Participatory Farm Management

Participatory Farm Managementmethods for agricultural researchand extension: a training manual

Mark Galpin1, Peter Dorward1 and Derek Shepherd2

1Department of Agriculture 2Agricultural Extension and Rural Development Department

The University of Reading PO Box 237Reading RG6 6ARUKwww.agric.rdg.ac.uk

January 2000

ISBN 0 7049 1091 8

Box 1 Summary of PFM methods

1 Scored Causal Diagrams (SCD) help to examine in detail the

causes and effects of problems and identify the root causes

which need to be addressed. The scoring procedure helps to

analyse the relative importance of the problems and prioritise

them.

2 Participatory Budgets (PB) are tools which examine a

farmer s use and production of resources over time for a

specific enterprise. Their main uses are for:

! analysing farmers existing activities, resource-use and

production

! exploring the resource implications of a change to an

enterprise

! comparing different enterprises

! planning a new enterprise.

3 Resource Allocation Maps (RAM) examine the use of

resources over the whole farm during a specific period of time

e.g. a month. RAMs can be used for:

! looking at farmers decisions regarding resource allocation in

different situations.

! examining resource competition between different enterprises

at a specific time of the year.

4 Resource Flow Diagrams (RFD) help to analyse flows of

resources at the farm level.

6 FIELD MANUAL Participatory Farm Management (PFM) methods

The outsiders role

PFM methods are designed to be used by research, extension or

development workers, with small groups of farmers. As with all

participatory methods the attitude and approach of the facilitator is key to

the successful use of the methods and is as important as the method

itself. The role of the outsider should be one of facilitator and pupil, rather

than teacher. He / She will need to initiate the discussion and introduce

the method to the group, but as soon as possible the participants should

take over and do the exercise themselves. The facilitator is therefore

learning from the participants and asking questions for clarification.

Facilitators need to be constantly aware of their behaviour and role in the

group, to ensure that they do not dominate and control. The tips given

below in Box 2 will help the facilitator to achieve this.

Box 2 General tips for use of the methods

! Focus on things of interest to the farmer, not to you.

! Be flexible — go with the farmers flow .

! Let the farmers do it themselves.

! Who s holding the beans? — it should not be you!

! Don t immediately correct the farmers, even if you think they have

made a mistake. They will probably correct it later themselves.

! Let the farmers do the talking.

! Learn rather than teach.

! Be imaginative and creative in the use of symbols. They should be

as representative of what they are portraying as possible.

! Keep diagrams on the floor clear.

! Keep the exercise moving — don t let the participants get bored.

Participatory Farm Management (PFM) methods FIELD MANUAL 7

Method 1: Scored Causal Diagrams (SCDs)

1.1 Introduction

Problem listing, scoring and ranking is a commonly used and effective

PRA tool. However these techniques often fail to examine the

relationships between the problems identified, as scores are given for

each problem independently, even if the problems are closely linked.

This can result in closely related problems being seen in isolation.

Attempts have been made to look at these inter-relationships e.g. using

problem tree analysis, however this is often a method used purely for the

collection of information, with analysis and interpretation carried out by

outsiders rather than the community themselves.

Causal diagramming is a technique which helps the farmer and

researcher together to identify the linkages and relationships between

different problems. This technique has begun to be used by PRA

practitioners and is further developed in this manual, mainly through the

introduction of a scoring method which is used with the diagram. Scored

causal diagramming helps to clarify the nature of each problem more

exactly and to identify the root causes or problems which need to be

addressed, and their relative importance. This also helps in identifying

possible key solutions and the knock-on effects of those solutions.

Scored Causal Diagrams (SCDs) are particularly useful when discussing

the problems associated with a specific crop or enterprise. However,

they can also be used to look at more general problems facing an

individual or a community as a whole.

In this section, Causal Diagrams (CDs) are first described and then the

scoring technique is introduced. Such a method is much easier to use in

the field, than it is to describe in a manual. We would therefore

encourage those who are put-off initially by the apparent complexity of

SCDs to persevere and have a go in the field, as this is when their

strengths become apparent. With increased experience and practice

more will be gained by both facilitators (researchers or extension

workers) and by farmers through the use of the method.

Scored Causal Diagrams help to examine in detail the causes and

effects of problems and to identify the root causes which need to be

addressed. The scoring procedure helps to analyse the relative

importance of the problems and prioritise them.


