 |
| About Bioline | All Journals | Testimonials | Membership | News |
|
||||||
|
||||||
Forum: farmers' participation in the adaptation of IPM technologies in sub-Saharan Africa: experiences from Kenya
P.O. CHITERE and F.G. KIROS International Centre of Insect Physiology and Ecology, Sciences Department, P.O. Box 30772, Nairobi, Kenya (Received 7 November, 1994; accepted 16 May, 1995)
Code Number: CS96048
Sizes of Files:
Text:44.8K
No associated graphics files
ABSTRACT
Participation of resource-limited farmers in agricultural research projects in ways that can help ensure the adoption and sustenance of farm technologies is a challenge for most agricultural research agencies. The Interactive Socio-economic Research for Bio-intensive Pest Management (ISERIPM) project is an adaptive research project which, among other things, explores methods of involving farmers in various phases of its implementation. The involvement is based on the ICIPE's approach of Integrated Pest Management (IPM) technology development which provides for minimal involvement at on-station trials, somewhat increased involvement at on-farm researcher managed trials, and a high level of involvement at on-farm farmer managed trials. At on-station trials which were carried out in 1993, farmers' participation was restricted to evaluation of some of the IPM components which included maize and sorghum cultivars and various forms of intercropping. The sites for the on-farm trials (4 sub-locations and 8 villages), and 89 farmers as participants were selected following GIS characterisation of the research districts of Kwale and Kilifi on the basis of agro-ecological and socio-economic conditions, and macro-, village- and household-level surveys. In subsequent meetings, members of the chosen villages selected 8 Trial Farmers (TFs)- one per village from among those chosen as project farmers. The rest of the farmers who met the selection criteria were termed non-trial participating farmers (NTPFs) and participated in the various educational activities of the researcher managed trials in 1994. In 1995, all of the farmers became participants in the farmer-managed on-farm trials. Key Words: Adaptive research, farmers' participation, IPM technologies RESUME La participacion de petits fermiers aux projects agricoles dans des conditions qui leur assurent l'adoption et la durabilite des technologies agricoles est un defi pour la plupart d 'agences de recherche en agriculture. La recherche socio-economique interactive pour la gestion biologique intensive des insectes nuisibles est un projet de recherche adaptative qui explore entre autres des methodes associant les fermiers dans les diverses phases de son application. Cette participation est basee sur le concept propre a l'ICIPE, le developpement technologique de lutte dirigee (IPM), qui ne requiert qu'une supervision minimale du chercheur sur le terrain dans les essais experimentaux. Pour les essais en station experimentale qui ont ete menes en 1993, la participation des fermiers etait reduite a l'evaluation de quelques composants IPM concernant la culture du mai's et du sorgho et quelques formes de variees de cultures mixtes. Les sites des essais sur le terrain (localites et 8 villages) et 89 fermiers comme participants potentiels ont ete choisis en fonction des caracteristiques obtenues au moyen de GIS et comprenant les districts de Kwaie et Kilifi, en fonction de leurs conditions agro-ecologiques et socio-economiques, et sur base d'enquetes sur l'importance du village et sa composition. Lors des reunions ulterieures, les membres des villages pressentis ont choisi 8 fermiers pour les essais, un par village parmi ceux designes comme acteurs du projet. Le reste des fermiers qui ont satisfait aux criteres de selection sont appeles fermiers non-participants aux essais et ont pris part aux diverses activites d'education du chercheur et ont gere les essais pendant l'annee 1994. Au cours de l'annee 1995, tousles fermiers ont participe aux essais dans les champs. Mots Cles: Recherche adaptive, la participation de fermiers, technologies de lutte integree BACKGROUND Participation of resource-limited farmers in adoption and sustenance of farm technologies that can help enhance their food production remains a major challenge for research and development agencies in many African countries such as Kenya. The capacity of these countries to produce enough food for their people is declining in the face of a rapidly increasing population, leading to dependence on food imports. Today, it is well known that lack of participation by farmers in the process of technology development partly accounts for their lack of adoption of the technologies that can help to increase their food production. Roling (1983) has indicated that, in agricultural research, the lack of adoption of farm technologies is occasioned by the reliance of researchers on the 'transfer of technology model'. According to this model, farm technologies are generated by research agencies and are transferred to farmers to