4.4 Equitability considerations - intra- and inter- generational

Contents - Previous - Next

4.4.1 Intra-Household or Gender Issues

Many development projects have assumed that the male head-of-household provides the majority of agricultural labour and is the sole decision maker concerning agricultural activities. This approach fails to recognize the important contribution to women and children to agricultural production in many parts of the world. Although data are very unreliable, the indications are that female family labour ranges from 2 to over 50 percent of farm labour [Boserup, 1970]. Women's participation in production agriculture may range from zero in some Moslem countries to the situation in Africa south of the Sahara, which is a region of 'female farming systems' where women may manage and work more than one-third of the farms. Despite the great contribution made by women, development projects have been slow to recognize this contribution. As Jacobson [1993: pp. 61-62] points out:

"The reason is brutally simple: women perform the lion's share of work in subsistence economies, toiling longer hours and contributing more to family income than men do. Yet in a world where economic value is computed in monetary terms alone, women's work is not counted as economically productive when no money changes hands."

She goes on to suggest that this gender bias is compounded in many societies by discrimination based on class, cast, or race.

This situation can lead to complications because of differentiation in the types of labour available from household sources, Microeconomic theories that make simplistic assumptions about farming households add to the problem, For example, they assume a single decision-making unit and a single utility function representing the joint welfare of family members. However, increasingly this has been recognized as a problem, because intra-household relationships can have a major impact on economic behaviour, Some important points to note about intrahousehold relationships are as follows [Ellis, 1988; Feldstein et al, 1988]:

• Such relationships are of particular importance in situations where there is a high degree of congruence between the production and consumption units. They are also important where there is some imperfection in terms of integration with the factor and product markets.
• The economic situation of individuals within households is influenced by the social norms or behaviour of the society within which they reside, Therefore, specific economic roles are socially assigned to men, women, and children, Also, division of property, labour and income within households is socially, and not biologically, determined. As a result, males and females within households sometimes may have different income streams, with different sources and different destinations.
• Thus, it is wrong to assume that male and female labour can substitute for each other across the range of household activities. As a result, rigidities in time allocation may reduce the ability of households to respond to market signals. Therefore? such division of labour can impose constraints on seasonal labour inputs and ability to respond to price changes. As a result, it can have a major impact on the composition and level of farm output.
• Because of the above, increases in household income are unlikely to benefit all members equally. This often is exacerbated by the social subordination of women in many societies. As pointed out above, agricultural policies and projects often have ignored the role of women in agricultural production -- not only as operators but also as decision makers. As a result, it is not surprising that technological innovations have tended to disadvantage women relative to men.

Therefore, an understanding of operational constraints facing limited resource households, and the relationships that exist between members of the households and between households is critically important in determining what are likely to be appropriate criteria for evaluating potential technologies. In connection with this, it is also important to understand the farming household members' goals and incentives, farming and non-farming activities, and resources available.

4.4.2 Inter-Generational or Sustainability Issues

As was pointed out previously (Section 3,7), incorporating equity issues relating to the intergenerational impact of development is one of the challenges facing FSD. There is a great deal of concern about the impact of an ever increasing world population on the world's natural resources. This concern was evident at the Earth Summit held in June 1993 in Rio de Janeiro. Part of this concern was related to the loss of nearly 500 billion tons of topsoil through erosion in the 20 years between the previous meeting in Stockholm and the Rio de Janeiro meeting. According to Brown [1993], this and other environmental factors have contributed to a decrease in the rate with which food output is growing -- an alarming situation given the increasing population to be fed.

Most farmers, and hence development programs, are concerned with local short-run production problems rather than the broad picture presented at the Earth Summit. This its logical, given the farmer's need to survive at the present, but it does not excuse the FSD team from considering the long-term, intergenerational and sustainability, impacts of their programmes, Although not the only factor to consider in the inter-generational and sustainability area, a major concern is soil conservation,'' Norman and Douglas [1994] identify a number of concerns when addressing soil conservation issues.

