Report on the Training of Facilitators Workshop On

Prolinnova

Promoting Local Innovation in Ecologically-Oriented Agriculture and Natural Resource Management

Report on the Training of Facilitators Workshop on

Participatory Innovation Development (PID) / Participatory Technology Development (PTD)

23RD-26TH AUGUST, 2004

MUKONO ARDC, UGANDA

Organised by Environmental Alert

P.O. Box 11259, Kampala

Tel: 256 41 510215, Fax: 510547

E-mail:

Website:

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1Background to PROLINNOVA

1.3 Workshop methodology

2.0 PRESENTATIONS

3.0 Outcomes of the Workshop

4.0 Way Forward

LIST OF ANNEXES

Annex 1 / Workshop programme
Annex 2 / List of participants

1.0INTRODUCTION

Environmental Alert, the country-coordinating organization for PROLINNOVA-UGANDA, organized a four days National workshop. This workshop was attended by stakeholders from agriculture research, extension workers, NGO’s and NGO umbrella networks engaged in promoting local innovations in agriculture and natural resources management, farmers and policy makers (see annex 2 for list of participants).

The Deputy Director General Research NARO officially opened the workshop. (Dr Aluma) In his opening speech, he highlighted the pillars of the Poverty Eradication Action Plan (PEAP) and emphasized that government policy is that nothing will happen without falling into this category. He also highlighted about the 7 pillars of Plan for Modernization of Agriculture (PMA). Dr Aluma said the National Agricultural Research System (NARS) is under review. This has resulted into the National Agricultural Research Policy, which led to NARO’s realigning of its research. NARO has come up with 5 themes:

1. Theme 1: Understanding people, environment, constraints, opportunities. Knowing people and their demands.
2. Theme 2: Linkages and partnerships. No one organization can do it alone.
3. Theme 3: Sustainable Natural Resource Management.
4. Theme 4: Technology Options.
5. Theme 5: Linking Policy and Markets.

The Deputy Director General emphasized that technology developments need to have a good policy environment to survive. He said to implement its research themes NARO has developed a competitive Research Grant Scheme. He also mentioned that in the area of Institutionalization a National Agricultural Research Council (NARC) had been formed. This is above NARO with a membership from stakeholders including a big number of women.

1.1Background to PROLINNOVA

In his opening remarks, the PROLINNOVA – Mr. Fred Kafeero ED of Environmental Alert (coordinating NGO) gave a background to PROLINNOVA and briefed the participants of what had so far been done prior to the workshop. He said PROLINNOVA is a network for promoting local innovation in ecologically – oriented agriculture and natural resource management, and that the idea of PROLINNOVA was mooted in a meeting with NGO’s that was held in Rambouillet France in 1999 to consider how existing approaches to participatory innovation in agriculture and natural resource management could be scaled up through a global partnership programme. He said the major focus for PROLINNOVA is based on learning from and encouraging field activities that strengthen capacities of smallholders to innovate. PROLINNOVA thus aims to establish a strong research and development partnership at National level, and develop a comprehensive programme plan owned by various stakeholders.

PROLINNOVA is now at its implementation phase in Uganda, and some key activities were planned for this phase. These included; discussion with key stakeholders about their participation in PROLINNOVA activities and possibility of synergies, generation of an inventory/ survey of local Innovations, Planning implementing and monitoring joint experiments of these local innovations, organize a workshop for Facilitators in Participatory innovation / Technology Development and organizing meetings with policy makers. This workshop thus marked the implementation of the third activity.

1.2Workshop objectives

The prolinnova coordinator laid down the objectives of the workshop;

1. To empower the participants to use participatory methodologies to Identify develop and monitor innovations.
2. Toencourage them to work in partnerships to facilitate innovation/

Technology development.

