Catalytic Action for the Emergence of Farmer- Demand ... · Catalytic Action for the Emergence of Farmer-Demand-Driven Extension • In Kilosa District the village multi-stakeholder

Catalytic Action for the Emergence of Farmer-Demand-Driven Extension

Experiences from East Africa

Clive Lightfoot ISG, France ISG is an international non profit professional association registered in the Netherlands

This case study was prepared for the workshop entitled “Extension and Rural Development: A Convergence of Views on International Approaches?”, held November 12-15, 2002 in Washington, DC, and hosted by the Sustainable Agricultural Systems and Knowledge Institutions Thematic Group of the World Bank and the United States Agency for International Development in conjunction with the Neuchatel Initiative. The findings, interpretations, and conclusions of this case study are the author’s own and should not be attributed to the World Bank, its management, its Board of Executive Directors, or the countries they represent.

Extension and Rural Development: A Convergence of Views on International Approaches?

Introduction

Farmer Demand a Focus for Extension Reform

Farmer-demand-driven extension focuses on moving from a situation where farmers are recipients of extension campaigns planned for them by government to where farmers demand for the services they want. Bringing about this movement means that farmers’ must empower themselves to do their own planning and identification of service needs. It means that farmers’ must negotiate their service needs with public and private service providers. It means that all stakeholders must examine the consequences for supporting the emergence of demand driven extension for their own organizations. Farmers cannot be ‘forced’ to do any of these things. Neither can service providers be forced to embrace the many new and changing demands of farmers. This is the lesson of many ‘top-down’ extension reform operations. For this extension reform farmers have to ‘want’ to move and largely on their own resources. Service providers have to want to become dynamic and responsive.

This case study examines a ‘catalytic action’ by the International Support Group (ISG)† to initiate the emergence of farmer-demand-driven extension. The catalytic action builds capacity among farmers, service providers and local government to run their own multi-stakeholder learning process outside conventional project modes and without relying on external financial resources. The catalytic action is executed in three phases: first, exploration of interest among key stakeholders; second, self-organization among interested stakeholders; and third, capacity building in multi-stakeholder collaborative learning processes. The catalytic action is undertaken on the strict understanding that there are no funds for any actions by farmers or service providers that emerge from the process. All efforts are ‘self-help’, on stakeholders own resources and within their current jobs.

The Motivation for Extension Reform

A government’s motives for farmer-demand-driven extension are not just to save public funds and achieve environmentally sound and socially equitable development, but also to promote empowerment of smallholder farmers, and better governance at local levels. Such motives are central to the National Poverty Reduction Strategies which agricultural extension is bound to support. Thus, Kenya’s new National Agriculture and Livestock Programme of the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development(ii), Uganda’s National Agriculture Advisory Service Programme(iii) and Tanzania’s Rural Development Strategy(iv) all promote farmer-demand-driven extension.

Policies and operational guides are in place, the transforming of conventional extension is underway. On the ground, however, reality looks different from what’s on paper. Farmers are disappointed because they are not getting the handouts of inputs and training that they were used to. Extension officers are disappointed because they are not getting the wherewithal to visit farmers and run their usual campaigns. Local governments are disappointed because ‘their’ extension staff is not working hard for them as they are being used for party politics or by NGO’s. Getting farmer-demand-driven extension started is harder than the planners and policy makers thought.

† ISG is an international non profit professional association registered in the Netherlands

1


Catalytic Action

What was the catalytic action about?

The catalytic action was about initiating the emergence of farmer-demand-driven extension through: a) empowering farmers to demand services and negotiate with public and private service providers, b) changing the relationships between key stakeholders such that they can all collaborate to support farmers realize their future visions‡, and c) facing up to the implications this has for the way each organization worked.

How and when was the catalytic action implemented?

ISG implemented the exploratory phase. ISG selected the individuals and institutions to contact. ISG facilitated the brainstorming on ‘what does a learning approach mean to us’? All this happened in one week visits to Kenya, Uganda and Tanzania during May 1998.