• Good land husbandry requires a mix of improved farming practices integrated with farm policies and programmes. Thus, it is essential to understand the current farming system in order to design effective conservation measures. This implies that a systems perspective be used.
• The goal should be to prevent rather than cure soil erosion. This means that the causes of soil erosion must be understood and treated, rather than concentrating on treating the symptoms.
• To be most effective, conservation programs should be planned with the full knowledge and participation of the farmers. FSD team members must be able to communicate effectively with farmers to identify their ideas, perceptions, and priorities, so these can be taken into account in developing strategies for improvement.
• If farmers are going to implement changes, they must be convinced that they can obtain short-term benefits from change (i.e., have an incentive to aIter present practices). Thus, it is important to try and identify strategies that will have short-term benefits as well as provide long-run conservation improvements. When dual-purpose strategies cannot be designed, the long-term conservation activities should be linked with measures that provide short-term production/welfare benefits.
• For any conservation activities that require community action (e.g., soil conservation on a watershed), it is important that the communities have responsibility and control and aIso reap the benefits of such action, in an equitable manner.
• Long term programmes are more effective than short-term programmes. Thus, it follows that the change will take place over a long period, necessitating adjustments and iterations in programmes.

BOX 4.2: BALANCING INDIVIDUAL FARM AND COMMUNITY OBJECTIVES

Rapid changes are occurring in cropping system recommendations and practices in the Andes of Bolivia [Genin et al, 19941. Some of these changes are in conflict with objectives and beliefs held by the community.

Individual villagers in this region occupy field sites for two or three years within communal lands and then shift to new sites. Individuals make their own decisions about cropping practices, and the community collectively decides when shifts are in order. The fallow period typically lasts from 3-15 years and provides communal grazing, rejuvenates soil fertility, aids with pest control in crop production, and provides fuel for the household. Furthermore, the long-term fallow system, aynuga, contributes symbolically to the well-being of the community and its sense of stewardship.

Adoption of 'improved, cropping practices by individual farmers on their fields could change the way in which they wish to occupy space in the long-term fallow system. Solutions to this restraint will require balancing objectives of individual farmers and community.

These considerations are in addition to technical considerations in soil conservation and imply that the FSD team must possess skills other than just technical skills. This is implied in the example given in Box 4.2.

Although this discussion has centred on soil conservation, the approach and factors to consider can he applied equally well to other programme areas where there are inter-generational or sustainability considerations -which will include most programme areas.

4.5 Recommendation domains

A recommendation is information that farmers can use to improve the productivity of their resources (i.e., farming system) [CIMMYT, 1988A]. A good or successful recommendation, therefore, would consist of the practices that farmers would follow, given their current resources. if they had all the information actually available to the researchers. Obviously, the development of recommendations for farmers should be as efficient as possible. Because it is impossible to make a separate recommendation for each farmer practical compromises have to be made. As indicated earlier (Section 3.4), this is done by stratifying the farmers into groups as homogeneous as possible. Farmers in these groups should have similar circumstances. resources, problems, and solutions to those problems. In this situation, therefore, it is usually assumed that the same recommendation will be suitable for all the farmers in the group. Such a group of farmers is a particular recommendation domain [Byerlee et al, 1980]. Recommendation domains may be defined by agro-ecological (technical) and/or by socio-economic (human) circumstances (Box 4.3). The definition of the recommendation domain depends on the particular recommendation [CIMMYT, 1988A] (see Box 4.4).

Therefore, by dividing farmers into homogeneous groups or recommendation domains, one is recognizing:

• The heterogeneity that exists in the farming population.
• The likelihood that farmers, within a group, will have similar problems.
• The increased probability that farmers within a group, will be interested in the same potential solution to the identified problem(s).

Thus, the purpose of the groups is to highlight similarities within the recommendation domains and the differences between and among the recommendation domains. Similarities and differences are important only with respect to the objectives: increasing agricultural productivity by establishing experiments and generating recommendations. Because farm families differ from one another, it is important to distinguish the characteristics on which they vary, how those variables relate to the problems they have, and the usefulness of solutions to resolving those problems.

