AND SURVEY PROCEDURES FOLLOWED TO
CHAPTER 7: IMPACT EVALUATION OF THE ON-FARM RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY DISSEMINATION PROGRAMME
2.6 Community meetings to introduce small-scale farmers to the on-farm research approach
emulate the yields obtained by the commercial farmers.
Observations made during the first visit showed that agriculture in the community was in a poor state. It was also noticed that no cropping activities were taking place in the large communal fields. The crops were produced only in small gardens adjacent to homesteads.
Fences were not in place to protect communal fields from livestock damage. During the visit, animals were present in the fields, which were lying fallow. Itappeared that, for several years, no maize had been planted in the area earmarked for crop production, apparently due to theft of fencing and the presence of stray animals. The quality and quantity of the vegetables, seen during the visit to the Community Garden, reflected poor management practices. The Agricultural Development Technician mentioned the following constraints in terms of agricultural activities:
a) theft offences,
b) stray livestock, which prevented cropping of the communal fields, c) lack of credit facilities,
d) incorrect use of land.
The Thandanani Craft Centre, situated next to the main tarred road which leads to popular tourist attractions, sold crafts to tourists and visitors to the area. LIMA was mentioned as the only Non-Governmental Organization (NGO) involved in the community.
2.6 Community meetings to introduce small-scale farmers to the on-farm research
b) to inform the community about the on-farm,client-orientated research approach, c) to allow participation at the meeting from the community members, to provide
information on agricultural activities in the area and to mention constraints they are expenencmg,
d) to identify volunteers to be interviewed individually at their homesteads,
e) to obtain approval from the community for FSRS staff to address agricultural constraints, using the on-farm research approach.
2.7 Progress and information gained at community meetings
2.7.1 Discussion points for community meeting
At the outset of this and later meetings it was emphasized that agriculture is the core business of the Department and that it is important for the people to realize that (i) the General Community Meeting is not a "handout" meeting(e.g. handing out of money or inputs such as fertilizer or seed) and (ii) the FSRS are not donors or funders. The on-farm research approach (as summarized in Table 2.1) was explained, using the following discussion points:
a) FSRS staff is from the KwaZulu-Natal Department of Agriculture. The Section is in the Directorate: Technology Development and Training, based at Cedara, close to Pietennaritzburg
b) FSRS and Extension staff want to learn from, and assist, fanners to overcome their constraints and to improve their efficiency
c) the meaning and objectives of "on-farm research"
d) for the on-farm research approach to work, researchers, fanners and Extension staff need to co-operate and work together as a team - to be called the FSR team e) the FSR team does not have answers to all the constraints and problems identified,
but working together with the fanners as a team it will try to assist as much as possible
f) before on-farm research can be conducted,it is important to
1. learn from the farmers, who have a vast amount of knowledge and experience
11. find out what is happening in the community in terms of activities such as associations and interest groups
111. develop an understanding of the existing farming systems, including the production practices in the community, and the nature of the fanning
households and the environment in which they operate g) the sharing of knowledge and experience and new ideas
h) a survey would have to be conducted to gather information and to identify constraints experienced by farmers
i) volunteers to be interviewed need to be identified
j) results of survey findings will be utilized to benefit the community
1. agricultural issues will be addressed through research or extension
11. non-agricultural problems will be taken to the people who can help to solve/address them
k) survey results and findings will be presented at feedback meetings in order to plan future actions
1) if required, more surveys will haveto be conducted to gain additional information on certain specific constraints or production practices
m) farmer participants are required to enable the FSR team to conduct on-farm research and must be identified
n) the FSR team to design and conduct the on-farm research by
1. ranking identified constraints in order of importance
11. identifying possible solutions or actions
111. planning the on-farm research,together with farmers
IV. identifying sites for the on-farm research activities
0) Farmers' days and field days will be organised. All the people in the community must be given the opportunity to learn and benefit from the approach followed at Obonjaneni.
2.7.2 Attendance and outcomes of meetings
The first general community meeting was held on 12 November 1997. As a result of the relatively poor attendance, two further meetings, each with an agenda similar to that of the November 1997 meeting, were held, one in December 1997 and another in February 1998.
Attendance lists were not kept at the meetings, but new people were present at each of the meetings. In total, approximately 60 people attended the three meetings. Chairmanship of the meetings was shared between FSRS and Extension staff, and agendas were decided upon at the meetings and translations from English to Zulu and Zulu to English carried out by FSRS and Extension staff.
2.7.2.1 First meeting
The first community meeting on 12 November 1997 took place at the Thandanani Craft Centre and was attended by 32 people.
There was an initial reluctance on the part of the community members to ask questions and to participate in the meeting. Extension staff commented that farmers believe that they should listen and absorb knowledge rather than contribute to the meeting. Only after the Head of Extension re-emphasized that the meeting is a two-way process, did farmers start to participate in the meetings. This behaviour confirmed findings elsewhere. In southern Ethiopia it was found that farmers were sceptical during the initial stage of a meeting where the objectives were to discuss a farmer-participatory research programme (Tesfaye et al., 1998). However, after long discussions, the Ethiopian farmers became convinced and expressed their interest and willingness to participate in the implementation of the project. In farming systems approach work in Botswana, resource-poor farmers were immediately eager and willing to take an active part in the agricultural process (Wormanet al., 1990).