1. Train the participants on how to document and disseminate innovations.

This was done after the participants had written down their expectations as they were

Coming for the workshop

1.3Workshop methodology

Mainly the two prolinnova members that attended a training course on PID/PTD in Philippines conducted the workshop through key presentations by. Other facilitators were also brought in to present on some aspects of the workshop. The participants also watched Video documentaries on Promoting Farmer Innovation (PFI) in East Africa and Farmer Field Schools in Uganda. These set the pace for group discussions on the same.

Group discussions were another method used. The participants were given questions after every day’s presentation to discuss in groups. This they did actively and presented the outcome of their discussions. Co-operate and Individual Action points were also come up with the participants were to follow up. Some participants who attended the workshop had opportunity to share their experience first hand with the rest of the participants.

The opportunities and challenges highlighted in the presentations were discussed. The observations recorded from the presentations and video documentaries were discussed in plenary in order for participants to develop a common understanding and appreciation of innovations. The key issues that emerged formed a basis for designing an action plan. A detailed workshop programme is presented in annex 1.

2.0 PRESENTATIONS

1. The PID/PTD Concepts

Mr Fred Kabuye Presented a paper on PID/PTD concepts. He described what a local innovation is.

A local Innovation is:

Farmer’s own initiative that is triggered by problems/ opportunities that use available local resources. It is dynamic and can be replicated in other similar situations while using ideas from the members or from other sources.

It can be a practice started and later improved by a farmer on her/his own initiative (problem oriented) without any external influence at all.

He also talked about the characteristics of local Innovations.

• It is farmer’s own initiative
• Involves learning better in a farmer –to- farmer approach.
• Recognizes and appreciates farmer’s technical / indigenous knowledge
• Its participatory based on farmer’s initiatives
• Problem /opportunity motivated
• Uses available local resources
• Encourages replication to other similar situations
• Its dynamic

Mr Kabuye said Participatory Innovation Development (PID) is a changing Paradigm
in agriculture and natural resources management, extension and Research approaches. PID as a knowledge quadrant includes what is known by farmers and unknown by scientists, what is known by scientists and unknown by farmers, what is known by farmers and scientists and what is unknown by both farmers and scientists. He also said that PID is a farmer led participatory research.

He shared about the entry points in PID/PTD and strengths and challenges of
PID/PTD. These strengths are:

Indigenous knowledge and technology are respected and promoted.

• Local people and communities are encouraged to be innovative.
• It incorporates local people’s wishes.
• It makes use of locally available resources
• The knowledge and technology are easy to adopt and spread
• It strengthens the link between local people, extension workers and researchers or scientists.
• In this approach on-farm experimentation sets the research agenda.
• It also ensures sustainability of technologies and knowledge since it involves the local people at all stages of technology and idea development

He also mentioned some challenges the approach faces

Challenges of the PID/PTD Approach:

• It initially takes much time and other resources.
• The site specificity may limit the spread of the technology.
• Some cultures may hinder the success of the approach.
• Unsystematic experimentation may lead to false conclusions.

2. Approach and Process of PID/PTD.

Mr. Alex Lwakuba from MAAIF said that Local innovation is increasingly becoming recognized in rural development largely due to invariable failures in the conventional transfer of technology paradigm. This has resulted into a new approach –Promoting Local Innovation or Indigenous Technical Knowledge (TK). This approach is emphasized in the current era of development-Research as well as Extension.

He also said that to understand Participatory Technology Development (PTD) / Participatory Innovation Development (PID), it is imperative to have a reflection on the entire development process and trends. PTD / PID is also a new approach to development especially in the current trend of development. He then briefly talked about the various development trends: Neoclassical Era, Basis Needs Era, Structural Adjustments Era, and the Current Development thinking Era. He said that PID/PTD fits in all these approaches.

He described PTD as a people centred and ecological approach (Laurens et al, 1997) to rural development. It refers to the entire process in which development workers facilitate the generation and dissemination of agricultural (Natural resources / Environment) innovations together with rural men and women.

