AND SURVEY PROCEDURES FOLLOWED TO
CHAPTER 7: IMPACT EVALUATION OF THE ON-FARM RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY DISSEMINATION PROGRAMME
2.3 Meetings with staff of the Extension Regions and the identification of a target area
During 1996 and 1997, staff of the FSRS embarked on a campaign to introduce the on-farm, client-orientated research approach to Extension staff in the five Regions. Itwas emphasized that on-farm research cannot substitute for Extension (Ewell, 1989). The approach was explained to staff in terms of the following basic concepts, as mentioned by Low (1997):
a) a diagnostic phase, to understand the circumstances in which farmers operate, to understand system interactions and to identify agricultural constraints (these influence the selection of research priorities);
b) the implementation of on-farm research and development;
c) the evaluation of the proposed new technology in the context of the whole-farm system into which it is being introduced (including farmer assessments).
From the feedback and response received at the different meetings it was clear that the on- farm research approach was new to the majority of Extension staff.Itwas emphasized at the meetings that the approach would be complementary to Extension activities and not a substitute. In spite of the fact that the approach was a new concept to Extension staff, much interest was shown in the approach in all the regions.
2.3.1 Identification of the target area
Following the meetings with the Extension staff of the Regions, the FSRS was invited by the North West Region to test the on-farm research approach in the Region. At a follow-up RTWG meeting of the North West Region on 8 August 1997, the following issues were discussed between staff of the FSRS and Extension:
a) the possibility that, when a particular area (community) is selected, the rest of the District would take the view that theyhad been abandoned;
b) the difference between on-farm research and demonstrations, so as to avoid confusing the community;
c) the difference between on-station research and the envisaged on-farm research;
d) the function and the role of FSRS scientistsin a Region vis-a-vis the role of scientists
in the Districts.
These issues were discussed in detail with Extension staff at meetings.Itwas recommended that when an on-farm research programme is being conducted in one community or area of a District, that the other Extension staff of the District should participate in all the major activities of the approach, such as planting and harvesting of trials, field days, planning of trials and feedback meetings. Through their participation it was felt they would gain the knowledge and experience which they, then, can apply in their own Extension Wards,e.g. by carrying out demonstrations. The role and purpose of a demonstration, according to Matataet al. (2001), are to persuade farmers to adopt an improved technology by showing the superiority of the improved technology over the one currently being used.
Both on-station and on-farm research is needed in the quest for new knowledge. The reason is that the two types focus on different, but complementary, aspects. On experiment stations, applied research, in which new technologies are created, is usually undertaken (CGIAR, 1981). On-farm research is a scientific method that concentrates mainly on adaptive research which involves helping to adjust technology to specific environmental conditions and to facilitate adoption of such technology. Itprovides a practical way of evaluating technology within a system context, using criteria that are relevant to the farmer (CGIAR, 1981 and Norman et al., 1994). Some of the characteristics of the on-farm research system are that it generates and tests technology relevant to the goals, needs and priorities of farmers.It seeks to integrate farmers and extension staff into the research process and acts as a link to feed back information about future priorities for applied research to on-station staff (Merrill-Sands, 1986; Norman et al., 1994; Low, 1997 and Collinson, 1998). In this way on-farm research aims to complement traditional on-station research by adapting the findings of such research to local conditions and providing Extension services with technical packages that are appropriate to the circumstances of small farmers operating in particular rural environments.
Itis important to bear in mind that the on-station researcher's environment is characterized by particular (often favourable) natural circumstances, availability of inputs, little concern with cost or risk and generally a single objective: to increase output per unit of land (Low, 1986).
What may work well under "ideal" conditions on research stations may not work so well for farmers in the field.For this reason, on-farm trials are commonly used to ensure that a new technology is appropriate for farmers and provides good results in a more "realistic"
environment. In Panama the research area selected for on-farm research was chosen because
its generally small- and medium-sized farms produced commodities that were priorities in the National Agricultural Development Plan and seemed to offer potential for technological development (Martinez et al., 1991). On-station researchers need to investigate specific aspects of crop or livestock production, as the backbone of technological advances in agriculture (Low, 1995). It is important to note that on-farm research complements and depends upon experiment station research (Merrill-Sands, 1988). The essence of the approach is that it responds to the farmers' felt needs and compliments the traditional flow of information from researcher to extension to farmer by making the farmer and extension active research partners.