1.2 Description of Causal Diagrams

Causal diagramming works most effectively after farmers have

discussed, listed and scored their problems. Each of the problems listed

is then represented on the ground by a symbol. Arrows are used to

represent the cause and effect relationships between these different

problems. Through discussion further problems and their causes and

effects might be added to the diagram. A Causal Diagram should not be

considered to be a definitive statement but as a useful tool to aid

discussion and in-depth analysis of problems and issues together with

farmers.

It should be noted that individual problems are often causes of other

problems. For example from the simplified example given in Box 4,

buses late is a problem as well as a cause of drivers drive too fast . It is

therefore artificial to distinguish between problems and causes. In the

text we therefore use the terms interchangeably.


Box 4 Simplified example of a Causal Diagram

The problems identified by various users of a bus company were:

! poor roads

! many accidents

! buses are late

Through discussing and drawing the causes and relationships

between the problems, it became apparent that the problems were

closely linked. Another problem also came to light.

Poor roads result in the buses being late. Because the buses are late,

the drivers drive too fast. Driving fast results in lots of accidents. The

accidents are also directly caused by the poor roads. (Note that the

end problem of lots of accidents is the opposite of the objective of

the bus company i.e. safe transport).

The root cause of the problems identified is therefore the poor

roads . The solution is therefore to improve the condition of the roads.

This will mean that buses arrive on time, therefore the drivers will not

need to drive too fast, which will result in fewer accidents. Better

roads will also directly reduce the number of accidents. By solving the

root cause of the problems identified (poor roads), the end problem

(lots of accidents) will be solved. The objective of the bus company

(safe transport) will therefore be achieved.


1.3 Procedure

a The topic or area of discussion is first identified with the participants.

This could be simply general problems facing a community or could

be focused on a specific crop or enterprise which interests the

participants. The group should come to a consensus on the specific

enterprise or area they want to examine.

b The farmers discuss and list their problems using symbols to illustrate

each problem as it is identified. This list is then scored. The facilitator

explains that often problems are connected and the next step is to

look at the connections between the problems identified. This can be

explained briefly using an appropriate example (see Box 4).

c If a specific enterprise is being discussed, the objective of the

enterprise needs to be clarified with the participants by asking why

they are involved in this particular enterprise. For example, if it is a

cash crop the objective is likely to be to earn income . If it is a food

crop it is likely to be to grow enough food to eat . Often there may be

more than one objective, for example for a crop which is both eaten

and sold. All objectives should be identified.

d These objectives (or objective) are then expressed as problems and

symbolised on the ground. For example, if tomatoes were being

discussed and the objective of the farmers was to earn an income

from tomatoes , this objective expressed as a problem becomes low

income from tomatoes . If the objective is enough tomatoes to eat this

becomes not enough tomatoes to eat . On a general Causal

Diagram the objective is likely to be wealth or happiness . The end

problem would therefore be poverty or unhappiness . The objective

expressed as a problem is the end or final problem on the Causal

Diagram which all other problems eventually cause.

e The direct causes of the end problem are then identified by the

farmers. As they are identified the symbols are placed on the diagram

and arrows are drawn in to represent the causal relationships

between the problems. Each problem is represented on the ground

once only. The causes of those problems are identified and added to

the diagram. These may be from the original list or may be newly

identified. The process is continued until the participants are happy

that all the problems have been included and all the connections

identified.

N.B. It is important that a general lack of money as a cause, is

separated from the problem of low income from the enterprise ,

otherwise it can result in a very confusing diagram. Often it is helpful

to exclude the problem of a general lack of money altogether from the

diagram as it can dominate and be seen as the source of all the

problems.


f The problems at the edge of the diagram with no identified causes

are the root causes. If the logic of the diagram is correct, solving

these root causes will result in the other problems being overcome. It

can therefore be useful to discuss possible solutions to these root

causes with farmers and identify which ones can be influenced by the

farmers themselves, and which cannot. Those which are outside of

the control of the farmer are likely to be researchable constraints

which need outside support to overcome. Researchers should

investigate these problems further. For example poor rainfall may be

overcome by a more appropriate crop variety or through water

conservation measures. Other problems which can be influenced by

the farmers are likely to be developmental in nature and subject to

more immediate influence.

g The positive effects of the solution can be traced back on the diagram,

turning problems into solutions e.g. buses late becomes buses on

time .

h This can result in the farmers prioritising the possible solutions which

they would like to explore further.