He also described development as Development is an –on –going process whereby people liberate themselves from all conditions and structures that prevent the full realization of their potentials and hinder the establishment of human and equitable relationships within communities. He said Development is a process of the people by the people for the [people. Implying that: -

a)People are means and ends of development.

b)Development targets people

c)Development is affected by people

Mr Lwakuba talked about the various steps that need to be taken in implementing PID/PTD for it to be successful and the roles of different parties in the process; Researchers Extension agents, NGOs/ Development projects and farmers/ communities.

In concluding he said PID/PTD is an approach to development that augments the current era of development whose emphasis is on people.

1. PID/PTD versus conventional Approaches (Group discussion and Plenary)

The session was facilitated by Dr Sarah Namirembe (Environmental Alert). It

Was centered on two questions.

1. How is PID/PTD different from the conventional approaches?
2. What value can PID/PTD add to these approaches?

The session begun by the participants listing down the approaches they are

using in the field. These approaches were compared to PID/PTD and

differences identified. Potential Challenges, opportunities and

Complementarities of the approaches were also identified.

1. Typology of Participation

Mr Fred Kabuye from Africa 2000 Network presented on typology of participation. He said it involves inclusion of all stakeholders of an aspect, openness, each partner having a role to play, and being part of the process. He talked about the different levels of participation realization citing the example of popular participation (an ideal situation), where everyone has a role to play. Different types of participation were also talked about:

Contractual– Where one does some things by engaging other people.

This type has a lot of disempowerment and is common in

conventional approaches.

Consultative – Used in many development approaches. For example where
village meeting is held to develop a strategy for developmental
work.

Collaborative – Involves executing people’s ideas with them rather than for
them. People are part and parcel of the development process.

Collegial and Farmers Experimentation – This is where local farmers or
innovators invite researchers to help where they need them.
Farmers should be given room to innovate, document and express
themselves.

However, there are challenges that are faced in the process of trying to attain participation at collegial and farmer experimentation.

Challenges:

a)Networking and participation- what needs to be done to bear results?

b)Understanding farmers complex farming system

c)How professionals in PTD can help farmers as they carry out experiments adequately.

d)Designing and refining research methodologies- Government has done something in realigning it research policy.

e)Practical application of participatory approaches- going to farmers only is not enough. There must be quality participation. This was followed by a discussion:

1. Facilitation Skills

Dr Sarah Namirembe talked about the rationale for participatory Approaches in PID/PTD, principles of Adult learning and technology development agenda (why do farmers experiment?). Several key issues in facilitation of Participation were raised. Theses included meaningful representation of all categories of people, ensuring safety and consultation at all levels, sharing power and control (listening and encouraging initiative), evaluating participation from the farmers perspective and being patient ie keenly sieving out useful submissions rather than shutting up people.

1. Participatory Monitoring and Evaluation

Mr Fred Kabuye presented on the various steps of PTD. This included how to get started, understanding the problems and opportunities (situation analysis), Looking for things to try out, experimentation (on Farm experiment) how to share results and sustaining, the process. He concluded by talking about the 5 W and H Basics of monitoring and evaluation: What to monitor and evaluate, Why it should be monitored and evaluated, where to monitor and evaluate, when to monitor and evaluate, who to monitor and evaluate and how the monitoring and evaluation will be done.

Good M&E is:

• Open-minded
• Sincere
• Constructive
• Sensitive

1. Documentation Skills

Dr Sarah Namirembe talked on the reasons for documentation, forms and principles of documentation. Some limitations to documentation in Uganda were also highlighted. These include; low appreciation of power of documentation, poor reading culture, lack of skills and low access to refined tools for documentation. She concluded by talking about the steps in documentation

1. Case study presentations

Soil Fertility enhancement with communities through Farmer Field

Schools (FFS)

