3.8 Learning needs of smallholder farmers
3.8.2 Farmer learning approaches
Globally, farmer learning approaches have a long history. The approaches in agriculture research, development and extension are in four broad categories. These approaches are embedded in the politics of knowledge and also reveal their assumptions about farmers (Mukute, 2010a). In this thesis, the following approaches are considered: Transfer of Technology, Farming systems research, Train and Visit Approach and Farmer first participatory research and People Centred Learning and Innovation (Mukute, 2010a; Scoones, Thompson, & Chambers, 2009;
Whiteside, 1998).
3.8.2.1 Transfer of Technology
The transfer of technology model approach has a long history. It emerged and grew in popularity in the 1950s. Transfer of technology is a result of modernisation theory of development which was predominantly top-down (Babikwa, 2003). Scientists are considered by this model to be the
‘knowers’, who ought to deposit scientific knowledge in farmers, using the banking concept in
75
Paulo Freire’s terminology (Freire, 1970). The transfer of technology approach assumes that for farmers to develop they must do away with their traditional ways of knowing, and adopt the scientific and modern. Agricultural extension practitioners play a central role in technology transfer to convince farmers to adopt new agricultural technologies.
Agricultural extension model is synonymous with transfer of technology. According to Hanyani- Mlambo (2000), in Zimbabwe, agricultural extension can be traced back to 1927 when it was introduced among Black farmers by Emory D. Alvord. It was in the context of a dualised (separate extension system for Blacks and Whites) agricultural training system (Hanyani- Mlambo, 2000; Mukembo & Edwards, 2015). Alvord was a champion of agricultural extension services in Zimbabwe and his work was recognised by naming an agricultural training centre near Masvingo City after him. The aim of agricultural extension was to enhance food security to meet the growing demand. Alvord employed the Master Farmer scheme which sought to provide extension services that led to increased productivity (Pazvakavambwa & Hakutangwi, 2006).
Extension services before independence faced challenges of inter- institutional rivalry since funding was not uniform between the providers of extension services (Pazvakavambwa &
Hakutangwi, 2006).
Upon attaining independence, the separate extension systems were merged to form the department of Agricultural, Technical and Extension Services (AGRITEX). According to Mukembo and Edwards (2015), the AGRITEX department has been helpful to smallholder farmers in adopting new farming practices, for example, conservation tillage introduced in 1988 as an adaptation strategy in light of climate change.
Agricultural extension has also been popular in Uganda. During the colonial period, extension services were offered by Chiefs, with the assistance of a few trained agriculture personnel (Bukenya, 2010). Government agricultural extension services were offered through District Farm Institutes between 1957 and 1962 under the Ministry of Agriculture (Busingye, 2011). These institutes were mandated to conduct short courses for the Chiefs and other progressive small- scale farmers. The activities of District Farm Institutes were also complemented by Rural Training Centres which also offered community based extension services. The training centres
76
became demonstration centres for new methods and technologies in agriculture (Busingye, 2011). There was a belief that agricultural knowledge and skills would trickle down from the few trained personnel to the rest of the farmers, consistent with the assumptions of the modernisation theory. In post-independence Uganda, the national government took over extension work with the assistance of USAID, which emphasised market driven extension (Bukenya, 2010; Busingye, 2011). The introduction of market driven extension was, however, unsuccessful because extension in Uganda continued to emphasise diffusion of new technologies.
However, despite the noted successes, technology transfer has been criticised for failing to respect communities’ indigenous knowledge systems. This has been one of its greatest undoing.
According to Mvumi, Morris, Stathers, and Riwa (2009) technology transfer has failed in Tanzania and Zimbabwe, especially within smallholder farming systems. This is because it placed emphasis on technology development instead of focusing on doing things differently in order to overcome institutional constraints. Chambers and Jiggins (1987) note that technology transfer has often failed smallholder farmers who are resource constrained mainly because its strategies are often capital intensive, high input and market oriented and the technologies suggested are usually inappropriate for these settings.
Another challenge with the Transfer of Technology approach is related to its collaboration with commercial farmers as well as with out-grower schemes. This is a cause of bias towards farmers in these categories at the expense of smallholder farmers who may not be part of these. In Zimbabwe, for example, demonstration plots are owned by seed supplying companies and this has led to demonstrations of high input techniques at the expense of low input alternatives within the reach of smallholder farmers (Whiteside, 1998).
3.8.2.2 Farming systems research
Farming systems research emerged in the 1970s out of systems thinking. In this approach, relationships between parts are critical (Wilson & Mukute, 2006). Within the farming systems research, farmers became objects of study and sources of information. This was an attempt to deal with weaknesses of the Transfer of Technology approach. According to Chambers and
77
Jiggins (1987) Farming systems research approach sought to understand systematically complexities of farming systems focusing on farm households and their needs- both economic and human dimensions.