ISG then left the stage for the second phase of self organization which was implemented entirely by the interested parties. Kenya’s national multi-stakeholder group was ready by September 1998. It took the Tanzanians a further year, including a sensitization workshop in November 1999, to form a national multi-stakeholder group. In Uganda, after the collapse of national efforts, a group of development professionals in Soroti district emerged in July 1999.

For the capacity building phase ISG returned to facilitate the multi-stakeholder collaborative learning workshops. The workshops, through learning-by-doing, enabled each stakeholder to develop their own operational guidelines for: a) empowering farmers to develop future visions for their villages; b) identifying service demands to support farmers’ future visions; c) negotiating partnerships between multiple stakeholders for collective action; and d) examining organizational consequences for each stakeholder. These workshops took place as follows:

• Nyeri District, Kenya, 17-27 November 1998.

• Soroti District, Uganda, 3 July 1999.

• Kilosa District, Tanzania, 12-16 June 2000.

• Lushoto District, Tanzania 21-25 May 2001.

Since these workshops ISG has been keeping in touch with the multi-stakeholder groups that have emerged through ad hoc visits, email exchanges, and engagement as resource persons in training.

Who were the parties involved?

The parties involved in the catalytic action during the capacity building workshops span village, district and national levels.

• At the village level workshop participants included: farmer group leaders, elected officials, local government officers, teachers and extension workers.

‡ A vision of what their village area would look like in 10 to 20 years time: the natural resources, the farm lands, the houses, schools, clinics and other infrastructure.

2


• At the district level workshop participants from the public sector included: elected officials, local government officers from agriculture, community development and planning. Private sector participants came from NGO’s, co-operatives, farmer unions, input suppliers, credit and marketing agencies.

• At the national level workshop participants included: academics and researchers, development specialists from government ministries of agriculture, forestry, environment, local government planning as well as NGO’s, co-operatives and farmer unions.

This mix of stakeholders at the workshop enabled two things to happen. First it helped the farmers engage their village leadership in the informal ‘learning groups’ they formed on returning home. Second, it provided an informal ‘learning group’ at the district level for the villagers to link up with. These relationships: between groups and village leadership, and between village and district, are extremely important to sustainability and up-scaling.

Impact

Immediate Outcomes for Farmers and Service Providers

The outcomes presented here are the results of participants going back home engaging their village leadership and forming ‘multi-stakeholder groups’ to mobilize villagers into action and negotiate partnerships with a wide variety of service providers and local government authorities(v).

Kenya: After the ‘Nyeri’ workshop three new farmer groups have formed: Livestock Stakeholders Self-help Association (LISSA), Kisii Network for Ecological Agricultural Development (KNEAD), and the Nyeri Ecological Farmers Association (NEFA).

• LISSA has established an association from producer to consumer that gives a better deal to each stakeholder from the marginalized pastoralists’ to the butchery and consumer.

• KNEAD has supported villagers form their own water resource management teams, prepare their own future vision plans, contribute their own resources to realize their plans and demand only those resources they need from the project.

• NEFA’s Gitundu-Gataro farmers group helped their communities avoid the violence and disastrous splits of coffee cooperatives into smaller units through changes in cooperative leadership, more inclusive decision making processes, and better prices to farmers.

• NEFA’s Mugumoini farmers group helped their community put a stop to logging and burning for charcoal and start planting trees in the forest, around springs and along streams so that the once dried up streams are flowing again sufficient to irrigate their vegetable gardens.

• NEFA’s Itemeni farmers group enabled: a) the parents and teachers rid the local primary school of a corrupt school board, b) dairy farmers, transport operators and the ‘ecological’ farmers to deal with the waste generated by the rapid rise in ‘backyard’ livestock, that had resulted in an outbreak of cholera, and c) confrontation between villagers and council members over the proposed leasing of the communities forest to a tea factory to be avoided and have the hill gazetted as a protected area.

