Inventory of institutions engaged in
farmer innovation and participatory research
approaches in Ethiopia
commissioned by
PROFIEET (Promoting Farmer Innovation and Experimentation in Ethiopia)
Steering Committee
Yohannes Gebre Michael
Addis Ababa, March 2004
Table of Contents
page
1. Introduction 1
2. An overview of farmer participatory research and farmer
Innovation 2
3. Objectives and methodology of the inventory 7
Objectives 7
Methodology 7
Challenges encountered during the documentation process 8
4. Inventory findings 9
Institutional level 9
Research institutions 9
Universities / training centres 12
Government Agricultural Ministry and Bureaus 13
NGOs and development projects 16
Farmer innovators 18
General findings 19
5. Choice of contributions to the PROFIEET workshop 22
6. Recommendations 23
7. References 25
Appendices
Terms of Reference 28
Itinerary and persons meet 31
A typology of participation in development programmes 33
List of publications related to indigenous knowledge / innovation and
participatory research
Acronyms
AHI African Highlands Initiative
ARARI Amhara Regional Agricultural Research Institute
ASE Agri-Service Ethiopia
AUA Alemaya University of Agriculture
BoA Bureau of Agriculture
COR Client-Oriented Research
DARI Debub Region Agricultural Research Institute
DU Debub University
EARO Ethiopian Agricultural Research Organization
EPRDA Ethiopian Pastoralist Research and Development Association
ESTC Ethiopian Science and Technology Commission
FARM-Africa Food and Agricultural Research Management-Africa
FFS Farmer Field School
FPR Farmer Participatory Research
FPR/E Farmer Participatory Research and Extension
FRC Forestry Research Center
FRG Farmer Research Group
FRP Farmers’ Research Project
FSR Farming Systems Research
HCS Hararege Catholic Secretariat
IBCR Institute of Biodiversity Conservation Research
IIRR International Institute of Rural Reconstruction
IK Indigenous Knowledge
ISD Institute for Sustainable Development
ISWC Indigenous Soil and Water Conservation
LEISA Low External Input and Sustainable Agriculture
LLPPA Local-Level Participatory Planning Approach
MWRC Meleka Werer Research Center
MOA Ministry of Agriculture
MU Mekelle University
NGOs Non-Governmental Organisations
OoA Office of Agriculture
PA Peasant Association
PADETS Participatory Demonstration and Extension Training System
PARIMA Pastoralist Risk Management Project
POFTs Participatory On-Farm Trials
PRA Participatory Rural Appraisal
PROPAM Promotion of Participatory Methodologies
PROFIEET Promotion of Farmers’ Innovation and Experimentation in Ethiopia
Prolinnova Promotion of Local Innovation
PTD Participatory Technology Development
RCB-REAC Research Center-Based Research and Extension Advisory Council
REST Relief Society of Tigray
RRA Rapid Rural Appraisal
RREAC Regional Research Extension Advisory Council
SC Steering Committee
SC-UK Save The Children Fund – United Kingdom
TRARI Tigray Region Agricultural Research Institute
TAS Training and Advisory Services
ii
1. Introduction
Food insecurity and land degradation have become chronic problems in Ethiopia. To alleviate this problem, the Government, NGOs and international organisations have made considerable efforts, but with few success stories, as dependency on food aid is becoming the rule rather than the exception in this country. The has been attributed to a wide range and combination of factors, such as population pressure, backward traditional farming, ignorance and reluctance of farmers to adopt modern technology, inappropriate agricultural policy, lack of land security, inadequate marketing systems, and transfer of inappropriate technologies. However, some observers underlined that the fundamental cause of the crisis and the reason for the failure of interventions has been the top-down approach that marginalised the communities in decision making and underestimated their traditional practices. Assurance of good governance at grassroots level has been proposed is a prerequisite for sustainable agricultural development (Getachew 2001, Yohannes 1999, Yeraswork 1995).
Globally, the millennium development goals have been geared to the establishment of good governance, eradication of hunger, assurance of environmental sustainability and strengthening of partnerships. To achieve these goals, the importance of the genuine participation of the rural community as a foundation has been underlined. Similarly, in Ethiopia, there are already some enabling policies, and the Government has been giving due weight to the importance of indigenous practices in food security. A process of decentralisation of power to grassroots level is also underway.
At local level, it has become increasingly evident that farmers who are living under high risk and uncertainty have – without any external intervention – developed pools of indigenous knowledge (IK) and practices which are gradually adapted to the environmental changes. Hence, scientists have not been the sole generators of technology, nor were their standardised technologies necessarily appropriate for the diverse and complex situations of rural landscapes and socio-economies.