In the descriptive/diagnostic exercise, as will be seen later (see Section 5.7), one of the purposes is to tentatively define the potential recommendation domains, although these may need to be adjusted in the light of later experience. An interesting short-cut that does not require a very precise definition of recommendation domains is the use of research-oriented farmer groups. These are discussed in a later section (see Section 9,8,6), Briefly, this involves offering to the farmers a number of technologies, from which they select those they are interested in testing. The characterization of the group selecting the option provides a quick indication of the possible recommendation domain for the proposed technology and reduces the chance of possible errors in the definition of the recommendation domains.

BOX 4.3: SOLUTIONS MAY DIFFER FOR FARMS WITH THE SAME PHYSICAL AND BIOLOGICAI. PROBLEM

An underlying problem for all farmers in arid and semi-arid zones is the limited availability of water for plant growth. Consequently, a key management factor is their ability to perform timely operations in order to make water available for germination and plant growth and to improve the efficiency of water use.

The ability to pursue 'timeliness,, however, is not a function of management alone but also of resources available to farmers. For example, in Southern Africa it is much easier for a farmer owning a tractor to carry out timely operations than for a farmer hiring donkeys. Although the problem for both farmers is the same, the potential solutions for helping them will be different. Therefore, in much of the FSD work, such farmers have been allocated to different recommendation domains.

Some FSD workers have found, on the other hand, that recommendation domains in their farming systems tend to conform to geographic differences (e.g., soil type, climate, and so forth) and less to resource differences between farmers. This was the case for dryland farming systems in India [Walker and Ryan, 1990].

BOX 4.4: EXAMPLE OF A GENERALIZED RECOMMENDATION DOMAIN

Over the years, one FSD team in Botswana did a great deal of crop variety testing for stationbased researchers, One example is the cowpea variety ER-7, which has now been released officially, In the case of this variety, there was no need to differentiate the farmers according to different socio-economic groups. Rather, the appropriate recommendation domain appears to be all farmers in a particular geographic area (i.e., eastern half of Botswana which has the best rainfall).

4.6 Participatory research

During recent years, the farming systems approach has shifted dramatically from an emphasis on farmer based but researcher managed studies towards methods that stress farmer participation, or say, in the research process. The question asked is 'who is best positioned to lead an inquiry into a farming system'?'. Farmer-based, researcher-managed studies are necessary when [Shaner et al, 1982: p. 19]:

"Farmers may not have adequate technical explanations of their problems nor know the range of opportunities for improving their conditions, but [that] learning more about farmers helps the researchers produce better technologies and extension workers promote FSR results more effectively."

However, participatory techniques have proven very useful in allowing farmers to express themselves on a wide range of issues. In the extreme, the purposes of a participatory orientation could be simply to organize a voice for farmer concerns and to impact on political decisions. Another focused objective might be to establish nearly autonomous farmer groups that can be self-motivated and self-directed in problem-solving investigations, But, in practice, most participatory activities involve some balance, or a partnership, between researcher management and farmer say in the research dialogue,

The justification for shifting towards participatory techniques lies in the need to give farmers or groups of farmers the freedom to conceptualize and express an accurate model of how their farming system works, Participants can synthesize and exploit a comprehensive farm model in terms of systems structures, processes, and farm objectives certainly more efficiently, and often more effectively, than can FSD teams who study the system from the outside,

When embarking on greater farmer participation, FSD can choose to invite farmers to manage or comanage all or only some stages of the research effort, These stages might include: descriptions of the system, diagnoses of constraints, designs of new options, pre-screening or other assessments of options, selections of options for actual testing, reporting assessments of options to FSD, and even taking charge of disseminating useful information to other farmers.

The role of FSD team members in participatory research usually is not reduced. In tact, it may require a greater awareness of issues (i.e., farmers sensitivities, social customs, and technical understanding) than in more researcher managed work. In participatory research, FSD members should search out ways to:

• Facilitate the articulation of the participants' positions -- often consensus of a group.
• Present hypotheses for discussion or testing.
• Link discussions with information from secondary sources that is not being taken into consideration by the participants.
• Communicate findings to outside agents.
• Link findings to the larger agricultural research and development context.
• Bring outside decision makers (e.g., research, extension, development, and planning agencies) directly into the participatory process.