Photograph 1 Farmers constructing a Causal Diagram, Brong Ahafo Region, Ghana


1.4 General Causal Diagram: example from Zimbabwe

Figure 1 Causal Diagram for general problems experienced by a farmer group,Gweru District, Zimbabwe

In the Causal Diagram above the end problem is poverty / hunger

which are directly caused by low crop production and low prices for

cattle. The root causes i.e. those with no identified cause are high

population and expensive inputs .


1.5 Example of a Causal Diagram for a specific enterprise

The following example is from an exercise carried out with a group of

farmers in Buhera District, Zimbabwe who specialise in cotton growing.

The problems associated with cotton production were discussed and a

Causal Diagram of these problems drawn up.

Figure 2 Causal Diagram for cotton growing, Buhera District, Zimbabwe


Box 5 Tips for causal diagramming

! Select a shady area with a large clear ground area to draw the

diagram e.g. under a mango tree.

! Encourage the farmers to draw the arrows and circles clearly on

the ground.

! Each problem should be illustrated on the ground once only.

! If your diagram begins to look like a bicycle wheel it suggests that

cause and effect interactions are being left out.

! Use symbols which have an actual connection with the problem

they represent e.g. cow dung to represent lack of manure , so

everyone can remember which symbol represents what problem.

! Discuss the causes and effects of a problem before drawing it on

the ground so it is clear where it should be positioned on the

diagram. This avoids the diagram becoming too confusing.

! It is important that the distinction is made between the general

problem of lack of cash , and the more specific problem of low

income from the enterprise being considered. They should not be

classified as the same problem but should be distinct on the

diagram. If this distinction is not made then the scoring technique

outlined in Section 1.6. below may not work.

! It is often better to exclude the problem of low income totally as

this tends to dominate the diagram. This can be done by

explaining to the participants that low income is a universal

problem, so it is better to exclude it from a diagram looking at

specific problems. If it is included then it should be as a final effect

rather than as a cause.

! Limit the problems to those directly related to the enterprise and

actually experienced by the farmers.

! Whilst drawing the diagram the facilitator should encourage

discussion by asking questions. For example, I don t understand

this connection, can you please explain it to me . This ensures

that all the group and the facilitator understand the diagram fully.

! Focus on solutions which the farmers themselves can implement.

! At the end of the exercise the diagram can be re-drawn onto paper

for the farmers to keep and refer back to later, if they so wish.


1.6 Scoring method for use with Causal Diagrams

1.6.1 Introduction

Although Causal Diagrams are useful for identifying the causes of

specific problems and the connections between these problems, they

give no indication of the relative importance of the different factors

causing each problem. A scoring system is therefore needed so that the

relative importance of each of the problems can be analysed.

The scoring method outlined below involves moving counters up from

the end problem by dividing them between the causes of each

subsequent problem. We recommend that while reading through this

section of the manual you physically do this.

This scoring method helps to determine which causes are more

important than others and enables further detailed discussion of each of

these. Often this highlights different problems from straight-forward

ranking and scoring, providing new insights for both farmers and

outsiders. It can sometimes be more useful to score just part of the

diagram rather than the whole of it, particularly for general Causal

Diagrams.

Photograph 2 Farmers in Brong Ahafo Region, Ghana, scoring a Causal Diagram


1.6.2 Scoring procedure

a After drawing the Causal Diagram, identify the end or final problem

(the objective expressed as a problem) on the diagram. This should

have no effect arrow exiting from it. In the example below this would

be low income from maize .

b Place an even number of beans on this problem e.g. 10. The number

of beans you start with is not important, although the more individual

problems there are on the diagram, the more counters are needed at

the start.

c Ask the farmers to divide the 10 beans between the causes of that

problem (i.e. the arrows entering the problem), to represent how

important the causes of that problem are.

In this example low yields are seen by the farmers as the primary

cause of low income and are perceived to be just over twice as

important as poor quality .

Many pests

Poor emergence

Low yieldsLow grade (poor quality)

Low income from maize

(10)

••• (3) ••••••• (7)

Many pests

Poor emergence

Low yields

Key

= 2 beans / counters

= ‘end’ problem

= ‘root’ cause

Low grade (poor quality)


••••••••••

••

(10)


d The scores are then taken back a further step and divided between

the causes of the next problem using the same procedure as in step

c). In this example the score for low yields (7) is divided between

many pests (4) and poor emergence (3).

e If no causes of the problem have been identified on the diagram i.e.

there are no arrows entering the problem, then the score remains on

that problem. If there is only one cause of the problem e.g. many

pests is the only cause of low grade , the whole score (3) is moved

back to that cause. At each stage the scores are written on the

diagram before the beans are moved on.

f If a cause has more than one effect, then the scores from these effect

arrows are added together. This total is then divided between the

different causes of the problem, as in step (c). In the example below

the total score for many pests (7) is obtained by adding the score

from low grade (3) and the score from low yields (4).