adopt. In other words, research is a monopoly of the agencies. This transfer of technology model is increasingly losing support in favour of a participatory research model which entails involvement of all affected parties - researchers, farmers, extension agents, etc. - in the development of farm technologies (Stinson, 1979; Roling, 1983; Volken etal., 1985) There is, however, no blueprint of participatory research which is universally applied. Indeed this is a field in which all kinds of experiments are going on, some of which are lacking in conceptual foundation and hence elicit little effective participation. Nevertheless, a number of writers have tried to propose their own "models" of participatory research which differ in a number of respects. In an attempt to place all these in perspective, one author in this field has advanced a typology of approaches to participatory research which he has labelled as contractual, consultative, collaborative and collegiate (Biggs, 1987). The contractual approach is one in which the land and services of farmers are borrowed or hired to make possible the verification under various agro-ecological conditions of technologies developed on-station. This approach can be described as participatory only to the extent that a link is created between the researcher and the farmer. The consultative approach is said to be analogous to the doctor-patient relationship. Farmers are consulted at various stages of the research process, but most of the decisions regarding the content and methods of research are made by the researchers alone. The collaborative method is one which involves a more continuous interaction between the researchers and farmers, the latter being consulted even on ways in which research might effectively be conducted at the community level. The collegiate approach goes further and seeks to strengthen local capacities to conduct informal research at the community level so as to complement the formal research system. To these four research approaches, we might add a fifth one which Robert Chambers (Farrington and Martin, 1990) has described as the "farmer first-and-last approach". This approach entails drastic changes in the roles of the farmer and researcher as it would involve learning by the scientists from farmers, and generating technologies on farm and with the farmers. It is not certain that these five categories capture the range of participatory approaches of agricultural research which may be found in practice. A recent publication of abstracts of 340 papers, for example, documents highly diverse experiences of participatory research (Farrington and Martin, 1990). No two projects or experiments documented are found to be identical in all respects. Suffice it to conclude that it is now widely acknowledged that farmers can take an active part in the research process in various ways thereby facilitating the adoption and ensuring the sustainability of farm technologies. The Interactive Socio-economic Research for Bio-intensive Pest Management (ISERIPM) project of the International Centre for Insect Physiology and Ecology (ICIPE) is a project that has, as one of its aims, the involvement of farmers in the adaptation of Integrated Pest Management (IPM) technologies to the Kenyan Coastal conditions and their consequent adoption and sustainment. The project builds on experiences of ICIPE's researchers in working with farmers in Western Kenya both from the pilot IPM project that was implemented in Oyugis and Kendu Bay areas and from farmers' evaluation of IPM technologies at on-station trials at ICIPE's Mbita Point Field Station (MPFS) (Biggs, 1987). These experiences in working with farmers in Western Kenya provided a basis for the development of a more systematically designed interdisciplinary, collaborative and participatory research proposal, namely the ISERIPM project. In the rest of this paper, this Project's conceptual and methodological approaches are discussed followed by an account and evaluation of the farmer-participation activities that have so far been completed. CONCEPTUAL AND METHODOLOGICAL APPROACHES OF THE ISERIPM PROJECT
The main technologies that are being adapted through the ISERIPM project are insect pest resistant cultivars of maize and sorghum, cultural practices, especially intercropping in its various forms, biological control using Bt (Bacillus thuringiensis) and experimental controls using insecticides. The main justifications for the project are firstly, the need to test and develop under different conditions IPM technologies which have performed well under one set of agro-ecological and socio-economic conditions, and secondly, the need to develop methodologies of interface between ICIPE's biological and social science researchers and collaborating parties, such as Kenya Agricultural Research Institute (KARl), researchers and Kenya's Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock Development and Marketing (MALDM) extension staff, and the farming communities. Hence, the two-fold objectives were