Tanzania: In Kilosa and Lushoto Districts the Tanzania Multi-sector Learning Coalition (TMLC) has

been supporting the development of multi-stakeholder teams at district and village levels.

3


• In Kilosa District the village multi-stakeholder ‘teams’ in Vidunda, Msimba and Kisanga have lobbied their local authorities to pass by-laws against farming near water sources and burning forests for clearing land. Mobilization and partnerships with extension has resulted in groups of farmers planting trees around denuded spring lines, terracing lower valley slopes, and constructing furrows to improve irrigation systems. In Vidunda the team has mobilized the community and formed partnerships with many diverse service providers to get a new road to the village started.

• In Lushoto District the multi-stakeholder teams in Malindi Ward mobilized their communities to terrace their sloping fields in partnership with extension and the SECAP project. Partnership with the Tanga Dairy Trust has enabled the start up of zero grazing dairy enterprises among women’s groups with goats and men’s groups with cattle. Mobilizing community labour the team lobbied district authorities for trucks and graders to repair two kilometres of damaged road.

Uganda: In Soroti District, Development Support Services (DSS), a group of development professionals and farmers, introduced collaborative learning to two NGO’s Veterinaires sans Frontieres (VSF) and Self-Help Development International (SHDI).

• VSF has improved its services to livestock holders, especially in the location and management of water-points. With this success VSF attracted additional funding to incorporate two other districts into its program.

• SHDI developed a participatory monitoring and evaluation scheme that includes farmers’ visions for the future, identification of activities required to achieve those visions and development of a format to monitor and evaluate these activities.

• DSS consultancy work with UNHCR’s refugee camps reduced conflict both within refugee households and between tribal groups as provision of gardens and better ways of discussing grievances and demarcating living areas have been introduced.

Weaknesses and Unfinished Business

The purpose of this catalytic action was to initiate the emergence of farmer-demand-driven extension. While this has happened among those participating in the catalytic actions little change has occurred in the general running of district or national extension offices. On the occasion where national authorities have taken notice ‘top-down’ interests in commodities and enterprise development have ‘clashed’ with farmer demands for services to improve natural resource management and public goods, like roads and water supplies. This leaves field officers with the tricky job of balancing these two very different sets of demands.

While farmer demand has emerged among those directly involved, the catalytic actions have not spread to other districts. Indeed, the only spread has been from village to its immediate neighbours. While invitations from other villages and districts have been extended their own resources cannot stretch that far. The multi-stakeholder groups in Kenya, Uganda and Tanzania have, with the exception of Danida’s support in Tanzania, all found it impossible to get their proposals to up-scale this catalytic action funded.

Strengths and Success Factors

Ensuring the ownership of collaborative learning process by local stakeholders through self-organization at village and district levels, and using organizations with legitimacy and convening power to bring multiple stakeholders together.

4


Initiating the catalytic action as a self help activity outside conventional project modes thus avoiding ‘hijacking’ by those motivated by money and projects. Only those who are committed, serious and see a benefit to their work engage when financial incentives are absent.

Utilizing vision based planning that empowers farmers to determine their own future development and identify service demands that support their visions. The move away from short term problem solving to realising longer term visions stimulates collective action by community members.

Encouraging behaviour and attitudes so that all stakeholders are able to rely on each others integrity, have no hidden agenda’s and say what they really think to each other. At no time are the steps in a learning process de-linked from the behaviour and attitudes that make it successful.

Facilitating direct interaction between stakeholders assures that the perceptions and interests of each stakeholder are acknowledged, thus helping them discover their own inter-dependencies and mutual benefits from collective actions. Moreover, group pressure brings about face-to-face accountability for past actions and future decisions enhancing governance.

Sustainability and Replicability

Will the changes brought about be sustainable?

Given that this catalytic action was implemented outside a project mode and relied on self-help among all the local stakeholders the chances for sustaining the emergence of farmer demand are high.