Many pests

Poor emergence



(10)

(3)

••• (3)

•••• (4)

•••••••3+4=7

••• (3)

(7)

Many pests

Poor emergence



(10)

(3)

••• (3) •••• (4)

••• (3)

(7)


g The scoring is continued until all the problems on the diagram have

been scored. The beans or counters should end up on the root

causes.

h On completion of the scoring process, the relative scores of the root

causes can be compared. The higher the score the more important

the problem. This helps the farmers to prioritise the problems which

require action. These scores and the reasoning behind the scores (i.e.

the causes and effects on the diagram) should be clarified with the

participants.

i The possible solutions to the root causes can be discussed and the

effects of these solutions traced back on the diagram.

j If the original list of problems were scored or ranked at the beginning

of the exercise it can be useful to compare this with the ranking of

problems using scores from the diagram (see the poultry example,

section 1.7). Differences should be discussed and the reasons for

lower or higher than expected ranked positions identified from the

diagram (in terms of the causes and effects of the different problems).

Farmers should decide whether the original rank or the rank from the

Causal Diagram is more representative of the scale of the problem.

Conclusions from the exercise should be clarified by farmers at the

end of the exercise and any misinterpretations clarified.

k It can be useful to get different categories of farmers to score the

same diagram. These categories may be defined by the way they

produce a particular crop (as in Box 3) or different wealth, gender or

age groups could be used. This highlights the differences between the

priorities and problems facing these different categories of farmers.


1.7 Scored Causal Diagram: example from Zimbabwe

1.7.1 Introduction

This example is taken from an exercise carried out with a group of

farmers in Buhera District, Zimbabwe who are involved in keeping

poultry as an income generating project. Problems of keeping poultry

were discussed, listed and scored. A Causal Diagram was then

constructed and scored using the method described above, starting with

100 beans on the end problem of small profit from poultry . Despite the

apparent complexity of the final diagram, farmers were perfectly able to

carry out the exercise themselves, facilitated by the extension worker

and researcher when necessary. The original ranking was compared

with the ranking from scores from the Causal Diagram, and the reasons

for differences analysed.


Fig 3 Scored Causal Diagram for poultry enterprise, Buhera District, Zimbabwe

1.7.2 Explanation of poultry Causal Diagram

Considerable discussion took place during the drawing and scoring of

the diagram. This helped in defining the problems more clearly and in

giving relative values to the causes of each problem. For example, the

major cause of small profit was considered to be lack of feeds resulting

in thin chickens which fetched a low price. Death of chickens was a less

important cause of small profit than lack of feeds as relatively few birds

actually died. Lack of feeds was in turn partly caused by no market as

farmers were not able to sell their chickens so they had to keep them

longer, which resulted in feeds running out.


As the inter-relationships were identified and discussed, the exact nature

of the problems were clarified. For example, for the problem of no

market it was crucial to determine what this meant and why there was

no market . It transpired that healthy chickens sold well, and there was

only a problem of no market if your chickens were unhealthy. This

highlighted the need for disease and parasite control and therefore good

housing and equipment. A farmer suggested that the no market problem

could also be reduced if production was timed to coincide with peak

demand, e.g. Christmas. A comparison of the relative importance of the

problems from the initial scoring and from the scoring of the Causal

Diagram showed some interesting differences (see Table 1 below).

Table 1 Comparison of scores and ranks from initial exercise with those from SCD

Original score Causal Diagram Difference between Problem (rank) score (rank) ranks

No chemicals 10 (6=) 16 (6=)

Lack of feeds 28 (2) 57 (3) (-)

No Market 30 (1) 87 (1)

Poor housing 14 (4) 49 (4)

Parasites 6 (10) 45 (5) (+++++)

No spraying Eqpt. 8 (9) 15 (8) (+)

Poor feeders etc. 10 (6=) 16 (6=)

Poor brooder 12 (5) 4 (9) (- - - - )

Predators 18 (3) 1 (10=) (- - - - - - - )

Heat 4 (11) 1 (10=) (+)

Diseases 9 (8) 58 (2) (++++++)

Key

22 score (++) increase in rank by 2 positions(2) rank (- - - ) decrease in rank by 3 positionsBold = root cause

The main differences between the Causal Diagram ranking and ranking

from initial scores are given below together with possible reasons for the

differences.