to undertake adaptive and evaluative research on pest management technologies pertaining to staple food crops and livestock to appropriate agroecological zones of Kenya; and develop interactive socio-economic interface methodologies for crops and livestock pest management. The livestock pests management component of the research was to be implemented on Rusinga Island, Western Kenya. The major crop pest management component which is the subject of this paper was to be implemented at the Kenya Coast. Kwale and Kilifi Districts were chosen as project sites owing, among other considerations, to a high incidence of insect pests especially stem borers of maize and sorghum as well as the problem of food shortages among a large segment of the rural population. Being a pioneering participatory research project, one of the challenges of the ISERIPM Project is to show how farmers' involvement can be elicited and maintained. This involvement has to be brought about within the context of ICIPE's past experience of IPM technology development which has had three phases :(a) mission-oriented basic research at which technologies are developed by researchers at research stations; (b) on-farm researcher managed trials; and (c) on-farm farmer managed trials. In the ISERIPM project, each of these phases lasts one year. Phase I which was implemented during most of 1993 and which entailed minimal farmers' involvement has been completed. Phase II which was implemented provided more opportunity for farmers' involvement, and Phase III, which is being implemented in 1995 provides wider scope for their involvement. Among the key functions of the social scientists with respect to each phase is to promote farmers' participation, to generate information which can be applied in the technology evaluation process, and to evaluate the participatory approach of technology adaptation. It should be stressed, however, that although the focus of the paper is the participatory aspect, the interdisciplinary and collaborative dimensions will also be highly evident. FARMERS' PARTICIPATION IN THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE ISERIPM PROJECT Participation in Evaluation of IPM Technologies at On-Station Trials. On-station trials were carried out at six sites that were selected by ICIPE's crop pests and social science researchers in collaboration with KARl researchers. As indicated above the main IPM components which were being tested were: pest resistant cultivars of maize and sorghum; and cultural practices with emphasis on various forms of intercropping. In the first phase of implementation, farmers neither participated in the selection of the trial sites nor in deciding and carrying out activities such as planting and weeding. Their involvement was restricted to evaluation of some of the IPM components-cultivars and intercropping - that were being tested. The evaluation sessions were also aimed at creating awareness of the farmers about the project and its IPM components. Since project sites for on-farm trials had not yet been chosen, the evaluation was done by farmers from two areas which had potential for being selected as project sites, namely Lukore and Pingilikani Sub-locations in Kwale and Kilifi Districts, respectively. Farmers were mobilised following reconnaissance visits and meetings with the local leaders and residents of the sub-locations by the social science field team. At the meetings, they were briefed about the project and its objectives. On the basis of the preliminary baseline information that was gathered at these meetings, three villages of each of the sub-locations were chosen. This was followed by meetings with members of each of the chosen villages who were also briefed of the project and its objectives and the need for them to assist in evaluation of the trials. At each village meeting, members of the village were asked to select a few representatives that were to visit and evaluate the on-station trials. They were provided with criteria to help them in the selection of their representatives which included, those growing food crops, especially maize and cowpea, those who practised intercropping and those who had some familiarity with sorghum which was not widely grown in the villages. A total of 66 farmers were selected (32 from Lukore and 34 from Pingilikani). Each of the two groups visited the on-station trial sites twice. On the first occasion, they evaluated maize and sorghum cultivars, and on the second, intercropping practices. Highlights of the results of the evaluation were as follows: Three maize cultivars were most preferred by the farmers (those which had been entered in the trials as Nos. 106, 109 and 107). The reasons for their being preferred included, the large sizes of the cobs that were well filled, potential high yield, and good height of plants. Sorghum cultivars were hybrid and open-pollinated varieties, and in all, four were preferred by the farmers (those entered in the trials as Nos. I03, 110, 108 and 105). The reasons for the preferences