Indigenous Knowledge and Development
Monitor, November 2001 Indigenous Knowledge and Development
Monitor, November 2001
Contents IK Monitor (9-3) | IKDM Homepage | Suggestions to: ikdm@nuffic.nl | © copyright Nuffic-CIRAN and contributors 2001.
Gitta Röth
The position of farmers' local knowledge within agricultural extension, research, and development cooperation
During the last ten years a number of participatory approaches to rural development have emerged, all of which place a strong emphasis on local knowledge systems. But what will be the position of local knowledge under the newly emerging paradigms of privatization, commercialization and the decentralization of agricultural services in developing countries?
Transfer-of-technology (TOT)
In the the years following the Second World War, development cooperation was
based on the transfer of technologies to developing countries. According to the
model of social labour division in Western cultures, technical knowledge was
generated by science and industry, transferred by extension services and
utilized by farmers. The introduction of Western technology to non-Western
farmers was intended to increase production capacity and improve the market
position of the agricultural sector.
However, this approach disregarded the fact that the majority of small-scale farmers in developing countries do not have the economic resources to embrace these more expensive technology packages. The passive resistance of the target groups to the new concept of modernization was seen as a sign of traditionalism, ignorance, and a lack of flexibility. So little account was taken of local knowledge and value systems that they were in effect marginalized (Tillmann 1995).
Training-and-visit (T&V)
To implement the TOT model on a larger scale the training-and-visit (T&V)
system for agricultural extension was introduced in many developing countries.
T&V works best in large, high-potential areas dominated by a few key crops
for which uniform recommendations can be developed. However, the low-potential,
highly diverse farming areas, inhabited by resource-poor farmers, were largely
disregarded (Röling 1998).
T&V was designed as a management system for energizing extension staff, turning desk-bound, poorly motivated field staff into effective extension agents. They were given intensive training focusing on the technical skills to be passed on to contact farmers. These workers were usually selected on the basis of literacy, wealth, readiness to change and progressiveness, which often set them apart from the rest of the community. As most of the farmers had neither the same financial resources nor the technical skills, the secondary transfer of the message was much less successful than predicted, and adoption rates were usually very low among non-contact farmers. As a result, they were often labelled by extensionists as laggards who lacked the right attitude (Pretty 1995).
Farming systems research (FSR)
In the mid-seventies a new approach to agricultural research emerged in
developing countries, in the form of farming systems research (FSR). Trials were
conducted together with farmers to identify the constraints of existing
production systems and the new 'improved' technology packages. In much of the
on-farm research involving new crop varieties and alternative production
practices, the farmers' role was to provide land and labour, act as an
experimental control by farming an adjacent plot with his or her 'standard
practices' and, finally, to respond to the results of the experimental
treatments (Sumberg & Okali 1998). Extension staff worked with farmers to
identify their problems and, with the help of researchers, came up with 'new'
solutions.
Rather than helping farmers to solve their own problems, they fostered reliance on the extension workers and their resource base to solve the problems identified by the farmers (Rogers 1996).
Farmer-first (FF) and Beyond farmer-first (BFF)
In an effort to move forward after the low acceptance of the 'new' solutions,
another paradigm for rural development emerged with the promotion of active
participation, empowerment and poverty alleviation. The introduction
of the farmer-first (FF) approach in the late 1980s represented a reversal for
agricultural research and extension bodies. The starting point of development
was now an active and equitable partnership between rural people, researchers
and extensionists.
The FF approach concentrated on the technical side of local knowledge, and the follow-up movement beyond farmer-first (BFF), launched in the early 1990s, has expanded this perspective. Indigenous knowledge1 is seen as the cultural knowledge of rural people, promoting understanding and identity among the members of a farming community, where local technical knowledge and skills are inextricably linked to non-technical issues. The BFF programme incorporates a sociopolitically differentiated view of development - where factors such as gender, ethnicity, class, age and religion are highlighted. This has had major implications for research and extension practice.
Participatory research and development concepts
According to the principles of BFF, new participatory approaches have been
developed for agricultural research. These involve a soft-systems approach that
centres on networks, relations of power, and dynamic performance. Participatory
action research (PAR) and, increasingly, farmer participatory research (FPR),
participatory technology development (PTD), participatory rural appraisal (PRA)
and farmer field school (FFS) all share elements of this new style. These
programmes encourage farmers to generate and evaluate indigenous technologies on
the basis of their own knowledge and value system.
Future strategies for agricultural research and extension
All these participatory approaches emphasize local knowledge systems; this has
attracted considerable attention and strengthened the position of indigenous
knowledge in rural areas. But what of the future position of local knowledge?
How will small-scale farmers fare under the pressures of privatization,
commercialization and the decentralization of agricultural services? These
rational, pragmatic strategies once again seem to favour high-potential
agriculture and well-developed infrastructures, but the majority of smallholders
cannot afford to pay for private research and extension services.
Even so, there seems to be some possibility that smallholders can profit from the new concepts, and there are sectors where local knowledge will continue to be important, e.g., in nature conservation and resource management, areas which will either remain the task of government services or will increasingly be contracted out to the NGO sector.