The ultimate objective of an on-farm research, according to Norman et al. (1994), is to produce new or adapted technology options that will be used by farmers to increase their productivity and incomes. Through the correct level of communication, Management of the Region requested the Head of District, Bergville at a RTWG meeting in August 1997 to assist in testing the on-farm research approach. Once this had been agreed upon, the Obonjaneni Community was identified as the target area (see Figure 2.1 for location). The only selection criterion used by Extension staff was that "agriculture in the community was in a poor state and that very few agricultural activities were taking place, compared to how it had been in the past".Reasons for this poor state were (i)problems with uncontrolled movement of livestock which resulted in a lack of interest in cropping by people in Obonjaneni, (ii) poor performance of the previous Agricultural Development Technician, and (iii) people had lost interest because of the low yields of crops due to excessive soil acidity (ZV Nkosi, 2002, personal communication). These aspects were communicated to, and discussed with, the community at meetings during the diagnostic phase.
There is some statistical support for the idea that the "worst" can be the "best" place to start an on-farm research programme. A quantified analysis and evaluation of 150 cases of local organizations in Asia, Africa and Latin America found that a number of environmental variables, such as topography, resource endowment, infrastructure,economic diversification, income distribution, settlement patterns and literacy, had negative or zero correlations, all insignificant, with overall scores of local organizations' contributions to rural development (Esman & Uphoff, 1984). A hypothesis that more "favourable" environmental conditions would be correlated with greater success of localorganizations was not supported by the data.
This suggests that plausible arguments can be made for beginning almost anywhere except,
presumably, in areas that are especially violent and affected by conflict (Uphoffet al., 1998).
The physical conditions of an area are probably considerably less important than the capabilities and disposition of the people in an area: are they ready, willing and able to take responsibility for improving their lives in one or more respects? This often cannot be known in advance.Itwas also mentioned by Uphoffet al.(1998) thathowa programme is initiated is more important thanwhere it is initiated.
Selecting Obonjaneni as the target area could be seen as a top-down approach, which was made at a RTWG meeting without the presence of farmers. The important aspect is that Extension staff,through contact with farmers in the identified area, realized that agriculture was in a poor state and assistance was needed to address the problem. The role of Extension staff and the link with farmers were evident in this selection process, which could thus be deemed as a bottom-up approach. It is absolutely essential for the success of the on-farm research that Extension is an active partner in the programme (De Lange, 1997). The involvement of Extension staff members in the target area selection could be seen as the first step towards their becoming a partner in the on-farm research approach. Many case studies concluded that links with Extension had been regarded as a secondary priority, with the result that their active involvement had been a weakness in the implementation of on-farm research (Ewell,1989).
The FSRS assumed membership of the Bergville District Task Team in 1997, following the selection of the Obonjaneni community as the target area. At this level contact was made with the Agricultural Development Technician, Mr F S Nkosi, whose main function was to serve the community and give advice to small-scale farmers. The Bergville District, one of six Districts of the North West Region, covers approximately 348 000 ha (R G Bennett, 2003, personal communication) and is subdivided into six Extension Wards, namely: Amangwane Central, Amangwane East, Amazizi, Eleven Settlement, Ngaba and Reserve (Z V Nkosi, 2002, personal communication). The wards were identified and demarcated in terms of geographical and tribal boundaries (Z V Nkosi, 2002, personal communication). The target area is one of the sub-wards within the Amazizi Ward.Itis located 44km west of the town of Bergville and approximately 220km north-west of Cedara (see Figure 2.1 and Figure 3.2).
In spite of the distance (approximately 220 km) between the Obonjaneni community and the offices of the FSRS,involvement was seen as an opportunity and a challenge to enhance food
security and to uplift small-scale farmers. The progress of the on-farm research approach followed in Obonjaneni was to be closely monitored and evaluated in the hope that it could serve as a model for implementation in the rest of KwaZulu-Natal.
LOCATION OF TARGET AREA
LOCATION OF KWAZULU-NATAL IN SOUTH AFRICA KWAZULU-NATAL: Extension Regions and location of Target Area In the North West Region
~
Nse."e1:10,000.9"
Figure 2.1
Legend
• Target Area
Location of target area
1:3000000
Legend
• Towns
• Obonjaneni
2.4 . Consultations with staff of the Bergville District
The selection of the Obonjaneni community brought together researchers and Extension staff at District level, in a multi-disciplinary team. The first two meetings took place during September and October 1997, at the Bergville Extension office. The Bergville Extension staff (Head of District, Head of Extension, Home Economist and Amazizi Ward Agricultural Development Technician), staff from the Region's Head Office near Ladysmith, staff from the Natural Resource Section based at Cedara and FSRS staff attended the first meeting. As new colleagues at the time (one could even describe them as total strangers to each other), it was important, for the success of the on-farm research approach, to build friendship and trust among participants as quickly as possible, To facilitate this important aspect, the agendas for meetings were decided upon and finalized at the meeting or communicated before the meetings, via telephone calls or faxes. This encouraged transparency in the process.