The correct balance between participatory methods and farmer-based, researcher-managed methods must be determined by the FSD team based on what is appropriate for each activity. The choice should be for the method or combination of methods that will give the greatest problem-solving efficiency. The choices, especially when a large degree of uncertainty exists about the issues and about the types of responses that can be anticipated, might be arrived at through an iterative process in which FSD teams routinely re-evaluate the techniques in their work plan.

Farmer participation is discussed or implicit under a number of the specific methodology sections of this manual. Obviously, a strong participatory role occurs in informal survey work (Chapter 8) and more particularly for PRA in Section 8.4. A range of participation in trial management is discussed with emphasis on how this participation corresponds to the objectives of the trial (Sections 9.2 and 9.3). A participatory mode is greatest in FMFI trials (Section 9.8.5). Farmer groups (Section 9.8.6), listed under trial management methodology, are actually useful participatory forums to address essentially all stages of the research effort. Participatory evaluation objectives are discussed under Section 1().3.

Part II - Implementation of the farming systems development approach

This part furnishes a broad but systematic view on how to successfully set an FSD programme in place. The two chapters in this part deal with the following:

• The steps involved in implementing FSD (Chapter 5).
• Operational issues involved in implementing FSD (Chapter 6).

5. Operational steps

5.1 Objectives of the chapter

The objectives of this chapter are to:

• Provide an outline of steps needed in FSD, This information will provide ideas on types of implementation methods, data, and analyses required,
• Evaluate the linkages between various steps.
• Describe the desired links between FSD team members and other 'actors' at different steps in the FSD process.
• Describe criteria that permit decisions on when a step can begin.

5.2 Step involved in FSD

Although earlier FSD was conceptually broken down into stages (in Section 3,2), it is important to recognize that, in implementation, the boundaries between the stages can become quite blurred, especially because the FSD team may be working at different points on the continuum for different technologies. For example, the FSD team may still be in the design stage for a technology to address a particular problem but in the final level of testing with respect to a second technology, while continuing routine diagnostic work,

Before FSD can actually begin, sites for conducting research must be selected. Then the list of the steps involved in FSD should include:

• Selection of target areas and sub-areas.
• Selection of research areas.
• Selection of villages.
• Selection of cooperators.
• Description and diagnostic-stage activities.
• Design-stage activities.
• Testing-stage activities.
• Dissemination-stage activities.

Aspects relating to each of these steps are discussed in greater detail in the following sections. Some of the material on the steps builds on Zandstra [1985: pp. 168-172].

5.3 Selection of target areas

5.3.1 Scheduling of Tasks and Key Actors

The selection of target areas usually is completed before FSD team members have been assembled to begin organizing FSD work. Because FSD output should feed into long-term planning and development, it is best if a framework for planning national development is defined before the selection of target areas for FSD is made.

Generally, the selection of a target area for a FSD programme is made by national decision makers, usually in Ministries of Agriculture or their equivalent,

5.3.2 Details on the Selection of Target Areas

Two reasons often used for selecting specific target areas are:

• To meet the needs of the people living there and/or
• To take advantage of the agricultural potential of the area.

If conditions within the target area vary substantially, it can be subdivided on the basis of similar physical, biological, socio-economic, and farming systems characteristics.

Criteria considered in the selection depend on the purpose of establishing the FSD programme. This purpose may be to deal with a specific part of the country or specific agricultural problem, such as low productivity in rainfed agriculture, or to be an on-going segment of the national research organization, dedicated to on-farm research. Whatever the purpose of the farming systems effort, the criteria considered may include compatibility with national policy and priorities and/or may be based on physical limitations or problems, such as poor water availability and distribution, erodible slopes, flooding, or animal disease.