included, the large sizes of the heads, potential high yield, healthy and strong stalks, grain size and colour, and good height of plants. Two-thirds of the farmers reported relay planting of cowpea more than six weeks after planting maize. This is contrary to ICIPE's on station trials where cowpea was planted simultaneously with maize so that stem borers can lay some of their eggs on cowpea rather than on maize plants alone, a fact which is expected to lower stem-borer damage of maize. Intercropping in strips of 3 lines of maize and 3 lines of cowpea was most protected by about 60% of the Lukore and 46% of the Mwarakaya farmers sampled (Chitere, P., ICIPE, unpubl.). The results of the evaluation of the farmers were then taken into account by the biological researchers in the selection of crop cultivars and the design of intercropping methods for the subsequent on-farm scientist managed phase. For example, out of 10 maize and 20 sorghum entries, 2 of the maize and 3 of the sorghum varieties which were entered in the scientist managed trials included those selected by the farmers. Participation in the Selection of ISERIPM Project Research Sites. Although Kwale and Kilifi Districts were selected as project areas, these two districts are very large and their agroecological conditions vary widely. Areas within the two districts whose conditions were suitable for growing food crops, such as maize, sorghum, and cowpea which are the focus of the project had to be identified. Logistically, the areas had to be easily accessible and small enough to facilitate intensive interaction between the project team, farmers and frontline extension agents. Following macro-level surveys GIS characterisation of the districts and reconnaissance visits to potential research areas, a village-level survey was carried out. The survey provided data on 24 villages in 6 sub-locations which formed the basis for the selection of the study villages. The members of villages interviewed as a group ranged between 5 and 7 in each village. The interviews were based on a questionnaire developed by the social scientists with the close consultation of the biological scientists. The interviewers included at least one social and one natural scientist who were accompanied by the frontline extension agents of the area. Village chairmen arranged meetings of their villagers with the research team. The team constituted itself into sub-teams which visited each of the villages on the appointed dates and times. The meeting between the leaders of each village and the research sub-team often started. with a word of prayer said by one of the villagers and was followed by a welcome address by the village chairman. The leader of the research sub-team then explained the purpose of their visit before starting the interview. At the end of the interview. The leaders were informed that should their village be selected on the basis of the information they had provided, a household-level survey would be conducted and hence their cooperation may again be needed in the process of the survey. In addition to the selection of the research sites, the village-level survey helped to accomplish the following: . The research team learned about the farming systems and constraints at the various sites and were able to assess their potential for inclusion m the project. More importantly, the crop pest researchers were able to learn from the leaders about the local farming systems in which IPM technologies which they have been developing are to be introduced. . Local leaders of the research sites as well as extension staff were made aware of the objectives and methods of the ISERIPM project; this helped to win their support and to lend legitimacy to the project. . The local leaders were informed about the household-level survey which was about to be launched, and their cooperation in informing villagers of their areas about the survey was sought. The village-level survey lasted four days. On the night of the final day, the research team held a meeting at which selected data that had been obtained from each village were critically examined with a view to selecting only a few villages from each sub-location. Criteria which guided selection of the villages covered a combination of biological, agronomic and socioeconomic factors. These included: (i) rainfall range; (ii) importance of maize production; (iii) production of other crops such as sorghum, cowpea and cassava; (iv) extent of stem borer problem; (v)'landholding system, availability of fairly flat area, and at least 2 hectares of land for experimental plot; (vi) practice of intercropping; and (vii) population density. Additional considerations were accessibility and distances between sites to be selected. Table I shows the sub-locations that were eventually selected based on the above criteria, namely Jego, Mrima, Pingilikani and Magogoni. The last column of the table lists the 8 villages that were selected, i.e., Tsuini, Mwalewa, Mamba, Makambani, Lutsangani, Pingilikani, Tandia and