! The importance of parasites increased because they affect marketing

as well as leading to disease and death.

! Poor brooder decreased in importance as this is not a major cause

of death of chickens .

! Predators are actually a very minor cause of death. It is probable

that this problem was exaggerated in the initial scoring because if

predators do get into the chicken run, losses are very high. However

this rarely happens and is therefore not generally a serious problem.


! Diseases increased in importance greatly as these are a major

cause of no market , as they result in thin chickens , in addition to

causing the death of chickens .

! Of the root causes, poor housing was identified as the most

important as this was a major cause of diseases and parasites

which in turn cause the problem of no market . Poor housing

reflected the cleanliness of the structure, not simply the quality of

construction.

1.7.3 Conclusions from the exercise

Farmers said that the main lessons they learned from the exercise was

that a few healthy chickens were more likely to be profitable than many

unhealthy chickens. They also emphasised the importance of

recognising that all factors act together, and that if one ingredient were

missing, e.g. disease control, that this significantly affected the

enterprise adversely. The comparison of scores indicated that the initial

scoring of problems was misleading for certain aspects e.g. the

importance of predators . Further analysis through drawing and scoring

of the Causal Diagram led to scores which better reflected the reality of

problems relating to poultry production in this area.

No technical information was given to the farmers during this exercise,

and all solutions were suggested by the group themselves. The outsiders

simply acted as facilitators, showing the farmers how to undertake the

exercise and then just asking questions. The benefit of this process to

both farmers and researchers in understanding the system and in

considering solutions to the problems faced was considerable.


Photograph 3 Scoring of poultry Causal Diagram


1.8 Uses of Scored Causal Diagrams

The construction of Scored Causal Diagrams enables farmers and

outsiders to undertake an in-depth analysis of problems, and the cause

and effect relationships between these problems. Through this process

the root causes are identified which need to be resolved if a significant

impact on the problem area is to be achieved. The scoring process adds

to understanding and involves an in-depth, logical analysis of the

situation. It therefore usually results in a more accurate picture of the

scale of the problems in relation to one another than is achieved through

more straightforward ranking and scoring procedures. However, reasons

for any differences between initial rankings and those obtained from

causal diagramming need to be explored with participants. The scores

do not give absolute values but help to prioritise the problem areas, with

respect to the impact that solving them in isolation is likely to have. They

are therefore helpful in decision-making processes.

Despite the apparent complexity of this method, farmers are easily able

to construct the diagram and score it if the technique is demonstrated

clearly. The initial increased direction by the facilitator is paid off by the

increased depth of analysis that is achieved through the use of this

method. However, the construction and scoring of Causal Diagrams

does take significantly longer (approx 2 hrs 30 mins in total) than some of

the more commonly used scoring techniques. SCDs are therefore less

appropriate as a rapid survey tool.

The greatest potential of this method lies in empowering communities to

analyse and solve their own problems. However, it is also a useful

technique for use in participatory needs assessment activities

undertaken by outsiders, particularly when in-depth information is

required on a specific enterprise or issue.

The proper use of SCDs requires confidence and familiarity with the

technique, which can only be built up through experience of using the

method. So, don t give up if it does not work the first time!


Method 2: Participatory Budgets (PBs)

2.1 Introduction

Participatory budgeting is a method which allows farmers and outsiders

to quantify and analyse resource inputs and outputs over time for a

particular enterprise, or for a particular resource over the farm as a

whole. This method is based on a traditional African board game

generically known as mancala (tsoro in Zimbabwe and oware in Ghana),

and builds on farmers abilities to play this essentially mathematical

game, together with their ability to rank, score and construct seasonal

diagrams which has been demonstrated in PRA activities. The method

seeks to enable analysis and planning. It involves quantifying resources,

but avoids the limitations of more traditional farm management methods.

Participatory Budgets are simple and easy to use. They can take account

of non-cash resources, they look at resource use over time, and they are

implemented using readily available local materials. The method can be

used with individual farmers, or with a group of farmers where one is

acting as a case-study. Alternatively, an average budget can be made

up for a given size of enterprise, if all the farmers in the group have

similar characteristics in terms of their production practices and available

resources.