Answers to the following types of questions can help assist decision makers in selecting target areas:

• Is the target area large and relatively similar in those environmental characteristics that have the most bearing on potential research results? If so, the FSD team can apply the research results broadly and meaningfully within the target area.
• Is the target area similar to other areas? If so, some of the technologies developed in the target area can be used in other areas.
• Does the area have the potential for rapid pay-off from FSD? Factors that often determine the potential are:

• Physical and biological conditions,
• Markets and infrastructure,
• Available technology, and
• Farmers' willingness to accept innovation,

• Do the area's environmental conditions facilitate application of technologies developed elsewhere? If so, the time period for reaping returns from the FSD process could be shortened greatly,
• What are some of the cost factors? For example, is the target area now served by existing governmental programmes or private institutions? If so, cooperation with such programmes or institutions could enable the FSD team to accomplish more, reduce costs, and/or save time.

5.4 Selection of research areas

5.4.1 Scheduling of Tasks and Key Actors

After the target area has been chosen, a research area or areas within the target area will be identified. This selection is usually made by members of the FSD team as one of their first activities in the field, The selection process, however, will usually be improved through close consultation with government and non-government agents involved in agricultural development in the research area,

5.4.2 Details on Selecting Research Areas

The following factors can be important considerations in defining a research area(s):

• Representativeness of the Research Area. This is usually the most important criterion for selection of a research area, It must be representative of the target area or sub-areas with respect to environmental conditions -- that is, physical, biological, and socio economic -- and the farming systems practiced,
• Accessibility. The ability to travel easily to all parts of the research area generally will enhance cooperation between the research team and farmers, allow for easy distribution of inputs and access to markets, and reduce the team's operating costs. However, with respect to this, it is important to take into account the types of issues raised in Section 5 .5 ,2,
• Existence of a Nearby Agricultural Research Station. Research areas located close to research stations generally have more cooperation between on-station and off-station researchers and can provide a more integrated approach to the overall research programme (i.e., enable the synergism between the reductionist and systems approach to be fully exploited -- see Section 3.5).
• Cooperation of Farmer Contact Agencies and Leader Support. Good working relationships with agencies operating directly with farmers, such as extension and development agencies, can increase the effectiveness of the FSD team. This is particularly important when such agencies must be relied upon to provide information, inputs, credit, etc. Help and support from formal and informal leaders at the national and local levels, can be critical to the success of the FSD programme,

In order to make an informed selection of a research area within a target area, a good deal of information must be available to the decision makers, Table 5,1 identifies many of the data categories necessary for research area selection. Many of these data can be collected by the FSD team from secondary sources, such as existing reports, aerial photographs, etc. Additional information can be obtained by spot visits in the proposed research areas and/or reconnaissance type surveys (see Section 8,4), The final decision about the research area often involves input from national, regional, district and local level government officials, as well as from the FSD team, Research area selection may take as little as two weeks when relevant data are readily available, or it may take six weeks or longer when several areas are being considered, secondary data are scarce, or there are other problems. l

TABLE 5.1: DATA CATEGORIES FOR RESEARCH AREA SELECTION

5.5 Selection of villages

5.5.1 Scheduling of Tasks and Key Actors

As is the case for selection of the research area, village selection usually is made by the FSD team as part of beginning FSD work, Close consultation with, and advice from, senior agricultural officials in the region and other informed regional, district, and local officials in making this selection is preferable and even necessary, if information for making these selections are to be complete and verified during early periods of FSD work in an area. Decisions after the beginning phase of FSD to abandon work or initiate activities in new villages also should be made by the FSD team in consultation with appropriate advisors outside the team -- see discussion under Section 5.4.

5.5.2 Details on the Selection of Villages

An important point in selecting villages in which to concentrate FSD activities is to improve the efficiency of research resource use. This 'clustering' of research activities in a limited number of villages has become important as research resources have become more limiting, because it can often substantially reduce recurrent expenditure.