Mr Joshua Zakefrom Environmental Alert shared the experience of Farmer field schools in Wakiso District. A Farmer Field School is a school without walls usually located at the farmers’ field in a tree shade. It usually comprises of 25 – 30 farmers who come together to solve a common problem. The approach exposes farmers to a learning process in which they gradually learn about new technologies, new ideas, new situations and new ways of solving soil productivity problems. His presentation focused more on what has been accomplished though the project is still going on. The project area was selected because it had a problem of soil fertility depletion and already had small- holder farmer groups, a good entry point for introducing farmer field school. In this approach Farmers are facilitated to use their experiences to recommend possible technologies or measures that could be tested to overcome the most urgent constraints. It also involves comparing the technologies of local farmers and those of facilitators to integrate both technologies. Apart from participatory technology development, the participants received training on FFS principles, approach and applications.

Challenges and achievements of the approach were also laid out.

Mr Fred Kabuye Africa 2000 Network also, presented slides of Farmer Innovations in Eastern Uganda.

Mr Sabiiti, a researcher from National Banana Research Programme Kawanda shared his experience in working with farmers.

10. Group Work

After the presentations and watching videos documentaries, issues that did arise were discussed in plenary. The strategy used was group discussions, which were facilitated by the respective workshop facilitators.

Session 1

In this plenary session the issue discussed was‘‘what is the role of participants in PID/PTD?

The output of the discussion:

a) The facilitators’ role in the process is to have a critical eye to help

innovators to identify, package and market innovations. This would involve

addressing farmer innovators to harness what they have.

However the increase in profit should not be at the expense of other

important issues eg environment. The discussion also revealed that some technologies are not acceptable while others are complex.

Session 2

In Session 2 the discussion was on how to ensure effective participation and partnerships in PID/PTD and what areas of PID/PTD participants wanted to focus on? The participants were divided into two groups before the discussion begun. The two groups presented the outcome of their discussions.

Key points raised were:

a)How to involve District authorities in the development of technologies. The nature of NGO support is time bound thus calling for government involvement in approach and technology development. A good example cited was the Farmer Field School approach that was adopted by Government of Indonesia. Group one discussed about thematic issues while Group two discussed about the procedure.

Session 3

In this plenary session the topic discussed was typology of Participation.

Issues Raised:

a)The continual ignorance of Farmer Innovations: It was agreed that there is need to see what can be acknowledged.

b)Culture being a challenge: Though some cultures continue to be a stumbling block, some have used culture to economically prosper. Culture if tapped positively can be a good enhancing factor.

c)Commercialization: Packaging and dissemination of innovation was another Point raised because it determines marketability. It was also recommended that innovators should be helped to tap the National Innovation fund and Presidential Scientific fund in commercialization of their innovations.

d)How attitude about farmers’ innovations can be changed. This should be done at different levels. eg Household level. The progress of organic farming was an encouragement and it was recommended to adopt a similar approach.

Session 4

This plenary session dealt with the likely limitations to be encountered in promoting PID/PTD in participants’ organizations and the challenges in application of participatory facilitation of farmers. Several limitations to PID/PTD were highlighted. The challenges of participatory facilitation were also pointed out by the two groups of the discussion.

3.0Outcomes of the Workshop

The participants learnt more about participatory PID/PTD approach and committed themselves to get involved in promoting local Innovation. They also committed themselves to participate in identifying and documenting local innovations in the field

4.0Way Forward

The participants came up with several action points. These included PID identification, capacity building, awareness raising, Monitoring and Evaluation, documentation, PID partnership building and Institutionalisation of PID/PTD. The participants agreed upon which partner should take on the different action points and also set tentative time frames for the same.

5.0 Evaluation

The participants evaluated the workshop arrangements right from pre-workshop information dissemination, logistics, venue, workshop process and methodology, and appropriateness of content, extent of meeting their expectations and workshop objectives and applicability of workshop to their work had been met. Generally, the participants found the workshop very beneficial and recommended that the workshop and its outcomes should be extended to others.