Participatory Budgets (PBs) are tools which examine a farmer s

use and production of resources over time for a specific enterprise.

Their main uses are for:

! analysing farmers existing activities, resource-use and production

! exploring the resource implications of a change to an enterprise

! comparing different enterprises

! planning a new enterprise.


2.2 Description of method

Materials Rows of holes in a board or on the ground, or a grid.

required Beans, seeds or anything which can act as counters.

On the board or grid, time is represented by each column being a month,

week, day or other period of time. The first column of holes is therefore

the first month, the second the second month etc. Activities for each time

period are indicated in the top row, using symbols. The types of

resources are indicated by different types of beans in different rows on

the board or grid. Quantities of resources are indicated by the number of

beans, with a value attached to each bean or counter.

Figure 4 Enterprise Budget

Different resources e.g. labour, cash, food stocks, and how they vary

over time can be represented on the budget. A budget for a particular

enterprise (enterprise budget) can be produced which shows the labour,

cash and other resources required each month. Resource outputs of the

enterprise should also be included. It is important that the size of the

enterprise is specified, for example the area of planted crop or the

number of livestock. If inputs (expenditure) for the enterprise and outputs

(income) are converted to cash values, the enterprise profit or loss can

be worked out. Different enterprises can be compared by constructing

PBs for them. The effect of making a change (e.g. changing fertiliser

rates) to an existing enterprise can also be analysed. The units used in

the budget should be decided by the farmer. Outsiders should not try and

standardise them for their own convenience.


If a particular resource is of interest, rather than an enterprise, a budget

for the use of this resource can be produced for each enterprise on the

farm. For example, a whole-farm labour budget, showing labour use for

each different enterprise on a farm can be constructed (see Figure 5).

Different rows would therefore represent different enterprises, and

different types of beans can represent number of labourers, number of

days or type of labour (e.g. hired or family).

Figure 5 Specific resource budget e.g. for labour

In this manual, time on the Participatory Budgets is indicated from left to

right. This is based on our experience in Ghana and Zimbabwe. In other

contexts and countries it may be more appropriate to adapt the layout of

the budget so that time is indicated in another direction e.g. from right to

left or from top to bottom.

Photograph 4 Women farmers constructing a Participatory Budget in MasvingoDistrict, Zimbabwe


2.3 Suggested procedure for constructing a Participatory Budget

a Identify an enterprise which the farmer would like to examine using a

PB. Through discussion ask the farmer what time period she / he

would like to examine the enterprise over. This should normally be the

full production period, e.g. a season. Also clarify the size of the

enterprise, e.g. the field area for crops, or the number of livestock.

b Draw out a large grid on the ground with the number of columns

relating to the number of time periods e.g. months which the

enterprise covers. Ask the farmer to symbolise the different months in

the top row of the grid. If the enterprise is greatly effected by the

rainfall pattern then it can be useful to include an indication of the

rainfall expected by the farmer over this period.

c Ask the farmer to indicate the different activities involved in the

enterprise in each time period by placing symbols in the second row

on the grid.

d Discuss with the farmer which resources she / he considers important,

and would like to include in the budget e.g. seed, labour, cash,

manure. Identify different counters to represent each of these.

e For the first resource selected, identify the units the farmer uses to

measure this resource. For example fertiliser may be indicated by

number of bags, and labour by number of people and number of days.

Ask the farmer to indicate the quantity of that particular resource

required in each month, by placing a specific number of beans /

counters in each column of the next row of the grid. Referring to the

activities row will help with this.

f Repeat step (d) for each of the resources the farmer wants to include

on the PB.

g In the same way indicate the outputs and income that the farmer will

receive from the enterprise, including any by-products e.g. fodder.

h If the farmer is interested in the end balance of resources, this can be

worked out by comparing resources used (expended) and products

received (income). It is important that all the outputs and inputs of the

enterprise are included in this and not just those given cash values.

Therefore the end balance may be expressed as; 3 bags of maize

and $100 cash. Or, if a cash loss is made; 3 bags of maize less $100

cash. More commercially orientated farmers may want to convert all

resources into cash terms and calculate the profit.


i Identify what the potential risks are to the enterprise. For example, if it

is a rain-fed crop what would be the effect of the rains arriving late?

Ask the farmer to indicate the effect of different scenarios on the

budget (see Section 2.4 below).

