The arrangements for producing and transmitting programmes have been very successful. Programme scripts are finalised with the project coordinator before being edited at Tajik Radio. This has worked well, and there has been a steady improvement in both production values and journalism standards. Tajik Radio representatives welcomed the programmes and have appreciated the variety and new approaches they inject.
There has been valuable synergy in locating the series in an existing agricultural project. The agronomists and veterinarians have provided valuable background information, contacts and stories for the programme producers and they have welcomed the radio producers on trips to rural areas. They have been extremely supportive in the research process and sensitive to professional and editorial boundaries.
The lack of journalism training and a decision to concentrate on 'safe' technical themes ensured that the early programmes did not pose a challenge for Tajik Radio. Two programmes were recorded on more controversial areas: one on the problems farmers face in selling their produce and a second on water users' associations, but neither theme was developed in any great depth. One programme was recorded on anthrax, outbreaks of which were causing serious concern to veterinary staff of the FAO project. The Tajik Radio manager told the programme producers that this was too controversial to broadcast. In fact, the programme was of very poor quality and a very brief package giving minimal information on the disease was broadcast a few weeks later. As the series has become established it has gradually become more adventurous thematically, and the questions put to interviewees are more focused. Radio packages broadcast from May to December 2001 are presented in the Annex.
It had originally been hoped to include price information from regional markets in the programmes. This was included in the TACIS project programmes and was requested by focus group participants. However, in discussion with other international agencies operating in Tajikistan, it was decided that this was too politically sensitive to undertake at present.
The editorial committee met regularly at the beginning of the project, but meets less frequently, if at all, now that the project has became well established. This is probably an indication that all parties are satisfied with the way the project is being implemented.
The participatory audience research has been partially successful. It is clear from Russian language translations of the transcripts that the pilot focus group and one of the groups in the first phase of the audience research programme were of a high standard, but two subsequent groups were less well facilitated. In these groups, the moderator sometimes made inappropriate judgements about what was said, and at times admonished participants for not sticking to the point. The analysis of each group provided by the moderator was not always a completely faithful reflection of the discussion transcripts. At times, the moderator failed to draw out the 'diplomatic criticisms' of the programmes by the focus group participants. This points to the importance of well-facilitated focus groups in order to get valid results.
The groups have tended to be large, with about eleven participants in each one. This may be because all those invited made the effort to participate, and it is not appropriate in Tajikistan to turn people away. Such good attendance may indicate something about the motivation of private farmers. In general, group discussions are lively and animated, with moderately successful engagement of participants.
A decision was made not to hold a separate women-only focus group in the first phase. Although this had been previously agreed among all parties, the producers decided subsequently that it was not appropriate, and that mixed-gender groups would be more effective. Three women farmers participated in one focus group and just one woman in another. In two other groups, there were no women participants. Clearly, the issues and concerns of women farmers were not sufficiently researched and therefore are not likely to be adequately reflected in the programmes.
Efforts to represent different parts of the republic were more successful, with one focus group held in the far south (Shaartuz) and another in a northern Uzbek-speaking area (Vose). The pilot group was held in Dushanbe and the remaining group (Hissar) some 30 kilometres away from the capital.
The groups yielded valuable but not systematic information about the availability of electricity and participants' use of radio and other media. Some participants stated that they listened to Farmer to Farmer and Tajik Radio's programme for rural listeners, but this information is unreliable as an indicator of the reach of programmes as participants were given promotional leaflets at the point of their recruitment to the groups. The benefit of this is that some participants made a point of listening to the programmes on air before the groups assembled and did not confine their comments simply to the programmes played to them during the meetings.
The testing of the programmes was moderately successful. In one group the moderator asked appropriately open questions to establish what participants had understood of the radio programme played to them. In two other groups, however, the moderator simply asked 'did you understand it?' At times he missed shyly expressed comments that could usefully have been expanded, and he could perhaps have provided more reassurance to the groups of the value of honest, critical responses.
Nevertheless participants provided valuable feedback. All the groups commented favourably on the language used by contributors and journalists. They found the programmes clear and accessible, but one or two participants pointed out that in contrast to the tested materials, the programmes they had heard on air were overly complicated. Naturally, the radio producers had selected the programmes they were most pleased with to play to the groups, so this view should have sent an important message to them.