It was felt by FSRS and Extension staff that the attendance was poor and that a second meeting needed to be organised. The date, time and venue for the second meeting were decided in conjunction with the community.
2.7.2.2 Second meeting
The second meeting took place on 10 December 1997, during the summer holidays.
Notification of the second meeting was made the responsibility of the Extension staff, the community members who had attended the first meeting and the chairman of the Amazizi Maize Association. Attendance was poorer than at the first meeting, with only six farmers present at the start of the meeting. The chairman of the local Maize Association expressed his disappointment at the poor turnout. Reasons given at the meeting for the poor attendance were that the notifications were received late (poor communication) and that the meeting was held during the December holidays.
2. 7.2.3Third meeting and selection ofpeople for interviews
As a result of the poor attendance at the first two meetings, the following actions were taken:
a) notices and posters (A3 size) were made with the following information: the logo of the Department, an open invitation to attend a community meeting, the date and
objectives of the meeting, time and venue. FSRS staff prepared the notices and posters. (A comment had been made by community members to FSRS staff that people will not attend a meeting
if
they do not know the purpose ofthe meeting);b) notices and posters were delivered to the District Extension office for distribution and placement of posters (Thandanani Craft Centre, local shops);
c) children from the Secondary School were used to deliver notices to their homes.
Approximately 20 community members attended the third meeting on Wednesday, 11 February 1998, in the Obonjaneni Methodist Church. One of the objectives of these meetings was to select a sample of people to be interviewed for the collection of primary information.
FSR and Extension staff concluded that people attending the meetings were the ones with an interest in agriculture and it was necessary to continue the process, even though they were few in number. Feedback meetings, as planned and indicated in Table 2.1, would therefore play an important role in evaluating the survey results obtained from such a small sample.
At the conclusion of the third meeting, 20 community members volunteered to be interviewed for the diagnostic phase of the approach. The small number of people at the meeting left no room for participants in the survey to be selected according to the principle of statistical randomness, but by the principle of convenience (Van Vuuren & Maree, 1999). It is also important to note that at the time of the meetings, information regarding the status, level of power, knowledge and access to resources of participants was unknown. Background information of people was unavailable to the FSR team. Of importance, however, was that they showed an interest in the meeting by attending it. According to Van Vuuren & Maree (1999), the non-randomness of a sample has two negative implications. Firstly, statistical theories of probability do not apply to non-random samples, making it impossible to know the degree of accuracy with which properties of the sample can be used to describe properties of the population. Secondly, since the researcher plays an active role in deciding who should and should not be in the sample, bias can easily be introduced. The sample, however, would provide researchers with a feeling about the population, which is, at times, sufficient justification for using the method of non-random selection (Shaneret al., 1982).
2.7.3 Information collected at meetings
The information gathered at the meeting was part of the process of obtaining an insight into the small-scale farming community and to provide background information necessary for the
diagnostic survey. People at the meetings mentioned that farmers in Obonjaneni were labeled as "bad farmers", compared to those of the neighbouring communities, and that the community needed help and assistance from the Department of Agriculture.
2.7.3.1 Constraints raisedby farmers at meetings a) Crop production
1. Information was needed on:
• fertilizer and liming practices,
• which dry bean and cowpea cultivars were available,
• soil preparation on different soil types.
11. Stray livestock had resulted in the termination of crop production activities in the communal fields (there was a total lack of fences around the communal cropping fields).
111. Storage of grain crops posed a problem due to a decline in quality during storage.
b) Livestock
1. Stray livestock was a problem due to a general lack of discipline in the community.
11. Livestock was supposed to graze in the mountain areas for the summer months to enable people to plant crops in the communal fields.
However, people who did not use the cropping land disobeyed this rule.
Initially, herders were employed by the Inkosi to control the movement of cattle. In the early 1990s control on the movement of animals was rejected by the community (no reasons were given). At the time of the meetings there was no herding or control over the movement of cattle.
Approximately 50% of the community members had cattle, but the problem lay with the minority, who had cattle but did not plant crops.
There was no system in place to charge livestock owners for damages.
111. Theft of livestock was a major problem. For this reason livestock owners were unwilling to allow their cattle to graze on the mountain.
Strategies had been designed by the community to combat stock theft.
Four men were put in the mountains at night, for two weeks at a time, to guard the cattle. Money was, however, needed from the community members to pay them. People were sceptical of this arrangement and it
was stopped.
c) Vegetable production
I. The community vegetable garden could not be irrigated due to a broken
d)
2.8 a)
b)
pump.