Practical Tip: For those farmers who find counting a problem, the

following technique will be of help when determining balances:

a gather the counters representing the amount of the resource used

as an input.

b gather the counters representing the amount of the resource

produced as an output.

c take one counter from each pile (i.e. to form a pair) and continue

until no counters are left in one of the piles. The remaining

counters indicate the size of the balance.


2.4 ‘What if …?’ questions – helping to assess the risks

Once a budget has been produced, the effect of different events can be

assessed. For example an increase in the price of an input, a delay in the

onset of the rains or the effect of goats eating the vegetables. The effects

of the event on the different resources and the overall budget can be

examined. This can help in assessing risk, by posing the question how

will I be affected if this happens? This is the first part of the risk element,

the second being how likely is this to occur? By examining enterprises

or new innovations under different scenarios the robustness of the

enterprise or technology can be examined.

Photograph 5 Example of a Participatory Budget from Masvingo Province, Zimbabwe


Figure 6 a Example of a Participatory Budget for a maize enterprise, Buhera District,Zimbabwe (with annotations)

This Participatory Budget was constructed by a group of women farmers in Buhera District,Zimbabwe. The budget shows the resource outputs and inputs for 1 acre of maize. Whenconstructing the budget, symbols and counters were used on the ground. These have beeninterpreted for ease of explanation in Figure 6b). All labour used was family labour and thefarmers chose not to cost this. All the produce was sold. Cash figures are given in Zimbabwedollars.


Figure 6 b Interpreted Participatory Budget for a maize enterprise, Buhera District,Zimbabwe


Fie

ld s

ize

: ap

pro

x. 1

acr

e (0

.4 H

a.)

Sep

tO

ctN

ov

Dec

Jan

Feb

Mar

Ap

riM

ayJu

nJu

lA

ug

Act

ivit

ies

-Win

ter

-Buyin

g o

f -P

loughin

g

-1st

-2nd

Weedin

g-H

arv

est

-Cuttin

g a

nd

Dehuskin

gD

ehuskin

g-W

inte

r S

helli

ng

plo

ughin

gseed a

nd

and p

lanting

weedin

gw

eedin

ggre

en

sto

okin

gplo

ughin

g

fert

iliser

mealie

s

-Dry

pla

nting

-Spre

adin

g

-Fert

iliser

-Fert

iliser

-Fert

iliser

-Pull

weeds

-Shelli

ng

-Selli

ng

of m

anure

applic

ation

applic

ation

applic

ation

in the fie

ldA

NA

N

-Dig

gin

g o

f -C

uttin

g o

f -C

ultiv

ation

-Cultiv

ation

-Buyin

g o

f

manure

tree

em

pty

bags

regro

wth

s

-Rem

oval o

f -P

lanting la

te

sto

ver

in the

maiz

e c

rop

field

Lab

ou

rers

req

uir

ed4

34

61

12

52

22

1

Lab

day

s1 m

onth

42

614

55

214

35

1

No

. of d

rau

gh

t an

imal

s4

22

22

4

Day

s re

qu

ired

32

42

52

Exp

end

itu

reD

iggin

g

Seed 1

0kg

20 e

mpty

T

ransport

manure

=

=$90.0

0bags =

$200.0

0

$300.0

0A

N 2

bags

$140.0

0

= $

320.0

0

Ou

tpu

tG

reen

Fodder

1to

nne

mealie

s

(2 b

ale

s)

$1200.0

0

(4 b

uckets

)

Cas

h b

alan

ceO

utp

uts

— In

puts

= 1

200 —

1050 =

$ 1

50

2.5 Comparative PBs

An adaptation to the Participatory Budget is the comparative PB. This

can be particularly useful when investigating a change to an existing

enterprise, or the adoption of a new enterprise, as it allows a comparison

between the two options to be made. The comparative PB allows a direct

comparison of the resource inputs and outputs of two different options

and helps the farmer to decide which option is more feasible in his / her

particular situation. The method can be used with individuals or a group.

In a group, participants must come to a consensus on the amounts of

inputs and outputs etc. for a specified size of enterprise.

To construct a comparative PB, a PB must first be produced for the

existing enterprise. Then a second budget incorporating the change is

produced. The two budgets are combined onto the same grid on

alternate rows so that activities for the first enterprise are on the top row,

and the activities of the second enterprise are on the second row. This

sequence continues down the grid for all the resources considered (see

Figure 7 below).

There are two different methods of constructing a comparative PB.