• At the farmer level the facilitation of multi-stakeholder collaborative learning appears sustainable because the costs of running the process are low compared to the benefits of resolving conflicts and crises. However, this process is only used on an as need basis.

• At the village level maintaining a multi-stakeholder ‘team’ appears sustainable because it operates on volunteerism. However, survival depends on village leadership and success of the team.

• At the district level maintaining a multi-stakeholder group appears sustainable only when participating organizations see it as helping their staff ‘do their jobs better’. However, groups only operate at low levels of activity.

What would it take to replicate the catalytic action?

Replication would require the following actions:

• Introducing mass media information campaigns.

• Upgrading of communications systems to link experienced villagers with interested villages for peer-to-peer training.

• Promoting vision based planning at the village by local planning officers.

• Developing a pool of mentors at district level to support village peer-to-peer training and district multi-stakeholder collaborative learning workshops.

• Establishing village bank accounts to pay for mentoring services and peer-to-peer exchanges.

5


Lessons

Mind-shifts for the emergence of demand driven extension

Farmers should stop thinking about today’s problems and start thinking about how their place should look in the future. To stop basing their community plans on current problems and start basing their plans on future visions.

Project managers should stop holding on to project resources and responsibilities, and start handing some of them over to local people. Handing over the ‘economic stick’ so that farmers buy the assistance and resources they need.

Donors and government should stop demanding the usual project outputs and start valuing process and changes in behaviour and attitudes. To stop funding activities and start providing funds on the basis of results achieved and impact made.

Threats to the emergence of demand driven extension

Lack of dynamism in organizations that are too afraid to stop ineffective working practices and provide their staff with opportunities to innovate. Service providers wishing to meet farmers’ demands will need to adopt new practices and discard ineffective ones.

Lack of recognition by leaders of farmer organizations, service providers and government that time spent in multi-stakeholder coalitions is an important investment for the survival of their organizations.

Lack of confidence among policy makers and managers in the organizational and innovative capacities of farmers. Officials, and others in positions of authority, perceive and treat farmers as stubborn and ignorant giving little credibility to farmer knowledge and experience.

Lack of control over operational decisions and financial resources by farmers. Farmers should control the financial resources for paying service providers. Farmers should develop their own operational guidelines for demand driven extension.

Suggestions on mechanisms to install demand driven extension

Mechanisms to initiate:

• Explore interest in multi-stakeholder collaborative learning with diverse stakeholders.

• Self organization at district/village level to demand capacity building.

Mechanisms to guide:

• Sensitization workshops for national/district level organization.

• Multi-stakeholder collaborative learning workshops at district level.

• Self organization at district and village level of multi-stakeholder groups.

6


Mechanisms to maintain:

• Exchange of success stories between farmer groups facilitated by mentors.

• Follow up ‘reflection’ visits by mentors and email exchange.

• Links to international experiences using internet and outside mentors.

7


References

Lightfoot. C., R. Ramírez, A. Groot, R. Noble, C. Alders, F. Shao, D. Kisauzi, I. Bekalo. 2001. Learning Our Way Ahead: Navigating Institutional Change and Agricultural Decentralization. Gatekeeper Series 98. IIED, London. 24p.

Republic of Kenya. 2001. National Agriculture and Livestock Programme (NALEP): Implementation Framework. Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development, Nairobi. Kenya. 83p

Republic of Uganda. 2000. National Agriculture Advisory Service Programme (NAADS): Master Document of the NAADS Task Force. Ministry of Agriculture Animal Industry and Fisheries. Entebbe, Uganda. 68p.

United Republic of Tanzania. 2001. Rural Development Strategy: Main Report Final. Prime Ministers Office. Dar es Salaam. Tanzania. 83p.

Lightfoot. C., C. Alders, F. Dolberg. 2001. Linking Local Learners: Negotiating New Development Relationships between Village, District and Nation. ISG/ARDAF/Agroforum. Greve, Denmark. 120p.

