National FSA TrainingModule 1: Introduction to FSA
Module 1:Introduction to the Farming Systems Approach
Objectives
To introduce and discuss farming systems approaches (FSA). At the end of the course the participants should know the:
- Definitions and terms commonly used in Farming Systems Research;
- Evolution and characteristics of Farming Systems Research and steps involved in the FSA process;
- On-farm research (OFR) process and concept of systems perspective;
- Importance of farmers decision making in relation to natural, biological and socio-economic circumstances.
Content
1.1Farming Systems concepts and key words
1.2Evolution and characteristics of Farming Systems Approach
1.3Main steps, objectives and activities in FSR
1.4Why Farming Systems Approach (FSA) is gaining popularity
1.1Farming systems concepts and key words
1.1.1Farming systems
The concept of farming systems has been defined differently by different people. Some of the definitions of the term are:
(i)"a unique and reasonably stable arrangement of farming enterprises that the household manages according to well-defined practices in response to physical, biological and socio-economic environments and in accordance with the household's goals, preferences and resources. These factors combine to influence output and production methods. More commonality is found within the system than between systems. The farming system is part of larger systems - e.g., the local community - and can be divided into subsystems - e.g., cropping systems," (Shaner et al., 1982).
(ii)"A specific farming system arises from the decisions taken by a small farmer or farming family with respect to allocating different quantities and qualities of land, labour, capital, and management to crop, livestock, and off-farm enterprises in a manner which, given the knowledge the household possesses, will maximise the attainment of the family goal(s)." (Norman, 1980).
(iii)"The total of production and consumption decisions of the farm-household including the choice of crop, livestock and off-arm enterprises and food consumed," (Byerlee et al., 1980).
(iv)"The way farmers satisfy their needs and priorities with the resources at their disposal, in the circumstances (natural and economic) in which they find themselves" (Collinson, 1982).
(v)Anderson (1985) analyses the term by defining each word separately. He defines a system as "a set of components that work together for the overall objectives of the whole system". Therefore, the farming systems approach is simply a way of thinking about these total systems and their components.
(vi)"A collection of distinct functional activities or enterprises such as crops, livestock, processing, marketing and investment. These enterprises interact in receiving resources and delivering outputs to the prevailing environment" (Anandajayasekeram, 1996).
1.1.2Farming System Research (FSR)
FSR may be defined as an approach designed to generate relevant technologies for specific clients, most commonly, the resource - limited farm households. It focuses on clients' priority needs and problems, applies an inter-disciplinary systems perspective in diagnosing problems and generating technological solutions, and involve a series of operational activities carried out on farm with farmers.
Although descriptions of FSR vary, the general consensus is that there are four major activities: diagnosis, planning and priority setting, experimentation and evaluation (Stroud, 1994).
FSR recognises the fact that an understanding of the production process and decision behaviour in traditional agriculture is crucial in determining the true relevance, practicability and potential success of any innovation (Anandajayasekeram, 1985). Emphasis is given to building-on indigenous farmer knowledge and other information.
One could observe that although there is considerable variation in the content that various writers give to the notion 'Farming Systems' of the complicated, interrelated, dynamic decision problem that farmers actually face. The various components involved in the existing farming systems and their linkage are represented in Figure 1.1.
1.1.3Farming systems perspective
The three key concepts in the FSA process are
(i)systems perspective
(ii)"systems interactions" and
(iii)"participation"
i) Systems perspective
FSA is a perspective on research and development. It requires researchers and extensionists to take account of the whole farm and recognise that farm family welfare is dependent on a wide range of variables. Smallholder farmers manage an array of enterprises, temporarily and spatially. Concentrating on any enterprise without understanding its place in the system is unlikely to produce successful results. In some cases, the farming systems perspective has led researchers to address a large number of enterprises and variables in a system simultaneously. But in many other cases, it has served as a framework for concentrating on particular crop livestock enterprises within a larger farming system (Byerlee et al., 1982).
The farming systems perspective has resulted in the following:
- Agricultural researchers and development practitioners have broadened their criteria for assessing the acceptability of new technologies. Apart from considering conventional measures of yield and/or profitability, researchers and development practitioners more frequently design and assess new technologies in the light of other criteria: the importance of household food security; the storage and cooking qualities of new crop varieties; labour constraints; the compatibility of new crops and practices with established farmers' intercropping patterns; and the importance of risk in farmers' decision-making.
- There has been an increasing acceptance of a problem-oriented approach to planning agricultural research (Tripp and Woolley, 1989). More efforts are now being made to understand local farming conditions, problems and opportunities as a basis for planning agricultural (TDT). Efforts are also being made towards more participation by farmers and other stakeholders in the process of TDT.
- The farming systems perspective has fostered a more realistic look at the targeting of agricultural research and development programmes to specific locations and farmer groups. It is now widely recognised that the world is not divided into "progressive' and 'traditional' farmers and that differences in adoption rates can often be explained by the natural and socio-economic conditions of particular farming systems rather than by psychological traits of farmers (Perrin and Winkelman, 1976).