11. The vegetable garden was not properly fenced.
111. Members of the garden lack knowledge on the choice of vegetable crops to be grown in the area.
IV. Members need guidance and knowledge on the correct use of herbicides.
Socio-economic aspects
I. After the completion of the Woodstock dam in the area during 1981, some of the households were moved to their present location. (This dam forms part of the Drakensberg Pumped Storage Scheme situated in the Northern Drakensberg).
11. People had left the community for a better living elsewhere.
111. There was a lack of co-operation and motivation in the community.
IV. The theft problem, in particular theft of livestock,resulted in a spirit of de-motivation in the community.
v. Poor communication seemed to be a problem when events were organised.
VI. Members of the community described agriculture as "dead and not sick" in their area and thanked the Department for offering assistance with on-farm research.
Conclusions
The selection of the Obonjaneni target area by the Regional Technical Working Group was based on the fact that agriculture was in a poor state and that very few agricultural activities were taking place in the community. Although the selection of Obonjaneni as target the study area can be deemed successful, there is a need to use more encompassing, critical criteria for the selection of target areas in future.
These are presented under 2.9.
The poor initial contact with leader farmers, led to communication problems
c)
d)
2.9 a)
which resulted in the need for three community meetings to be arranged in an attempt to explain the on-farm research approach and intended programme to the people of Obonjaneni.
The poor attendance of community meetings prevented the selection of a truly representative sample of community members for the diagnostic survey and it also caused a delay in the programme of a few months. However, the willingness of the FSRS staff to return to the community for three community meetings perhaps demonstrated to people in the community, and to the Extension staff, the commitment and seriousness of the FSRS staff about getting involved in an on- farm research programme.
The lack of basic information on the target community (such as the number of homesteads and small-scale farmers, the availability of resources, area available for agriculture and the number of livestock) hampered the efforts to gain an initial understanding of the community. It was also not known whether this target area was mainly a residential area or a small-scale farming community. This kind of information ideally needs to be available when a research team moves into an area or community to conduct an on-farm research programme. Extension staff can assist in providing this kind information and, by doing so, will contribute to the speedy commencement of a programme.
Recommendations
Based on this part of the study I recommend that the criteria for the selection of a target community at Regional Technical Working Group or District level in KwaZulu-Natal for on-farm research should include some or all of the following:
1. Agricultural potential
• the area must have the potential for agriculture generally
practiced in the area;
• the area must be representative of a large agro-climatic zone, so that the research results can have widespread applicability;
• the area should have a critical agricultural problem which limits production resulting in poverty and hunger;
• the area should have the potential for better use of its resources.
A target area could be selected on the basis of specific physical limitations,or problems such as erodible slopes, flooding, soil acidity, inadequate grazing,or animal disease.
11. Socio-cultural aspects
• the area should have a strong leadership structure (Inkosi, Indunas and Councillors). Political stability and the safety of researchers are essential;
• for an agricultural appraisal, the area should be predominantly agriculturaland not residential;
• the potential of the area should not only be evaluated in terms of natural resources, but also in terms of the human potential, e.g. willingness of farmers to participate;
• availability of markets and infrastructure could contribute to the potential to raise the income of farmers from agriculture.
111. General aspects
• involvement is likely to be for at least five years and the local and relevant Extension staff should be committed for the total period;
• distance between research stations and the target area: if the area is close to a research station, FSRS staff can get more co- operation from research station staff;
• easy access to all parts of the on-farm research area enhances co-operation and support among the researchers, Extension staff and farmers;
• if needed, the area should be scaled down to a sub-ward, according to criteria such as the accessibility, uniformity, size of the ward, number of people that will benefit, constraints and/or potential of area, secondary information available and farmers' willingness to participate in the approach.
b) Leaders andleader farmers in the community need to be approached by Extension staff and should be involved in the programme from the start. Extension staff need
to playa significant role in achieving farmer participation.
c) Meetings should be planned together with farmers and extension staff and adequately publicised, by using the following communication methods (as suggested by the community):
1. the Inkosi should assist in calling meetings;
11. an elected publicity officer could play an important role;
111. the Induna(s) should be used to disperse the message;
IV. the principal of the local secondary school should be approached, with a view to the children delivering notices of meetings or events, to households;
v. the message should be distributed through associations and local structures (such as the Development Committee and churches);
VI. pamphlets should be distributed in the community;
V11. a loudspeaker on a vehicle could be used to announce and to advertise meetings (extension officers should use loudspeakers on their vehicles and a reminder could be given over the loudspeaker on the morning of the meeting);
V111. the use of Ukhosi FM (Zulu Radio station) was suggested (it was the opinion of the research staff that the radio would broadcast FSR messages to other non-target areas and use up much airtime inefficiently;farmers,however, favoured the use of radio);
IX. Saturday meetings had been suggested as a means of involving people who were away, working during the week. However, the meeting of farmers, FSRS and Extension staff decided against Saturday meetings and felt that the focus group should be the people actively involved in agriculture during the week. Community members commented that even during the week a good turnout at the meetings was possible.