Does farmer participatory research matter for improved soil fertility technology development and dissemination in Southern Africa?

Abstract

Crop management research is increasingly involving farmers in evaluating new technologies, identifying adoption constraints and opportunities for improving farm performance to produce more sustainable impact. ICRISAT and its partners worked with farmers in Malawi and Zimbabwe during the 1999/2000 and 2000/2001 seasons to evaluate a range of 'best bet' soil fertility and water management technologies and evaluate the impact of farmer participatory research. Although there was some variation in methods implemented at different sites, the study found that there is a basis for a comparison of methods. Community entry and participatory approaches that engage farmers in decision making throughout the research-development-diffusion-innovation process have higher setup costs compared to traditional 'top-down' approaches. But they improve efficiency, both in technology development and in building farmers' capacity for experimentation and collective learning. This results in the development of more relevant technologies, joint learning among farmers, researchers and extensionists and better impact. To make farmer participatory research projects more sustainable and introduce them on a wide scale, the study recommends that public and NGO investments be targeted to building district and village-level innovation clusters.

An evaluation of the use of participatory processes in wide-scale dissemination of research in micro dosing and conservation agriculture in Zimbabwe

“…This distribution was accompanied by a series of simple, paired-plot, participatory evaluation trials (PETs) with or without fertilizer, hosted by farmers selected by the community. The PETs differed from the traditional demonstration plots which are planned and managed by extension staff and only required farmers to simply observe and learn (Rusike et al, 2006). Initial results, based on 1,200 farmer-managed paired plots (Twomlow et al, 2008b) and subsequent survey work (Rohrbach et al, 2005) showed that MD (17 kg nitrogen ha −1 ) increased grain yields by 30-50% across a broad spectrum of soil, farmer management and seasonal climate conditions.…”

“…The program has also evaluated various FPR approaches (Freeman, 2001;Rusike et al, 2006) including: the traditional on-farm research/extension and demonstration approaches as well as researcherled approaches with farmer involvement. Table 1 summarizes the various research and extension approaches that have been developed, promoted, and evaluated in Zimbabwe since the 1980s.…”

“…There is no one simple answer to the question of why many African farmers do not adopt or adapt seemingly superior technologies that are already available from the research pipelines. Economic factors including high labor and financial costs, lack of credit, low levels of information and skills, lumpiness (non-divisibility), technologies that are too generic and fail to fit in local circumstances, low output/input price ratios, learning effects, geographical proximity and the household characteristics of farmers are all related to the dynamics of technology adoption (Von Braun et al, 2008;Kiers et al, 2008;Rusike et al, 2006). However, since finding solutions to such impediments as rudimentary infrastructure, missing credit markets and weak input markets may take time, it is crucial that, in the short term, low-cost development interventions that can increase household food production be found and promoted successfully.…”

“…It has become apparent that there is a greater need to consult with farmers not only about the questions that they wish resolved (Ashby, 1990;Campbell and Sayer, 2003), but also on the manner in which the issues preventing access to various solutions, including technologies, could be resolved (Ashby and Sperling, 1995;Röling and Wagemakers, 1998;Rusike et al, 2006;Twomlow et al, 2008a). The process must be farmer-centred, fully involving the intended beneficiaries from the early stages of problem identification through to technology development and adaptation (Pretty and Hine, 2001;Rusike et al, 2006;Ncube et al, 2007;Twomlow et al, 2008b).…”

“…The process must be farmer-centred, fully involving the intended beneficiaries from the early stages of problem identification through to technology development and adaptation (Pretty and Hine, 2001;Rusike et al, 2006;Ncube et al, 2007;Twomlow et al, 2008b).…”