Silala. Participation in the Household-level Survey. Following the selection of the study villages, a household-level survey was undertaken. The main aim of the survey was to obtain information about the individual farm households relating to the factors considered in the village-level survey as well as more detailed socio-economic and agronomic data. The information generated was to be used as the basis for selecting participating farmers. In terms of awareness creation, the survey was to permit project staff to meet the farmers in their homesteads, inform them about the project and interview them at length about their experiences in farming and other aspects of their lives. The survey was based on a questionnaire which had been prepared by social scientists in consultation with the crop pest researchers. Lists of all heads of homesteads by gender of the selected villages had been prepared by their respective village chairmen and were used as sampling flames for the survey; Systematic random sampling was used in selecting households stratified by the gender of the homestead heads. A maximum number of 30 homesteads was selected; where the total number of homesteads was less than 30, all homesteads were included. The numbers of heads of homesteads, and those sampled and interviewed, are presented in Tables 2-4. Once the household-level survey was completed, certain types of information were extracted from the questionnaires and were used as criteria in the selection of farmers that are to participate in the project.. The criteria were grouped into two types: general criteria that applied to all of the respondents; and resource-endowment criteria (Table 3) which applied to those who were selected by the former criteria. On the basis of scores obtained by each of the farmers on these two sets of criteria, 89 farmers who met the criteria were selected by the research team to participate in the project. TABLE 1. ISERlPM's Project Sites
District Division Location Sub-location Village
Kwale Msambweni Lunga Lunga Jogo* Tsuini*
Malewa*
Jego
Dziriphe
Msambweni Kikoneni Mrima* Marnba*
Makambani*
Nguluku
Mrima TM
Matuga Tsimba Kundutsi Bilashaka
Ganze
Vuga
Patanani
Kilifi Bahari Mwarakaya Pingilikani* Lutsangani*
Pingilikani*
Mazuka
Kasidi
Kaloleni Kayafungo Murimani Mijo
Pongwe
Kavulani
Misikitini
Ganze Sokoke Magogoni* Kitangwani
Tandia*
Danicha
Silala*
* Sub-locations and villages that were selected.Participation in the Selection of ISERIPM Project's Trial Farmers. Once selection of the project farmers was completed by the project team, meetings were organised with farmers in the various villages. Again each meeting usually started by a prayer said by one of the villagers, followed by a welcome address to the research team by the village chairman or assistant chief, and by an explanation by the project team. The team thanked the villagers for having spared their time to participate in both the village- and household-level surveys and for having provided information which eventually led to the selection of some of them as project farmers. he field research team explained to the villagers about the procedure of the household-level survey and the farmer selection criteria and informed them about those that had been selected on the basis of these criteria. Since the research team had agreed that only one on-farm researcher managed trial plot was to be set up in each of the 8 villages, the villagers who artended the meeting were asked to select one of those from among them who had met the selection criteria. TABLE 2. Sampling of farmers for the Household-level Survey
Village Number of homesteads No. sampled
--------------------- ----------------------
Male- Female- Total Male- Female- Total
headed headed headed headed
--------------------------------------------------------
Tsuini 98 33 131 21 9 30
Mwalewa 84 19 103 26 4 30
Mamba 150 50 200 23 7 30
Makambani 90 11 101 26 4 30
Lutsangani 19 1 20 19 1 20
Pingilikani 53 6 61 28 2 30
Tandia 24 3 27 24 4 28
Silala 78 11 89 26 4 30
------------------------------------------------------
Total 596 134 732 193 35
228TABLE 3. Household heads falling in different wealth status categories TABLE 4. Proportion of heads of homesteads falling in different education, knowledge and adoption categories
Wealth Status Scores
Village High Medium Low Very low Total
(>12) (8-11) (4-7) (0-3)
-------------------------------------------
Tsuini 0 2 4 4 10
Mwalewa 1 8 5 4 18
Mamba 7 2 3 1 13
Makambani 3 1 4 0 8
Lutsangani 1 4 4 2 11
Pingilikani 0 1 8 2 11
Tandia 2 2 5 2 11
Silala 1 5 5 1 12
-------------------------------------------
Total 15 25 38 16 94
Percent 15.9 26.6 40.4 17.2 100
TABLE 4. Proportion of heads of homesteads falling in different education, knowledge and adoption categories
Village Education, Knowledge and Adoption Scores
High Medium Low Very low Total
>14 11-13 8-10 <7
--------------------------------------------------
Tsuini 0 6 3 1 10
Mwalewa 4 7 6 1 18
Mamba 3 3 6 1 13
Makambani 2 4 2 0 8
Lutsangani 1 5 5 0 11
Pingilikani 1 4 5 1 11
Tandia 3 4 3 1 11