Participants generally felt that the programmes gave useful information, but that at times they lacked dynamism and did not always provide a rounded view of a subject. It was clear that the presenters and journalists needed to develop more pace in their delivery. Participants were understandably critical of a programme in which just one farmer gave a long description of how he looks after his cows. They felt the information was of good quality, but that it wasn't communicated in an interesting way.
A programme on the problems farmers face in marketing their produce struck a chord with participants and stimulated lively discussion. The participants were heartened by the authenticity of the programme, pointed out that the programme needed to be developed further and that it would be valuable if journalists put farmers' complaints to the authorities.
It is clear from the programme scripts that the radio producers have endeavoured to adjust their work to respond to these constructive criticisms. There is no doubt that the radio producers were very affected by the experience of observing focus groups, and that they worked hard to meet the needs they heard expressed.
Almost all farmers in all the groups expressed frustration at the lack of high-quality information. They felt that Tajik Radio's regular programme for rural audiences was not interesting and not trustworthy, and they did not listen to it. Participants in several groups stressed that they would make efforts to access information materials that were interesting, relevant and credible. One farmer said: 'I would find the means to get hold of such information no matter the obstacles, and whatever it cost.'
It was particularly clear from one group discussion that farmers are discerning about information: they do not automatically trust what they are told. One stipulated that programmes should be detailed, convincing and interesting. They complained about 'empty words' and items that 'just praise the bosses'.
Participants had seen a few good Russian television programmes for farmers and thought that radio programmes that were made well, featuring both experienced farmers and expert views, and that emphasised farming techniques, would be valuable. One farmer said: 'We don't know how to do things, how to run our farms, how to calculate costs, how to distribute profit. It's really important and we want to know about these things, this is what we want to listen to on the radio.'
Participants in the first focus group were asked about their knowledge of anthrax outbreaks. They said that they had heard rumours but knew very little about the disease. They felt it was essential to have a radio programme that would tell them how to avoid such diseases. The groups stressed the need for 'technical information on plant and animal diseases, and the need to be given warnings of particular disease outbreaks; how to find reliable seeds; the use of fertilisers and pesticides, and in particular whether it's true that DDT is harmful; how to cope in conditions of drought; how to assess quality of livestock; how to look after animals in the absence of a veterinarian; water use and irrigation. They emphasised the need for seasonally and regionally appropriate information, particularly on plant cultivation. They were very interested in the personal experience of farmers who have experimented with new techniques and got good results.
Given the severe drought, it is not surprising that all the groups wanted to hear reliable long-range weather forecasts. There were also requests for information on the prices of produce, fuel, fertilisers, pesticides, and ideas for alternatives to increasingly costly pesticides, fertilisers and other inputs.
Broader subjects of concern included rights to land use and lack of legal regulation; relationships with the collective farms; finance and credit and the complex taxation system; lack of information to make marketing decisions and obstacles to selling produce; the role of farmers' associations; the lack of good business ethics and dishonest business deals; indebtedness and the threat of bankruptcy; and the lack of infrastructure to support farmers.
There were very animated discussions in two of the three focus groups about the problems farmers face. In the analysis of one group, the facilitator noted that there was a real sense of how embattled relationships are with regard to land. Farmers feel a sense of ownership of the land and are in open conflict with the authorities. They are aware of how poorly organised they are, and that the local farmers' associations do not work effectively.
All participants in one group were vociferous about what they perceive to be a 'diktat' from above, the limits on farmers' choices of what to sow and whom to sell to, particularly with regard to cotton. 'Up on high they say that we should sow cotton on 70-80 percent of our land. I've been given the use of the land for eternity. I should care for it as I would care for a child. And I'm an expert, I know what to sow, and I know about rotation of crops. But whatever you wish or do not wish, you have to sow cotton. I should be able to sign a contract with anyone I want, and to receive the income (from my crop)... but in today's conditions I can't do that.'
In another group, participants argued about whether 'the state should do something' or 'we've got to do it ourselves'. Some of the farmers are unused to thinking of solutions for themselves. One individual stated: 'You should just tell us, here's the problem, and here's the solution.' But many of the farmers are enterprising and keen to find their own solutions. Perhaps a legacy of the Soviet period is the reverence expressed by some of the farmers for specialist knowledge. In two groups, farmers emphasised their desire to hear the views of agricultural experts. One said that he believed that farming techniques and conditions have changed so much that older farmers may not have appropriate knowledge.
