8. Thesis structure
2.1 Introduction
Bean research in Malawi is focused mostly on developing varieties that are high yielding and resistant to field insect pests and diseases. Not enough emphasis has been placed on improving those traits or characteristics that would make such new crop varieties acceptable to farmers. Unique qualities preferred in the traditional bean varieties, such as taste, flavour and resistance to storage pests, have often been overlooked. No detailed studies involving smallholder farmers have been carried out in Malawi to establish the extent to which farmers perceive the bruchid as a storage pest of economic importance. Surveys conducted in Malawi have mainly focused on field pests (Letourneau, 1994; Scott and Maideni, 1998), the primary objective being to establish the status and distribution of bean insect pests and methods used to control them. In all these cases, the farmers were not fully involved, although it has been demonstrated that valuable information on economic, social and agronomic aspects of different crops can be obtained if farmers and other community members play a part (Barahona, 2002;
SARRNET, 2003). Participatory variety development would, in turn, enhance the adoption of newly developed crop varieties.
The need to understand farmers’ conditions and to include farmers as partners in the development and evaluation of new agricultural technologies is increasingly being recognised (Manoharan et al., 1993; DeVries and Toenniessen, 2001; Escalada and Heong, 2002). It is argued that farmers have extensive, well-developed and sound knowledge of their environment, crops and cropping systems (Bellon, 2001).
Understanding this knowledge is a fundamental step to generating a dialogue between farmers and scientists so that appropriate technologies can be developed, which can eventually accelerate adoption of the improved varieties (Chambers, 1994a). Farmers can be engaged in dialogue with plant breeders through a participatory rural appraisal (PRA), among other methods. Participatory rural appraisal is a tool used to gain an overview of a rural community’s main problems and opportunities. Conceptually, it is a methodology for learning about rural life and the rural environment (Pokharel, 1998) from the people themselves. The PRA concept is based on the principle that local people are creative and capable of doing their own investigations, information analysis and planning independent of scientists (David, 1995). Chambers (1992) argued that the PRA could
be used to interact with both rural and urban people to understand, learn and solicit their participation. Unlike most conventional research techniques, which are essentially extractive and conducted by outsiders, the PRA approach draws upon several participant-oriented traditions to bring another dimension to development-related research (Chambers, 1994b). It is assumed that local people are able to determine the important issues and the relevant information that is needed. The PRA emphasises open access to information and “avoids professional possessiveness” (Soleri et al., 1999).
Participatory approaches that involve farmers in problem identification, priority setting and planning ensure the establishment of a long-term research agenda at the community level. Farmer participation improves the efficiency and effectiveness of problem-solving research (Witcombe et al., 1996). Whereas some degree of farmer participation in technology development, testing and dissemination has increasingly been considered essential in agricultural research and development, David (1995) argued that systematic and meaningful farmer input into the research process and need identification has been weak. Sperling et al. (2001) suggested that dialogue between farmers and scientists should be strengthened to ensure the widespread adoption of developed technologies and to meet social needs both at the community and national level. Relevant information can be obtained from communities using a range of PRA techniques. These include semi-structured interviews, preference and wealth ranking, village resource maps, transect walks, trend analysis and Venn diagrams (Chambers, 1994b). In this study, matrix ranking and semi-structured interview techniques were used to obtain the information required.
Another way of ensuring that farmers become partners in technology development is participatory plant breeding (PPB) or participatory crop improvement (PCI). It is accepted that the adoption of new crop varieties by smallholder farmers, especially those in marginal areas, has been low (Cooper, 1999; Cleveland et al., 2000; Ceccarelli et al., 2001). Low adoption of new cultivars from research is attributed to a failure to involve farmers and the end-users in research and the development of new varieties (Almekinders and Ellings, 2003). Generally, researchers have often given little or no cognisance to the perception of local people in technology development. Nassif (1999)
argued that the adoption of technology depends mainly on how well it fits the purpose for which the end user needs it.
The poor adoption of developed agricultural technologies, particularly new crop varieties, continues to present a big challenge to breeding as a strategy for improving food security. Although a considerable amount of money has been spent on maize breeding in most African countries, only an estimated 37% of farmers regularly plant improved varieties (Morris et al., 1999). DeVries and Toenniessen (2001), quoting Ahmed et al.
(2000), also indicated that adoption of sorghum and millet varieties was very low in most countries in eastern and southern Africa. In a study to establish the uptake of modern crop varieties after the Asian green revolution, Evenson (2003) concluded that adoption of new bean varieties has been low in most African countries in spite of the large number of varieties that have been released.
Farmers’ requirements for varieties have been investigated in many cereal and legume crops through both PRA and formal research methods. Bänziger (2004) indicated that farmers’ selection criteria for maize varieties was based on the importance attached to grain poundability, earliness and high grain yield potential in southern Africa. Breeders tend to overlook the importance of poundability in their selection during the breeding process. A diagnostic survey conducted in Uganda by Adipala et al. (1999) revealed that farmers ranked bruchids as the most important constraint in cowpea production. A survey carried out in three states of Nigeria showed that farmers knew which pests were more important and had developed their own control strategies to combat these pests (Banjo et al., 2003). Suitable post-harvest techniques to control the cowpea weevil were developed in Cameroon after taking farmers’ concerns into consideration (Ntoukam et al., 2001); thus confirming the effectiveness and importance of participatory approaches.
Although many bean varieties have been developed in Malawi, their uptake is generally very low. One reason for the low adoption rate is that farmers had very little or no input during the development process (Chirwa, personal communication). A study by Masangano (2000) concluded that most of the agricultural technologies developed were not demand driven and consequently failed to meet the needs and preferences of farmers in Malawi. A PRA was therefore considered to be necessary to identify farmers’
bean varietal preferences and to solicit their perceptions on bean bruchid damage.
Study objectives
The objectives of the study were to:
(i) solicit bean growers’ perceptions on bruchid damage both in the field and in storage;
(ii) identify traditional methods that farmers use to control bruchids in storage and their efficacy, and
(iii) establish the criteria that farmers used to priotise bean varieties in order of preference.