Silala 2 3 7 0 12
--------------------------------------------------
Total 16 36 37 5 94
Percent 17.0 38.3 39.4 5.3 100
The trial was to be set up on the farm of this farmer who is here referred to as the trial farmer (TF). To facilitate selection of the TFs, the following additional criteria were proposed to the meeting and the reason for each of them was explained: . the farmer had to be fully occupied in this activity and had to be resident on the farm; . farmer had to be ready to set aside at least 1 hectare of his/her farm for the trial; . field where the trial was to be set had to be accessible; . farmer must be willing to learn from project staff and be able to spare time to attend training sessions organised by the project team; . farmer can be either male or female; . he/she can be relatively young, middle-aged or of an advanced age; and . able to get along with others, welcome them in his/her farm and share knowledge he/she has gained with them. In addition, farmers used their own criteria which included ethnicity or clan representation, the absence of land disputes and other considerations. Once the 8 TFs were identified, the remaining project farmers who were not to serve as trial farmers were designated as non-trial participating farmers (NTPFs). The numbers of TFs and NTPFs are shown in Table 5. Participation in the ISERIPM Project's on-farm Researcher Managed Trials. The 8 farmers chosen on whose farms the trials were to be set consisted of 6 men and 2 women (Table 6). They also included 2 farmers who were also primary school teachers, and 1 village chairman. In terms of resource endowment as measured by wealth status criteria, 25% were ranked high and 75% low or very low. On EKA criteria (education, knowledge and adoption), 50% were ranked medium and an equal proportion as low. During the scientist-managed on-farm trials, the participation of both TFs and NTPFs is to consist mainly in learning about the various IPM components and combinations and in providing their perceptions about the various components, e.g., cultivars and intercropping. The TFs are expected to participate more extensively so as to familiarise themselves with the entire trial process. In addition to providing their fields for the trials, some also assisted the project team in identifying sources of labour for land clearing, or ox-ploughs and tractors for ploughing the fields. TABLE 5. Number of Trial and Non- Trial Participating Farmers selected in various villages based on wealth status and EKA Factors
Village No. of NTPFs No. of TFs Total -------------------------------------------- Tsuini 9 1 10 Mwalewa 17 1 18 Mamba 9 1 10 Makambani 6 1 7 Lutsangani 10 1 10 Pingilikani 10 1 11 Tandia 9 1 10 Silala 11 1 12 Total 81 8 89 TABLE 6. Personal characteristics of the trial farmers (TFs)
Village Characteristics
-----------------------------------------
Age Gender Wealth Education
status knowledge, and
adoption
------------------------------------------------------
Tsuini 59 male Very low Medium
Mwalewa 35 male High Medium
Mamba 35 male High Medium
Makambani 54 female Low Low
Pingilikani 39 female Low Low
Lutsangani 45 male Low Medium
Tandia 70 male Very low Low
Silala 51 male Low LowA number of research- cum-educational sessions were held while the on-farm trials were in progress: . A one-day workshop was held and attended by 87.5% of the TFs in which their role in the trials was discussed with the biologists and social scientists, and their views about their involvement in the trials were sought. Five frontline extension agents from the project areas also attended the workshop. . Another workshop lasting one day was held and artended by 5 frontline, 4 divisional and an equal number of district-level MALDM's extension staff. The workshop familiarised the participants with the project, its objectives and imparted knowledge to them about IPM and its various components. . Eight meetings (2 per sub-location) were held at the trial sites during which project as well as some non-project farmers evaluated intercropping practices and crop cultivars. Frontline extension agents artended the meetings as observers. The meetings were arranged in such a way that the farmers were on each occasion: (i) briefed about the project and its objectives; (ii) shown the IPM component they were to evaluate; (iii) actual evaluation done by the farmers responding to focused questionnaires; and (iv) a discussion and questions session held in which farmers asked questions which were answered both by the project team and in a few instances by frontline agents. . Following project farmers' demand for being exposed to improved methods of farming, a one day education tour was organised with the help of two MALDM's Kilifi District office staff. Fifteen farmers (11 project- and 4 non project) who were chosen by members of their villages participated in the tour. They visited one ISERIPM trial site, ICIPE's other research activities at the Kenya Coast and a MALDM tree nursery site in Kilifi District. . Two one-day