The agenda for the radio series clearly reflects most of the concerns of the focus group participants. Programmes have been made on all the technical subjects requested by the farmers, with close attention paid to ensuring that they are seasonally and regionally appropriate. One omission has been effective weather forecasting. The project plans to begin a monthly or bi-monthly weather forecast specifically for farmers beginning in early 2002. There is an excellent programme on what farmers should do in drought conditions, but there is no reporting on the tremendous problems that farmers must have faced in these circumstances.
Increasingly, the programmes are covering the frustration and problems faced by farmers. A programme on taxation features the complex, opaque payment system whereby farmers often have to make frequent long journeys to pay different taxes. The presenter tackles this with the tax inspector but stops short of asking one focus group participant's question: 'We pay our taxes, but they don't pay old people's pensions. Where does the money go?'
A programme on finance gives an excellent overview of the deep frustration farmers feel over their efforts to raise loans. This programme is genuinely authentic. The presenter describes his own frustration: 'We went to Agroinvestbank but we couldn't get an answer from them, and we will be coming back to talk to them'. When he does eventually get an interview with a bank official, the radio producer is rather too easily satisfied by the answers given, but nevertheless the programme represents an enormous step forward in addressing a very sensitive issue.
Another useful programme covers the frustration experienced by farmers when attempting to register their farms. The programme explains exactly what a farmer needs to do to undertake registration, and pushes the Ministry official spokesman on the complexity of the process.
The focus group participants referred to corruption, but they did not focus on it in any depth. This may be because it is an extremely delicate topic, or perhaps because it is so intrinsic to the social fabric that all farmers are inevitably drawn into it. In one focus group, participants referred to the absence of the rule of law, and one participant described dishonest deals and the absence of an ethical approach to business as one of the most serious social problems in the country.
Corruption has not been featured directly in the programmes, but there have been several programmes on the rights of farmers and in later programmes there is an excellent, regular 'Questions and Answers' section that responds to farmers who feel that they have been mistreated. Clear, helpful answers have been given to farmers who feel that they have been asked to pay too much tax; who are not sure if they have the right to sow what they want to sow; who have been told that they cannot build on their land; and who have had their land allocation reassessed by the local authorities. This is a real step forward for Tajik journalism.
The programmes on the rights and responsibilities of farmers have been rather theoretical, but accessible. Unfortunately they do not, and perhaps at this stage cannot, cover how farmers' rights are abused in practice, or the real problems a farmer might face in attempting to defend his or her rights in a society with no developed practice of legal challenge.
Many farmers have been forced to take on the debts of the collective farms, and do not understand their legal position. One excellent, practical programme informs farmers on the importance of drawing up contracts carefully. An articulate legal specialist encourages farmers to be proactive, and to negotiate and substitute unsatisfactory clauses.
Radio producer interviewing farmers in the Kulyab province of Southern Tajikistan. (2001)
It is very encouraging that the experience and voices of farmers themselves are at the heart of the programmes. It is perhaps not surprising that these tend to be male farmers, but the radio producers have made efforts to seek out women farmers. Although some interviews are tokenistic, women farmers have been drawn on for their expertise in some of the radio programmes.
The radio producers have made significant progress in producing well-structured, clear, accessible materials and there has been considerable success in using new production ideas. The producers now have a far better grasp of the strengths and limitations of radio as a medium, and of how to ensure that listeners can take in the information that they seek to communicate. Whereas initially a presenter would simply read out a complex technical procedure, which was often quite incomprehensible, contributors to the programmes are now recorded as they carry out a technique: a farmer describes how he prunes a tree or a vet explains how he examines a cow's liver, complete with location sound and graphic detail. Some of the programmes are laborious and insufficiently lively, but the producers have learned the importance of a variety of voices and the need to cover different aspects of a problem.