BOX 5.1: BIASES IN VILLAGE SELECTION

Obviously, it is important to be sensible and practical when selecting villages in which to concentrate efforts. However, Chambers [1986] in a challenging, but valid, critique concerning biases that impede outsiders' contact with rural poverty, notes that one of the six he discusses relates to the use of vehicles. This bias, which he calls spatial bias, involves the tendency for rural development practitioners to concentrate activities near urban areas, near tarmac, and close to roads. Obviously, such a strategy in village selection, if carried to the extreme, would seriously reduce the ability of outsiders to develop strategies appropriate to the whole rural population.

FSD teams generally will use several criteria in selecting villages within the research area. These may include factors considered in choosing the research area (Section 5.4). Some of the more important considerations are:

• Representativeness. This is of primary importance because, if the villages selected for research are not representative of the target and research areas, technologies developed to be applicable to these villages may not be transferable to the larger research and target areas.
• Logistical Considerations. These considerations are particularly important. The number of villages to be selected for research activities may well be limited by the number of field staff who will be available to the farming systems team, the ease of access to the chosen villages, their proximity to one another, etc. Trade-offs may be necessary between the desirability of selecting certain villages for representativeness or other factors and the need to limit village numbers or locations because of resource constraints faced by the FSD team (see Box 5.1).
• Characteristics of the Village. In addition to being representative in physical, biological, and socio-economic senses, some other characteristics may be important, such as availability of markets, the presence of an extension agent, etc.
• Other Factors. Other factors may be considered in a particular village selection. For example, if several villages are to be selected, it may be desirable to select a 'traditional' village, a 'progressive, village, and a village that is in 'transition' because of its location on a main roadway (see Box 5.2), The team's assessment of local support, both by local officials and by farmers, also may be important.

BOX 5.2: POPULATION- AND MARKET-DRIVEN AREAS

The International Institute of Tropical Agriculture (IITA) in Nigeria recently commenced work in two benchmark study areas in the northern part of Nigeria. Three villages have been selected in each benchmark study area differing in certain characteristics such as accessibility. The benchmark study areas also were selected on the basis of significantly different criteria, one being deemed primarily as market driven and the other being characterized as being primarily population driven. Obviously, strategies for improving the productivity and sustainability of agriculture in the two areas are likely to differ because of differences in the exogenous factors (see Section 4.2), which influence the way in which the resources, such as land and labour, are used.

The selection of villages is based on much of the same data used to identify the research area (Table 5.1). This information is collected from secondary sources, from discussions with extension and other government officials, and by direct observation. Background information must be relatively recent to be of most value. information from extension personnel who have worked in the area for five or more years and from leaders (i.e., formal or informal) who have lived in the village for 1() years or more is usually most valuable, Team members should do at least a 'windscreen' survey of potential villages. More satisfactory results may be obtained from interviews with key community members and officials and possibly from a more formalized rapid reconnaissance survey. The assessment of local support can take place during these visits.

When the information is collected, the team is in a position to make a decision, If numerous villages are being considered, a matrix of each village's characteristics, according to key factors, can be constructed. For example, what is the average land holding in the village? This then can be ranked in relation to the mean for the target area. After all factors are ranked for each village, the rankings can be totalled and, based on the factors considered, the village with the lowest total is the most representative of the target area, This type of assessment of quantitative factors may be of assistance to the farming systems team in making village selection but must be modified in light of qualitative information available to them, The existence of already defined recommendation domains (see Sections 4.5 and 5.7,2) can greatly reduce the amount of effort necessary and implies that there is a good deal of existing (ex ante) knowledge of the area.

Once research village(s) have been selected, FSD activities obviously will tend to be concentrated in them, This is particularly true if the field staff are permanently stationed in the village, because housing, etc., may have been provided by the project, However, reasons sometimes arise for changing villages, These might include:

• The discovery that the village is not representative, at least in certain key characteristics,
• Evidence that past research activities have changed the character of the farmers and the village, so the present research activities are not taking place in a 'typical, environment.
• A change in the mandate of the FSD team.
• A change in the resources available to the FSD team, requiring a corresponding change in team activities.
• Philosophical reasons such as the desire to provide exposure of the FSD to a larger number of farmers.

Contents - Previous - Next