- There is better understanding and acceptance of the role of social scientists in TDT, particularly in relation to the characterisation of the farming systems, setting of priorities, and evaluation of the "systems-fit" of technologies.
- Researchers recognise the key role that policy and support services play in the process of TDT, particularly in relation to decisions on research and extension priorities, and the technology choices by farmers. As a result improved linkages to policy making are being established.
1
National FSA TrainingModule 1: Introduction to FSA
Figure 1.1Components and linkages of the existing systems
FACRORS OF WHICH FARMER HAS LITTLE OR NO CONTROL
Source: Anandajayasekeram, 1985
1
National FSA TrainingModule 1: Introduction to FSA
ii) System Interactions
Interactions may occur between the various components crop - crop, crop - livestock, farm - household as well as on-farm - off-farm activities as they complete for the same resources. Interactions may also arise from the farmers objectives and his/her attitude towards risk. In addition, these interactions may
occur over space (e.g. inter-cropping), over time (e.g. liming, use of green manure), and over time and space (e.g. relay cropping).
The interactions are important to identify the trade-offs and compromises in the system while identifying and prioritising problems in order to understand the process of resource allocation. They are important in identifying the indirect costs and benefits during technology assessment. The research may concentrate on key enterprises while taking into account the interactions with other elements including resource competition, complimentarity, and participatory processes, while meeting the multiple objectives of the farm household. The various types of interactions observed in a typical farm-household are summarised in Box 1.1.
Box 1.1Potential household interactions
- Interactions over space (spatial), e.g. intercropping
- Interactions over time (temporal), e.g. carry over from one cycle to another, i.e. residual effects, fixation of nitrogen by legumes
- Interaction over time and space, e.g. relay cropping
- Competition for farmer resources:
crop versus crop
crop versus tree
crop versus livestock
livestock versus livestock
crop versus livestock versus tree
farm versus household
on-farm versus off-farm
Objectives and preferences often lead to compromises
Source: Matata et. al. 2001, p. 27
iii) Participatory
FSA process provides mechanisms for the whole range of actors to participate in the technology development and transfer process. The research and extension staff (include NGO’s) interact with the farmers in their own environment (the ultimate users of technology) in identifying priority problems for investigation, thus making technology generation a demand driven process. The process is farmer centered and farmer’s input is used in a range of activities including identifying priority problems and in the assessment of the ultimate technology. The participatory process also facilitates the continuous farmer-researcher-extension interaction offering a mechanism for information flow in either direction at all times.
From the inception, the FSA process has been participatory but as the approach progressed, the issue of degree of participation by the beneficiaries became important. Recognition of the fact that women’s views and activities are as important as men’s and as relevant to the design of improved technologies led to the concept of gender analysis.
In the literature a clear distinction is made between participation and participatory. The term ‘participatorydevelopment” is defined as “involving users and communities in all stages of development process” (Narayan, 1993). A participatory project might be described as one initiated and owned by beneficiaries (Cummings, 1995). A participatory project might be described as one initiated and owned by beneficiaries (Cummings, 1995). Thus, participatory programs are claimed to contribute to ‘empowerment’ of the individuals involved in the programme. On the other hand ‘participation’ is defined as “voluntary or other forms of contributions by rural people to pre-determined programs or projects” (Oakley et al. 1991).
The participatory approach values the input of the beneficiary and becomes associated with increasing respect for and incorporation of indigenous knowledge, or beneficiary knowledge, in all aspects of program or project. The arguments for greater participation led to Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA) as a diagnostic tool to improve farmer and community participation in research. PRA is a way of learning from, and with, community members to investigate, analyse and evaluate constraints and opportunities, and to make informed and timely decisions regarding development projects. It is intensive and systematic, but semi-structured and conducted by multidisciplinary tem. It serves exactly the same purposes of an informal survey but with a wider coverage. The traditional informal survey addresses farm level constraints and looks at opportunities to alleviate them whereas PRA looks at the overall development issues of the community. The PRA method was developed at the same time FSR methods were evolving and emphasised community participation. At present PRA has taken over the role of traditional informal survey or rapid rural appraisal PRA method reinforced some of the techniques used during the informal survey and added on tools such as wealth ranking, social resource mapping and emphasised community participation. Simultaneously a range of farmer participatory research approaches (Table 1.1) have emerged to maximise farmer input and collaboration which places high value on farmer knowledge, experimentation, and evaluation (Farrington and Martin, 1987).
Table 1.1Participatory methods and their focus
METHOD / FOCUS- Rapid Rural Appraisal (RRA)
- Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA)
- Participatory Rural Appraisal and Planning (PRAP)
- Participatory Assessment and Planning (DAP)
- Participatory Learning and Action (PLA)
- Participatory Impact Monitoring (PIM)
- Participatory Farm Management Methods (PFM)
- Participatory extension Approach (PEA)
- Rapid Appraisal of Agricultural Knowledge Systems (RAAKS)
- Agricultural Knowledge Information Systems (AKIS)
- Agricultural and Rural Knowledge Information System (ARKIS)
- Participatory Technology Development (PTD)
- Participatory Poverty Appraisal (PPA)
Source: Anandajayasekeram and Dixon, 1996.