The producers have also developed a very good understanding of their role. In the earlier programmes they found it hard to let their listeners make up their own minds. They would sometimes admonish contributors or instruct audiences on the right course of action. In a programme on artificial insemination the producer/presenter reprimands farmers who rely on nature to take its course and whose cattle do not reproduce: 'see what their indifference leads to...' He signs off at the end of the programme: 'remember, you can always rely on the help of experts!' Such exhortations are not used in later programmes, and although there is more to learn, there has been a real improvement in interviewing skills.
One continuing problem is a lack of background facts. Partly this is because of the unreliability of state-collected statistics and the unavailability of information. It is also, partly, an issue of self-censorship. The programmes on animal diseases, for instance, do not state where disease outbreaks have taken place or how many livestock are affected. This is vital information for farmers who are trying to decide whether to pay for vaccinations, and the programmes are much poorer for its absence.
Similarly, it was clearly deemed too sensitive to refer in a programme to anecdotal evidence that farmers do not approach the banks for loans as they would have to pay, not just high interest rates, but also an 'unofficial payment' to the person responsible for arranging a loan. When the producer/presenter questions the state bank official about loans for farmers, he does not establish how many farmers approach banks for loans, the number of loans granted in a given period, or the rate of foreclosure. Such information would go a long way towards confirming or rebutting the widely held beliefs about banks, even if the discussion itself could not be explicit.
Veterinarians and agronomists working for the larger FAO project have actively promoted the radio series, distributing 1,500 promotional leaflets in rural areas in many parts of the country. Leaflets promoting the radio series were also sent to the international agencies operating in Tajikstan (cfr. p. 9). However there have been very few letters and telephone calls from farmers, and it is likely that audiences have remained fairly small in the absence of a structured mass media campaign to advertise the programmes.
A quantitative evaluation of the impact of the programmes was not part of the project design, and it is beyond the scope of the current project. Some impact may be estimated from contributors' feedback to the project. The radio producers report that after a programme on obtaining spare parts for equipment, more than twenty farmers approached the enterprise featured in the story. The Director of the Artificial Insemination Centre featured in another programme reported that since the programme their work has expanded significantly. One or two farmers approach the Centre each day from areas that the Centre did not previously serve, and two state farms have signed large contracts.
Tajik Radio is pleased with the project but like other governmental institutions in the country, they barely survive in economic terms. They have no resources to support the continuation of the project. Sustainability of the project inevitably derives from the availability of donor funding. If economic transition proceeds successfully it may be possible to achieve longer-term sustainability through private-enterprise sponsorship.
A thorough review of the audience research process is needed:
The participation of women farmers in programme development needs to be carefully assessed, including review of the transcripts and analyses from the focus group work.
Little use was made of the two women freelance researchers who attended the training programme, or the woman focus group moderator. Ways should be sought to ensure the participation of women in audience research and programme production.
Further training for the radio producers:
The producers need more support in conducting interviews and in particular, asking follow-up questions. The inclusion of basic facts in programmes needs to be improved. The producers also need help in sharpening the editing of recorded materials and creating a livelier 'feel' for the programmes.
Stimulus for farmers to work together to find solutions:
The producers should make more efforts to seek stories of farmers taking 'can do' approaches to their problems: effective farmers' associations, good examples of co-operation, successful solutions to problems.
It might be worthwhile to encourage farmers to listen to the programme in groups. This might help with the cost of batteries for radio receivers and stimulate discussion and co-operation.
Encouraging farmers to share their experiences in the programmes should become more integral to the series. FAO Project outreach staff could ask for feedback to the programmes, and field vehicles could carry a 'Farmer to Farmer letterbox' for listeners' questions and views.
A structured, well-researched promotional campaign for the programmes:
The project now has significant information about farmers' media use patterns that could be used to design an appealing campaign to promote the programme. This could involve a television commercial (75 percent of the rural population, and 80 percent of women farmers watch Tajik TV once a week). Tajik Radio should be approached again about the possibility of promoting the programme during peak time listening.
Back-up written materials:
Communication efforts have far greater impact if they combine different channels. Leaflets or perhaps calendars for farmers could supplement the information given in the radio programmes, and each medium could promote the other.
Through 'Farmer to Farmer' great strides have been made to improve the responsiveness and relevance of radio to farmers' needs and problems. This is a good beginning, given the constraints of the wider political context. But for farm radio in Tajikistan to be genuinely farmer led, the new programme approach will need to be matched by political change concerning the role of journalists.