Acknowledgements

Catalytic actions depend on people who are passionate about development. In Kenya, Uganda and Tanzania we found many such people all of whom we acknowledges here. Specifically, we acknowledge the individuals who have provided leadership in their countries. In Tanzania: Francis Shao, Grace Muro, Faustin Lekule, Mark Farahani and Augustine Lamosai. In Uganda: Simon Okalebo, Anthony Mugenyi and Henry Oluput. In Kenya: Isaac Bekalo, Michael Kibue, and Andrew Rianga. Lastly, I would like to acknowledge those members of ISG that have been involved in East Africa: Ricardo Ramirez, Annemarie Groot, Reg Noble and Maria Fernandez.

Author Biography

Dr. Clive Lightfoot divides his time between ISG, as executive director, consulting and teaching at the International Center for Development Oriented Agriculture in Montpellier. For the last twenty five years he has worked on participatory action research methods in sub-saharan Africa and South-East Asia in many different institutional settings: Donor projects with DfID, Universities with Cornell, CGIAR centers with IRRI and ICLARM, and international NGO’s with ISG. His current research interests are in learning approaches to complex organizational change associated with reconciling conflicts in natural resource management and decentralization and privatization of agriculture support services.

8


Annex A; Suggestions on Training and Contacts

Suggestions on training

Extension managers at district and local levels:

• Learning by doing with farmers, local government officials and other service providers in multi-stakeholder collaborative learning workshops.

• Reflection workshops on how to assess organizational consequences, partnership performance and development impact.

Facilitators and Mentors in NGO and service providers:

• Training of trainers in Mentoring and Facilitation of collaborative learning processes.

• Apprenticeships in running multi-stakeholder collaborative learning workshops.

Senior managers at national level and Bank staff:

• Sensitization workshops on multi-stakeholder collaborative learning.

• Reflection workshops on performance assessment.

Local government and elected officials:

• Sensitization workshops on multi-stakeholder collaborative learning.

Contact persons Kenya

Isaac Bekalo. <<[email protected]>>

Michael Kibue. <<[email protected]>>

Andrew Rianga. <<[email protected]>>

Godfrey Kariuki. <<[email protected]>>

James Kanyi. <<[email protected]>>

Moses Gichuru <<[email protected]>>

Stephen Waikwa <<[email protected]>>

Uganda

Simon Okalebo. <<[email protected]>>

Anthony Mugenyi. <<[email protected]>>

9

mailto:[email protected]







Henry Aleko. <<[email protected]>>

Henry Olupot. <[email protected]>>

Tanzania

Francis Shao <<[email protected]>>

Faustus Lekule. <<[email protected]>>

Mark Farahani. <<[email protected]>>

Grace Muro. <<[email protected]>>

Hassan Shelukindo. <<[email protected]>>

Lucas Shemndolwa. <<[email protected]>>

Agustin Lamosai <<[email protected]>>

ISG

Maria Fernandez. <<[email protected]>>

Annemarie Groot. <<[email protected]>>

Reg Noble. <<[email protected]>>

Ricardo Ramirez. <<[email protected]>>

Clive Lightfoot. <<[email protected]>>

10













Annex B: Outline of Practical Guidelines for Extension Reform Managers 1. The Challenges Confronting Farmer Demand Driven Agriculture Extension