farmers' training workshops, one for farmers from Kwale and the other for those from Kilifi District were held at which IPM components and the design of the trials for the on farm farmer managed phase were discussed. The workshops were artended by 82 project- and 2 non-project farmers and by observers who included 6 frontline agents and 4 divisional and district level officers of the MALDM and KARI representatives. The training was based on a 'farmers' manual' which had been developed and which emphasised the IPM components and socio-economic considerations for adoption of IPM technologies during on-farm farmer managed trials. The manual has both English and Kiswahili sections. The last workshop was designed to prepare the farmers for on-farm farmer managed trials during Phase III of the project when all of the TFs and NTPFs farmers were expected to participate equally. These interactions with both the farmers and MALDM's extension agents have again resulted in a number of substantive findings relating to the technology trials: . Simultaneous intercropping of maize or sorghum with cowpea as an IPM component is new to the farmers, the majority of whom plant cowpea some six weeks after planting maize so as to minimise insect pest damage. The farmers were made to understand that when protected by pesticides, the early planted cowpea performs well. This approach would permit the harvest of two crops of cowpea during the long rains instead of one. However, since a majority of the farmers cannot afford chemicals, other intercrops such as greengrams, pigeonpeas and cassava (Manihot esculenta) which are not severely damaged by insect pests might be alternatives to cowpea. Application of neem seed preparation instead of chemicals was also recommended. . Intercropping in strips of 4 rows of maize x 3 rows of cassava x 2 rows of cowpea was appreciated by most farmers owing to advantages such as ease of weeding and harvesting (which allows planting up to three crops of cowpea in a year). . Sorghum is not widely grown by the farmers and although its performance was appreciated by most of them, they need to be helped to prepare it in various forms for consumption and in ways of storing it that minimise damage, especially by weevils. . Although adoption and adjustment of IPM technology by the farmers was scheduled to take place during Phase III of the project in 1995, a few farmers had by then already adopted the strip pattern of intercropping during the short rains of 1994. These substantive findings are expected to form the basis for further adjustments of the IPM technologies being evaluated. It is important to stress that they constitute the direct outcomes of farmer participation in the research process. CONCLUSIONS AND LESSONS One of the main challenges of the ISERIPM project was to demonstrate how farmers' participation in adaptation of IPM technology could be elicited and maintained. The project has three phases of on-station, on-farm researcher and on-farm farmer-managed trials; each phase lasts a year. The discussion in this paper is focussed on the experiences in working with farmers during the already completed first two phases of on- station and on-farm researcher managed trials and in part on the on-farm farmer-managed trials conducted in 1995. The lessons learnt during this work with farmers are highlighted in the following paragraphs. Level of participation. During on-station trials, farmers' awareness of the trials was created and they participated in the evaluation of the IPM components at the trials. Their perceptions of the IPM components helped the crop pest researchers in selection of components for entering in the on- Farm Researcher managed trials. During this second phase which has been completed the project team has, among other things, involved farmers in (i) the village-and household-level surveys; (ii) selection of a few of them to host the trials (i.e., trial farmers); and (iii) imparted know-how to them about IPM components. Thus the level of participation was much less during the first phase of on-station trials but increased considerably during the second phase of on-farm scientist managed trials. In the last phase, the farmers themselves effectively took charge of the on-farm trials. Hence, the intensity of farmer participation in the ISERIPM project might be characterised as progressively increasing from a contractual to a collegiate type. However, the level of participation also depended on the specific research requirements. Thus, farmers participated in the village- and household-level surveys by providing information necessary for selection of project sites and the participants in the project. A similar consultative approach was also used in soliciting of farmers' perceptions about various IPM components and using the perceptions in selection of technologies to be entered in the trials in the next phases. Meetings held by the research team in the project villages at which the farmers selected those among them to host the trials, i.e., trial farmers, can