The popularity of participatory approaches in based on the assumption that they eliminate the weakness of the traditional ‘top down’ approach to research and development. Participatory approaches value the input of the beneficiary and are associated with increasing the respect for an incorporation of indigenousknowledge in all aspects of a programme of project. In the Farming Systems Approach Technology Development and Transfer (FSA-TDT) process participation occurs during the entireprojectcycle namely problem identification, project design including feasibility analysis, project implementation, monitoring and evaluation, development of the final recommendation and the eventual feed back. There are a large number of benefits derived as a result of beneficiaries’ participation. Some of the benefits of participation are:
- Ensure that the intervention in fact addresses the priority problems of the target group
- Increases beneficiary commitment tote project.
- Improves the accuracy of the
- Increases the chance of sustainability and continuity
- Increases knowledge of he technology by the beneficiaries, leading to improved beneficiary utilisation definition of the project.
- Ensures that the needs of the beneficiaries are understood and met.
- Contributes to empowerment
Effective farmer participation is required to ensure that accountability and responsibility for FSA is vested with the intended beneficiaries. Stakeholder participation is crucial for achieving sustainable development, but it will not occur unless a conscious effort is made to ensure that the intended beneficiaries are empowered to make their own decisions and are allowed to take risk. Similarly for sustainability and effective implementation of FSA there is a vital need to train various stakeholders on the evolving methodologies and procedures. Training should be provided at all levels.
Empowerment and capacity building are considered to the critical for the continuity and sustainability of most research and development. These two aspects are not mutually exclusive, but are complementary. Empowerment and capacity building should be achieved a all levels in the TDT process. Empowerment means creating the ability of nationals, especially farmer and community groups to identify and solve problems, to innovate to articulate their problems and to improve the efficiency of heir organisations (Anandajayasekeram et. al., n.d). The overall objective of empowerment is to help farmers to chart their destiny and manage the consequences: thus they must be actively involved in determining strategies, priorities, planning and execution of activities in a way which promotes their ownership of the entire process and the results. This requires considerable capacity building. Empowerment will lead to improve skills, increased knowledge and the ability to use this knowledge, access to resources and to market services, as well as functioning farmer organisations. FSA provides an approach that fosters the empowerment of small farmers for technology transfer and assessment. In the contest of technology transfer, farmers derive power from several sources. First, knowledge of their systems and the performance of alternative technologies strengthens farmers’ ability for sound decision-making. Second, power depends on the capacity to articulate field-level realities including their needs to senior decision a in such a way that policies and programmes are adjusted. Third, the organisation of farmers into self-help or users groups strengthens the power of farmers.
1.1.4Farmer Circumstances
1.1.4.1Why do we need to know farmer circumstances
The term ‘farmer circumstances’ refers to all those factors that influence farmers’ decisions. The circumstance of the farmer is the situation in which farmers find him/herself and the situation s/he has to manage. It is important to collect, analyse, and interpret the available secondary information before collecting any primary data to describe system.
There are several reasons why the research team should be interested in farmer circumstances. These include:
- To identify the management challenges that farmers are facing. This is a key element in determining the farmers’ management strategies, and priority constraints. Traditionally smallholder farmers adopt a number of strategies to manage the various challenges they meet in farming (see example in Box 1.2).
- To provide an initial understanding of the system
- Farmer circumstances not only determine the current production technology but are also important in farmer’s decision concerning technology change. If a change in technology conflicts with any of the prevailing circumstance of the farmers, that technology may be rejected.
- Information on farmer circumstances might reveal important discrepancies between stated policy goals and actual implementation. For example the late arrival of credit leading to untimely use of inputs and the late payments for crops may act as a disincentive for production.
- Defining or redefining “target group”.
Box 1.2Example of farmers' strategies to manage challenges
Challenge: / One of the common challenges encountered by farmers in rain-fed agriculture is unreliable rainfallStrategies: / The smallholder farmers employ a number of strategies as to manage this challenge. These include: staggered planting, intercropping (e.g., maize/sorghum), multiple cropping (e.g.., maize, rice/cassava), growing insurance crops (e.g., cassava and sweet potato or early vs. late varieties), low yielding but draught resistant varieties, mixed varieties (e.g., beans), low level or no purchased input used, low plant population
Challenge: / Another challenge in tropical agriculture is pest and disease incidence
Strategies: / Crop rotation, adjusting time of planting, changing the crop itself, mixing varieties grown in the same place at the same time.
1.1.4.2 Types of Farmer Circumstances
The information on farmer circumstances may be grouped into five categories: natural (physical and biological) circumstances; institutional circumstance; infrastructural circumstance; economic circumstance; and social and cultural circumstances. The various items considered under these individual categories are given in Table 1.2 and elaborated further in Figure 1.2.