Alternative research and extension
Although many official systems have implemented highly sophisticated models such
as T&V, the programmes did not substantially improve the economic security
of farmers, or help to support sustainable farming practices. Resources have
often been spent on administrative costs and the salaries of field workers
rarely been seen at farmers' homes, especially in remote areas. A large
proportion of the available resources disappeared into corrupt channels, which
is always a danger within hierarchical and centralized institutional structures.
Many small-scale farmers still have considerable information deficits on
technical, economic, marketing and environmental issues.
Privatizing services
Privatizing services may offer some advantages. If services have to be paid for,
the clients might be able to exert more control, securing a higher
accountability of the providers. Research and extension have to become more
effective and demand-driven, with farmers setting the priorities. This would
mean the elimination of unproductive and redundant services. A multiplicity of
service providers may offer more flexible structures, thus improving the
relevance and effectiveness of the process of technology generation and transfer
(ARKIS 1999). Free competition and special certification programmes could
improve the quality of service providers.
Defining resposibilities
In this light, governments in developing countries should clearly define the
different responsibilities of the public and the private sector for agricultural
research and extension. Depending on the stage of private commercial development,
public extension agencies should refrain, immediately or gradually, from
promoting private goods such as hybrid crop varieties, fertilizers, and
machinery. Extension on technical issues, economy and marketing can be
contracted out to private companies, to NGOs, producers' associations or farmer
groups. Governments could offer vouchers to farmers' associations or communities,
so that they can purchase extension services from a provider of their own choice
- public, NGO, or private. If farmers have to pay for the services as customers,
they will be better able to negotiate their extension priorities. A dialogue
with professionals would put them in a better position to come forward with
their own knowledge and experience in discussions on new technologies, thus
contributing to greater empowerment.
Working together
This process would, at least in theory, allow providers to concentrate on
low-potential agriculture, resource management in fragile areas, social issues,
and organizational development. While focusing on poverty alleviation, they
could be urged to work together with their target groups in searching for
alternative strategies which are simple, cheap and adapted to local conditions.
The local knowledge of rural people would still be important, and the NGOs could
then support the exchange of local knowledge on a regional, national and
international level.
While focusing on poverty alleviation, they could be urged to work together with their target groups in searching for alternative strategies which are simple, cheap and adapted to local conditions. The local knowledge of rural people would still be important, and the NGOs could then support the exchange of local knowledge on a regional, national and international level.
The exchange of experiences between NGOs will benefit from what modern information technology and the mass media have to offer. The transfer of knowledge can be organized via Internet or CD-roms, while local and national extension campaigns can make use of radio and TV programmes.
With the growing demand for learning organizations and knowledge management, local knowledge will increasingly gain in importance, as different knowledge systems are merged.
Decentralizing and democratizing organizational structures
In view of the success of participatory programmes, it is clear that operational
responsibilities should be devolved away from central governments and towards
local governments and communities. This means that funding must flow from the
national level to lower levels of government, in accordance with the
responsibilities at each level.
A number of countries have already given district or municipal administrations the power to make decisions on extension content and coverage. Decentralized bodies and local stakeholders are also gradually taking over the remaining responsibilities for extension funding.
At the same time, users of the knowledge systems are now better represented on the various boards that decide policy, funding, and priorities for extension systems (ARKIS 1999). In this way the general focus is becoming more local.
Decentralized administrative structures can respond better to the needs of rural people, provided they are not dominated by local elites. The search for solutions to local development problems must be carried out with local resources. So that even at a time of increasing globalization, the local knowledge, resources and traditions of indigenous cultures will gain a new importance.
Gitta Röth
Consultant, Stadtgrenze 5
40670 Meerbusch
Germany
Tel.: +49-2159-815183
Fax: +49-259-81584
E-mail: gitta.roeth@city.de
References
ARKIS (1999) A Strategic Vision, Agricultural and Rural Knowledge and
Information Systems. Discussion Draft, elaborated by FAO and World Bank,
provided by Willem Zijp.
Chambers, R. (1989) 'Reversals, institutions and change', in Chambers et al. (1989) Farmer First. Intermediate Technology Publications, London.
Pretty, J. (1995) Regenerating Agriculture. Earthscan Publications, London.
Röling, N. (1998) 'Can the farmer field school replace the T&V system of extension in Sub-Saharan Africa? Some answers from Zanzibar', unpublished paper, draft 3, Wageningen, the Netherlands.
Rogers, A. (1996) 'Participatory training: using critical reflection on experience in agricultural extension training', in Training for Agricultural and Rural Development, FAO, Rome.
Scoones, I., and J. Thompson (1994) 'Knowledge, power and agriculture - towards a theoretical understanding', in Beyond Farmer First, Intermediate Technology Publications, London.
Sumberg, J., and C. Okali (1998) 'Farmers, on-farm and new technology', in: Chambers et al. (1989) Farmer First, Intermediate Technology Publications, London.
Tillmann, H. (1995) People's Knowledge und nachhaltige Entwicklung von unten' in Schröder, P. (1995) Lokales Wissen und Entwicklung. Verlag für Entwicklungspolitik, Saarbrücken.
Websites that may interest readers of this article.
Back to: top of the page | Contents
IK Monitor (9-3) | IKDM Homepage
Suggestions to: ikdm@nuffic.nl
© copyright Nuffic-CIRAN and contributors 2001.