1.1. Guiding the complex organizational changes

1.2. Multi-stakeholder collaboration

1.3. Nurture different approaches

1.4. Prioritizing the wide array of demands

1.5. Fast track capacity building

1.6. Targeting the poor and marginalized women

1.7. Targeting environmental threats

2. The New Vision for Farmer Demand Driven Extension

2.1. A vision for the future

2.2. A mission statement

2.3. Guiding principles for implementation

3. Ideas for Transitional Actions

3.1. Empowering farmers

3.2. Promotion of farmer demand

3.3. Ensuring efficiency and cost effectiveness

3.4. Promoting use of different approaches

3.5. Changing roles and responsibilities

3.6. Monitoring and evaluation

3.7. Capacity building

4. Guidelines for Implementing Field Operations

4.1. How stakeholders understand the new extension policy?

4.2. How farmers empower themselves?

4.3. How farmers demand for services?

4.4. How private and public service providers identify future services to offer?

4.5. How local government determines its future roles?

4.6. How to negotiate multi-stakeholder partnerships?

11


4.7. How to reflect on the performance of new partnerships?

4.8. How to examine organizational implications?

5. Institutional Implications for Implementing Operational Guidelines

5.1. Link between planning processes

5.3. Link between assessment processes

5.3. Key roles for government

6. Human Resource Capacity for Implementing Operational Guidelines

7.1. At the local level

7.2. At the district level

7.3. At the national level

7. Threats to Realising Farmer Demand Driven Extension

7.1. The threat of weak commitment

7.2. The threat of not mainstreaming agriculture

7.3. The threat of no-confidence

7.4. The threat of paralysis

7.5. The threat of poor use of funds

7.6. The threat of missing the poor

12


13

Other Publications and Resources

Reports and Proceedings

Kenya Core Group. 1999. Linked Local Learning: Multi-Stakeholder Workshop, Nyeri District. ISG, Amersfoort. Netherlands. 88p.

Tanzania Multi-Sector Learning Coalition. 1999. Proceedings of the Linked Local Learning Core Group Sensitization Workshop, Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. TMLC. Dar es Salaam. 43p.

Tanzania Multi-Sector Learning Coalition. 2000. Proceedings of the Linked Local Learning District Multi-Stakeholder Workshop, Kilosa District, Tanzania. TMLC. Dar es Salaam. 67p.

Tanzania Multi-Sector Learning Coalition. 2001. Proceedings of the Multi-Stakeholder Learning Workshop, Lushoto District, Tanzania. TMLC. Dar es Salaam. 74p.

ISG/NIDA 2001. A Learning Approach to Agricultural Advisory Services: Module 1: Sensitisation Process for Farmers, Service Providers and Local Government, Mukono and Soroti Districts. Technical Report to NAADS. Kampala. 21p.

ISG/NIDA 2001. A Learning Approach to Agricultural Advisory Services: Module 2: Capacity Building for Farmers, Service Providers and Local Government, Mukono District. Technical Report to NAADS. Kampala. 36p.

ISG/NIDA 2001. A Learning Approach to Agricultural Advisory Services: Module 3: Capacity Building for Farmers, Service Providers and Local Government, Soroti District. Technical Report to NAADS. Kampala. 35p.

ISG/NIDA 2001. A Learning Approach to Agricultural Advisory Services: Module 4: Training of Trainers. Technical Report to NAADS. Kampala. 35p.

ISG 2002. A Learning Approach to Agricultural Advisory Services: Module 5. Reflection on Further Development of the Learning Approach Technical Report to NAADS. Kampala. 36p.

CD Roms

Lightfoot. C., R. Ramirez, R. Noble, M. Fernandez, A. Groot. J. Cook. 1999. Linked Local Learning: A Resource CD prepared for Danida East African Seminar Project. Danida, Copenhagen. Denmark.

Lightfoot. C., C. Alders, F. Dolberg. 2001. Linking Local Learners: Negotiating new development relationships between village, district and nation. CD prepared for ISG/ARDAF/Agroforum, Greve, Denmark.

Lightfoot, C. R. Noble. 2001. A Learning Process for Forestry Services, Uganda: Supporting Innovation in the Provision of Privatised Forestry Services. Learning Resources CD prepared for Forest Sector Co-ordination Secretariat, Kampala, Uganda.

Lightfoot, C. S. Okalebo. 2001. A Learning Process for Developing Guidelines on Vision-based Environmental Action Planning. Learning Resource CD prepared for USAID, Conserve BioDiversity Support Project, Kampala. Uganda.

Documents

Catalytic Action for the Emergence of Farmer- Demand ... · Catalytic Action for the Emergence of Farmer-Demand-Driven Extension • In Kilosa District the village multi-stakeholder