Moreover, there is much evidence in Africa, including Ethiopia, that involving farmers in decision-making about research and development, food security and sustainable development has been improved through the wider application of Farmer Participatory Research, documentation of indigenous practices, development of joint experimentation and diffusion of “best-bet” practices (Reji et al 2001, Reji et al 2001, Ejigu et al 2002). However, such experiences have thus far been confined to only a few limited institutions and some lack continuity due to a combination of factors such as lack of training in participatory approaches and poor linkages with other relevant institutions. This inventory is geared to identify the range of experiences in farmer innovation and experimentation through participatory approaches within different institutions in Ethiopia. It is assumed that such information will pave the way for developing linkages at national and global level to promote farmer innovation and experimentation.
2. An overview of farmer participatory research and farmer innovation
Today, “participation” has become a cross-cutting concept in any research and development intervention, both as an ideology and for pragmatic reasons. People’s participation has usually been equated with greater efficiency, effectiveness, acceptance, sustainability, success, and development of appropriate technology, facilitation of training and extension, and enhancement of cohesion within communities. It is also becoming a general trend that many research and development projects have been assessed according to their sensitivity to participation, gender, interdisciplinary and sustainability (Scoones et al 1994).
However, due to the very broad nature of the term “participation”, it has come to mean all things to all people. Some analysts have therefore attempted to categorise the broad terminology into different types. For example, Chambers (1997) indicated three major ways in which the word “participation” is used:
· Cosmetic: Used as a label for anything that appears to be good; used to gain legitimacy to win the heart of donors
· Pretext for local contribution: Local people’s contribution in development programme already decided by outsiders
· Empowerment of local people: Where local people are given capacity and power to make their own analysis and decisions.
Similarly, Biggs (1989) distinguishes four types of farmer participation:
· Contractual: Scientists contract farmers to provide land or services
· Consultative: Scientists consult farmers about their problems and then develop solutions
· Collaborative: Scientists and farmers collaborate as partners in the research process
· Collegial: Scientists work to strengthen farmer’s informal research and development systems in rural areas.
Others have attempted to classify participation according to the depth of interaction, going from shallow to deep. They highlight the organisational issues, arguing that the deeper levels of participation tend to rely more on group than individual approaches (Farrington et al 1993).
As can be observed in Table 1, a wide range of participatory approaches were deployed in the 1980s and 1990s. Such approaches include Farmer Participatory Research (FPR), Farming Systems Research and Extension (FSR/E), Participatory Action Research (PAR), Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA), Participatory Technology Development (PTD) and Rapid Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge Systems (RAAKS). Similarly, in development programmes, different types of participation such as passive, functional, interactive and self-mobilisation have been applied (see Appendix 3).
In spite of a fashion of support for participation, many observers underlined that the style of interaction might change but the principles upon which much participatory research and extension were based remained unchanged, as power was not devolved to local people. Others had gone further to suggest that such participatory approaches had been serving as a means to legitimise top-down approaches (Scoones et al 1994).
No matter how participation can be categorised in the range of different options under research and development, by the end of the day, the yardstick in participation should be how community members are empowered to make their own decisions. Hence, including such a wide range in classifying participatory approaches tends to overshadow and, thus, postpone the fundamental issue: Who makes the decisions?
Evaluations have been made of some of the participatory approaches. For example, FSR/E, which emerged in the 1970s, was very popular for its interdisciplinary and holistic approach. However, some evaluations of this approach underlined that the whole process was dominated by the “expert technologist”, that the approach was insensitive to farmers’ knowledge, and that the flow of knowledge was generally in the researcher-back-to-researcher mode (Bawden 1992).
Moreover, when PAR was introduced in the 1970s, its main objective was to develop self-respect within the community. It was an attempt to shift the community from being an object of research to being generator and owner of their own information. However, by the end of the day, the politics of inequality and power often prevail and PAR becomes a big threat to established interests within both communities and development agencies (Cornwall et al 1994).
Another popular participatory approach used by many institutions is FPR, which was developed in the 1980s. This refers to joint experimentation by researchers, extension workers and farmers. Inherently, this approach recognises the innovative capacity of farmers and the role of IK in the experimentation process. Chambers’ concept of “farmer first” was in line with this approach, which emphasised IK and its rationality. In spite of the multiple advantages of such joint experimentation, some studies highlighted the practical challenges of bringing people on board to implement it.
