme was taken into the village one evening. The documentary had to be shown 4 times, and the audience kept increasing in number until 150 people were present. As a result of that showing, 67 people went to work on the terraces, and in 7 months, a further 3 ha had been brought back into use.
But despite these experiences with the dynamic role that video can play in social mobilisation, the Project feels that, in general, the political climate has not been favourable to its use for that purpose. But the Project Mid-Term Review that took place In May 1985 firmly stated that the methodology developed by the Project should be used experimentally for purposes other than pure training. For example, it could be extremely valuable in the situation analysis phase of the many community development schemes that have been launched in the Sierra in recent years.
It could also be used to stimulate development initiatives by showing successful development experiences in some communities to others who have not yet embarked on such action, and so on. It is very much to be hoped that the Project will find the space and freedom in which to be more innovative and flexible than it has been hitherto. For it seems to many people that limiting the use of video to its role in training is to use only a part of its great potential for development.
| | |