Farming systems research employed the survey methods following steps of diagnosis of the problem through understanding the local context in which farmers operated in. Wilson and Mukute (2006) argue that the approach noted the importance of local realities and connections between social and ecological tools as well as appreciation of farmer abilities and the complexity of small-scale farming systems. From the above, it appears the approach was well intended.
However, Chambers and Jiggins (1987) further note that farming systems research is another top-down approach where university trained scientists believe that their knowledge is superior to that of farmers and hence they determine what agriculture research should be done in what manner. The weaknesses of the farmer systems research pointed to the need for a more inclusive approach that places at the centre interactions between scientists and farmers – hence the Train and Visit Approach (Mukute, 2010b).
3.8.2.3 Train and Visit Approach
The Train and Visit Approach was promoted by the World Bank and was applied in over 70 countries between 1975 and 1995. In this approach specialists and field staff provide technical information and conduct village visits to selected communities. The Train and Visit Approach was highly decentralised and offered intensive training and follow-ups by extension workers.
However, Mukute (2010a) notes that the Train and Visit Approach was based on similar assumptions to those of the Transfer of Technology Approach. In Zimbabwe, the Train and Visit Approach was piloted in the Midlands Province, however, with limited success. According to Pazvakavambwa and Hakutangwi (2006) the main challenge faced by the Train and Visit Approach was its lack of flexibility to the needs of smallholder farmers.
Another challenge of this approach is that it is gendered. Studies on agriculture and gender in Zimbabwe have revealed that generally women farmers face discrimination from extension workers. Extension workers do not prioritise visiting female farmers due to perceptions that
78
women are not serious as farmers (Chingarande, 2008; Hanyani-Mlambo, 2000; Kaziboni, 2018). Because of the prevailing gender stereotypes typical of patriarchal societies such as in Zimbabwe, the Train and Visit Approach predominantly favours male farmers. Farming is considered a ‘male’ terrain. As such in most cases the selection of demonstration farms is biased in favour of already progressive farmers who are predominantly male. The biases identified by Robert Chambers can easily be applied to the context of agriculture. Most extension officers and fieldwork researchers are men who easily establish contact with male farmers at the expense of female farmers (Chambers, 1980).
3.8.2.4 Farmer First Approach
From 1990 onwards, research on extension focused on collaborative learning. According to Chambers (1994) farmers were considered to be colleagues and learning about agriculture must be farm based, leading to joint production of knowledge. This contributes more to sustainable agricultural practices. Farmer First approaches are anchored in a set of assumptions about farmers. Whiteside (1998, p. 20) identifies some of the following assumptions:
Farmers and farming communities are knowledgeable about local conditions;
Indigenous Technical knowledge can be used with more recent forms of knowledge from other sources;
The participation of farmers in identifying and overcoming their problems is essential.
NGOs and even governments have adopted different versions of participatory techniques and these have been given various names though the central principles are the same. Participatory techniques are borrowed from other philosophers such as Paulo Freire who was disturbed by the
‘‘Banking concept” of education which he considered as dehumanising and a form of violence against learners (Freire, 1999). This approach has no place near adult education, for example, agricultural extension. Another important contributor to Farmer First Approaches is Participatory Rural Appraisal (Mukute, 2010a). When used well Participatory Rural Appraisal is not only cost effective but also works as an empowering tool especially among the ‘illiterate’ farmers who are in most cases women (Chambers, 1994). There are a number of variants of Farmer First Approaches such as Participatory Agricultural Learning, Participatory Technology Development,
79
and Farmer Field Schools. Another more recent approach is People Centred Learning and Innovation (Mukute, 2010a).
3.8.2.5 People Centred Learning and Innovation
People Centred Learning and Innovation, emphasises the importance of putting farmers at the centre of identifying research needs and co-developing knowledge and technologies to address them (Mukute, 2010a; Mukute & Lotz-Sisitka, 2012). A people-centred strategy is more appropriate to cope with a diversity of issues in both agro-ecological and socio-economic terms, because it leads to an understanding that agricultural practices are intrinsically linked to local customs and culture (Stoop & Hart, 2005). Mukute (2010a) cites key features of the people centred learning and innovation which include that, it is a collective approach to learning and innovation as well as that it has an explicit interest in engaging policy and structures that have a bearing on knowledge generation. Mukute further notes that, the people centred learning and innovation approach is critical in learning for sustainable agriculture in that it draws on various knowledge sources.