For example, according to Cornwall et el (1994), in FPR, formal researchers are usually applying positivist assumptions of technical science to indigenous technical knowledge and disregard its social and cultural aspects. These authors underline also that such Western-biased models usually ignore issues of diversity and difference among farmers. They draw attention to the challenges in FPR raised by agricultural anthropologists:
· First, they ask: Do farmers and research scientists share the same notion of what constitutes an experiment or an innovation?
· Secondly, due to the complex, diverse and unformulated nature of local knowledge, is it possible to access such a knowledge base?
· Thirdly, farmers’ understanding of agricultural processes is a complex of personal, metaphorical and contextual knowledge, which might not fit exactly to scientific analysis. How do we harmonise the cosmological beliefs and processes of agricultural experimentation and innovation?
· Fourthly, a fundamental issue is that of power and control of knowledge in the mutual learning process of joint experimentation. Farmers’ knowledge cannot simply be aggregated as if it was the property of farmers in general, and making an innovation common property has social and political consequences.
The whole message is that, in FPR, it is particularly important that issues of difference, power and control in rural communities are better understood before research and extension are conducted. This can help view the farmer as a social actor who interacts in many spheres, rather than someone whose life revolves solely around agricultural production.
The pivot exercise in FPR is the acknowledgement of IK and the innovative capacity of farmers. It is not only a question of added value in terms of technological options. In addition, by rationalising IK, which is embedded in social values and identities, we assure transparency and acceptance. In other words, put the community on an equal footing with the formal scientists, which is the basic principle of genuine participation.
“Innovation” is a broad term that can refer to discovery of a completely different way of doing something or to modification of an existing technology. Similarly, local innovation refers to something new in a particular area that has been started within the lifetime of the farmers, not something that s/he inherited from parents or grandparents. The farmer innovator is not necessarily a “model” or “contact farmer” rather s/he creates or tries out new ideas without these having been recommended by extension workers. To some degree, every farmer is an innovator. On account of the biophysical and socio-economic variations they experience, they develop site-specific innovations. These are sometimes invisible to the neighbours, let alone to outsiders. Due to the wide range of risks and uncertainties in the agricultural sector, farmers are always conducting trials to cope with the changing environment. Moreover, the local recognition of local innovation is not necessarily related to productivity but also to community values (Yohannes 1999).
Similarly, indigenous knowledge (IK) can be defined as practices or ideas generated locally or imported from outside and transformed by the local people and incorporated into their way of life. Its dynamic nature with its adaptive capacity, flexibility and site-specificity makes this knowledge unique and important.
Historically, the concept of IK has undergone significant transformation from negative to positive. Many outsiders used to refer to IK as primitive, backward, static and non-scientific. Such an attitude contributed to the loss of self-confidence among the local people and a strong dependency on external solutions.
Why do we need to focus on IK?
Ø There are many indications that IK has rationalities in its effectiveness, inexpensiveness, use of locally available material, and culturally appropriateness, building in the principle of sustainability to harmonise ecology, economy and culture.
Ø Western technologies have often been found to be insufficient to address today's complex web of social, economic, political and environmental challenges.
Ø Community competence to solve local problems through experimentation and innovativeness can be expressed through a better understanding of IK.
Table 1: Some participatory approaches of the 1980–90s (in alphabetical order)
AEA
BA
DELTA
D&D
DRP
FPR
FSR/E
GRAAP
MARP
PALM
PAR
PD
PRA
PRAP
PRM
PTD
RA
RAAKS
RAP
RAT
RCA
REA
RFSA
RMA
ROA
RRA
SB
TFD
TFT / Agro-Ecosystem Analysis
Beneficiary Assessment
Development Education Leadership Teams
Diagnosis and Design
Diagnostico Rural Participativo
Farmer Participatory Research
Farming Systems Research/Extension
Groupe de Recherché et d’Appui pour l’Autopromotion Paysanne
Méthode Accéléré de Recherche Participative
Participatory Analysis and Learning Methods
Participatory Action Research
Process Documentation
Participatory Rural Appraisal
Participatory Rural Appraisal and Planning
Participatory Research Methods
Participatory Technology Development
Rapid Appraisal
Rapid Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge Systems
Rapid Assessment Procedures
Rapid Assessment Techniques
Rapid Catchments Analysis
Rapid Ethnographic Assessment
Rapid Food Security Assessment
Rapid Multi-perspective Appraisal
Rapid Organisational Assessment
Rapid Rural Appraisal
Samuhik Brahman (Joint trek)
Theatre for Development
Training for Transformation
Source: Scoones et al (1994), p104