The main objectives of the meetings were to explain and discuss the proposed on-farm, client-
orientated research programme, to study the natural resource information of the area, as supplied by the Natural Resource Section, Cedara, and for Extension staff to outline the different farming systems then practised in the area. The steps to be followed in the approach were discussed and agreed upon by FSRS and Extension staff. The steps and actions planned are summarised in Table 2.1.
Table 2.1 Summary of the strategy to be implemented in the Obonjaneni target area, as decided upon between the staff of the Farming Systems Research Section and Extension
Steps identified to be followed in the on-farm, client-orientated research approach Approach community
* Extension staff to approach Inkosi (Chief),Councillors and Indunas (Headmen) to explain the on-farm research approach and the need for theirfuture co-operation.
* FSRS and Extension staff to visit the community to obtain general impressions of the area.
*After obtaining the Inkosi's approval,visit area and organise a general meeting as soon as possible.
* Announce open invitation to community to attend a general meeting (Extensionstaff to make contact with leader farmers in the community to advertise the meeting)
* At the community meeting, community members were requested to identify farmers to participate in the approach.
* Farmers,associations and projects to be visited by a multi-disciplinary teamI,after the community meeting.
*Collect all possible available secondary informationof the identified target area.
Diagnosis
*Collect primary information through formal structured interviews.
* Train staffon how to use the questionnaire survey.
* Interview farmers who volunteered at meeting to participate.
* Analyse the survey results.
* Hold brainstorming sessionswith Extension to discuss findings of survey.
*Define possible strategies and solutions to identified constraints.
*Compile a report on findings of the survey.
Intervention
*
Team to prepare survey results for feedback meetings with community and to discuss possible solutions and research interventions.* Ensure that experimental interventions can be implemented without undue risk to the
environment, farmer,farm operation or the
community.
* Members of team to include intervention strategies in their work programmes.
* Community was requested to identify participants for on-farm research.
* Discuss research needs, treatments and sites with participants.
*Identify and visit research sites.
*Compile research protocol.
*On-farm research conducted by FSR Team.
* Demonstrations conducted by Extension / FSRS staff.
* Organise farmers' / field days, field visits and feedback meetings to transfer technology.
Evaluation
* Researchers, Extension and farmers will evaluate all research results jointly.
* Meetings between farmers, extension and researchers to be held to discuss trial
implementation, progress,results of trials and future research.
* Annual evaluation of the results will be followed by a decision on further on-farm research.
* Assessments and reactions of farmers will be taken into account in the evaluation and planning process.
* Continuous monitoring, evaluation and impact assessment to take place to determine value of the approach to the
community.
* Results of research and other interventions to be reflected in annual reports and other publications.
IMulti-disciplinary team FSRS staff,Extension staff and other eo-workers, including commodity researchers
An important contribution of Extension to the on-farm research approach was to facilitate the process of gaining access to, and the co-operation of, the community through establishing linkages with the Tribal Authorities. The Head of District was tasked to approach the Inkosi (Chief) of the Amazizi Tribal area to request permission for researchers to work in the Obonjaneni community. Bembridge et al. (1983) stressed that the involvement of Tribal Authorities is essential for long-term agricultural and rural development programmes aimedat bringing about desirable change.
The contribution by staff from the Natural Resources Section to the first meeting concerned the information available about the area. The target area falls within a large agro-climatic area of approximately 147 611 ha, indicating that research results would have widespread applicability. Information was also imparted that the maize grain production potential of the area varies between approximately 2 and 7 t/ha, depending on the soil type and management level. The variation in yield potential shows, among other things, the effect of soil type on maize yield and underlines the importance of obtaining soil information when discussing constraints and solutions with the farmers of the area.
2.5 Meeting with community leaders and visit to Obonjaneni
After gaining the approval of the Tribal Authority,the first visit to the target area by the FSR team took place during early October 1997. The aims of the visit were for the FSR team to become familiar with the area and for Extension staff to provide information on existing agricultural projects in the community. Unfortunately, farmers and community members were not present during the visit, as the Extension staff member was relatively new and unknown in the Extension Ward. The number of households and bona fide farmers in the community was unknown.Extension staff mentioned that most of the community members claimed to be farmers, because many of them grew small areas of crops, vegetables and/or fruit, or kept livestock.
The Amazizi Maize Association, Phuthumani Community Garden and one sewing club were reported to be active in the community. Information such as the area of arable land in the communal cropping fields and the number of animals was not available at the time of the visit. Extension staff indicated that the highly successful commercial farmers of e.g. maize, soyabeans and livestock, situated between the community and the town of Bergville, influence the people of Obonjaneni, to purchase inputs, such as fertilizers, in an attempt to
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