be seen as collaborative. A contractual approach was used in reaching an understanding with the trial farmers about their role in the on-farm researcher-managed trials, i.e., they provided land and the research team designed and met the costs of the trials. Over and above these approaches, the intensive interactions between the project team and the farmers both individually and collectively during visits to their homes, village meetings and educational sessions encompass aspects of the collegiate approach. This is also partly evidenced by a few of the farmers who have taken a leading role in passing on information to others including explaining to them about the IPM components and their benefits. In the last phase of the trials, it is expected that many farmers will make modifications of the technology components on their own. Where this happens, the mode of participation would tend to resemble the farmer-first-and-last approach. Phases of IPM technology adaptive research. The project has emphasised awareness creation and imparting of know-how during its first two years of implementation. However, it has been observed that the period of waiting when adoption can begin might be shorter. Hence, the progressive approach of technology evaluation need not rigidly adhere to the three stages as originally conceived. Farmers might be in a position to observe and begin to experiment with technological components of their choice from the beginning of the adaptive process. The role of the community in sustaining participation. The participatory approach used is also community-based and this has made it possible to work with farmers both as individuals and as members of a village. Ideas obtained from educational sessions can be shared between members of a project village. When seeking farmers' cooperation, they normally give their commitments in a village meeting and often, owing to group pressure, they fulfil the commitments. Moreover, where members of some of the project villages are organised and have a village committee it was much easier to pass information to them and they have also taken initiative in holding meetings for discussion of project and other matters. They have even demanded that the project team actively involve them in on-farm trial operations like planting and thinning of crops. Potential for diffusion of IPM technologies. A few of the non-participating farmers have also continuously attended project meetings and other educational sessions. This indicates the degree of interest aroused in the community in the project activities. Interest in the project is also stimulated by the fact that a village being geographically small in size (i.e., about 2 sq. km) there is usually a high level of interaction between its members. During the third phase of the project educational sessions such as field days are expected to be held for all project- and neighbouring non- project villages. This is expected to increase the likelihood of diffusion of IPM technologies both within the project- and non-project villages. To facilitate widespread adoption of the IPM technologies that are found adapted to Kenyan coastal conditions, the MALDM's frontline and supervisory staff have been actively involved in all meetings the project team has held with farmers. They have also been trained about the various IPM technology components and options. Additional lessons are expected to emerge during the project's third phase of on-farm farmer managed trials conducted in 1995. More will also be learnt in the subsequent two to three years when the sustainability and diffusion of some of the IPM technologies will be monitored by the research team. There is, therefore, great anticipation that the ISERIPM project will throw much more light on the value of community participation in adaptive research of farm technologies. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT We gratefully acknowledge the collaboration and assistance of scientists of the Crop Pests Research Programme and the Social Science Research Unit. REFERENCES Biggs, S.D.1987. Proposed methodology for analysing farmer participation in the ISNNAR OFCOR Study. Agricultural Administration (Research and Extension) Network, Newsletter No. 17, ODI, London. pp. 1-8. Farrington, J. and Martin, A. 1990. Farmer Participation in Agricultural Research: A Review of Concepts and Practices. Agricultural Admimstradon Unit, Occasional Paper 9, Overseas Development Institute, London, pp. 1 O- 13. Rolin, N. 1983. Agricultural knowledge: Its development, transformation and utilisation. Paper for third expert working group on information consolidation, Kuala Lampar, Malaysia, 12-16 September 1983. UNESCO, pp. 2-3. Stinson, A. 1979. Action research for community action. In: Community Development. Chekky, D.A. (Ed.), pp. 137-138. Vikas Publishing House, PVT, New Delhi. Volken, H., Kumar, A. and Kaithathara, R. 1985. Learning from the Rural Poor Indian Social Institute, New Delhi, p. 10. Copyright 1996 The African Crop Science Society
|
| |||||||||