1 The two budgets are constructed separately and then combined onto

a large grid. This is suitable if all the participants are familiar with the

two enterprises being examined.

2 Alternatively the first budget can be produced and the second budget

made up directly onto the grid of the first budget. If this method is

used it is important that the rows on the grid are wide enough to

include the second budget. This is more suitable when examining the

resource implications of an adaptation to an existing enterprise.


Figure 7 Example layout for a comparative Participatory Budget, comparing twoenterprises A and B

2.6 Comparative PB example: groundnuts and sunflower, Zimbabwe.

This exercise was carried out at the request of farmers in Buhera District,

Zimbabwe who wanted to compare the two main cash crops grown in

their area, sunflower and groundnuts. This example illustrates the use of

a comparative PB and how PFM methods can be combined with existing

PRA type methods to help farmers in their decision-making.

2.6.1 Procedure

Initial discussion focused on why farmers grow these two different crops

and what factors are taken into consideration when deciding which crop

to grow. A scoring exercise was then conducted to examine the relative

importance of these decision-making factors (see Table 2). In this way

non-resource factors that could not be considered in the budget were

taken into account.

After the farmer described the field in which he was considering growing

the crop, the group divided into two with the farmer and his wife each

heading one of the groups. Group A drew up a budget for sunflower and

group B a budget for groundnuts for the field described. The two budgets

were then combined on a single grid (see Figure 8).

Month 1 Month 2 Month 3 Month 4

Activities (A)

Activities (B)

Labour (A)

Labour (B)

Other Inputs (A)

Other Inputs (B)

Cash Exp. (A)

Cash Exp (B)

Outputs (A)

Outputs (B)

Balance (A)

Balance(B)


2.6.2 Results

The scores indicate differences between the crops for each of the criteria

identified. The higher the score, the better. For example for the criteria of

yield, groundnuts (9) give better yields than sunflower (2). For seed

availability sunflower seed (8) is much easier to obtain than groundnut

seed (3). Farmers also ranked the importance of each of the criteria in

their decision-making.

Table 2 Scores of decision-making criteria

Criteria GN SF Importance of criteria

Yield 9 2 1 (i.e. most important)

Seed availability 3 8 2 =

N-fixation (manure) 8 1 2 = (important as if rotate with maize get good maize crop)

Price/income 6 1 3

Ease of processing into oil 2 7 4

Ease of processing into butter 10 1 (can t) 5

Use for feeds 1 1 6

Drought tolerance 2 10 7 (considered unimportant as outside farmers control)


Figure 8 Comparative Participatory Budget for groundnut and sunflower crops, BuheraDistrict, Zimbabwe


Oct

No

vD

ecJa

nF

ebM

arA

pr

May

Jun

eJu

lyA

ug

Sep

t

SF

Act

Win

ter

See

d

Pla

nti

ng

Th

inn

ing

Rid

gin

g u

pH

arve

stin

g –

Th

resh

ing

Bu

y em

pty

Tran

spo

rtC

lear

lan

ds

plo

ug

hp

rep

arat

ion

Ear

ly w

eed

ing

cutt

ing

W

inn

ow

ing

bag

sto

GM

B(1

bu

cket

)h

ead

s

GN

Act

Pla

nting

Weedin

gW

eedin

gR

idgin

g u

pC

heck

Upro

oting

Dry

ing

Baggin

g &

Plo

ughin

g

Pre

para

tion

ripenin

gP

ickin

gtr

ansport

(for

next

of seed

Win

now

ing

season)

3 b

uckets

SF

Lab

ou

r

peop

le2

23

52

00

5+1

(hir

ed)

81

18

(123

md

ays)

days

33

32

20

05

41

13

GN

Labour

peop

le3

55

20

25

50

20

8(1

37 m

days)

days

36

43

01

56

03

01

SF

Cas

h

$30

cost

of b

ags

tran

spo

rt

spen

tex

clu

ded

as

$140

kep

t

GN

Cash

$60

$30

$30

$240

spent

SF

Inco

me

po

ult

ry fe

ed$1

400

& o

utp

uts

GN

Incom

e3 s

cotc

h-c

art

s $4000 (

+5

&outp

uts

hay for

fodder

bags k

ept fo

r consum

ption)

SF

Bal

ance

1400

-170

=$1

230

+p

ou

ltry

feed

GN

Bala

nce

4000-360 =

$3640

+5 b

ags

+fo

dder

Key

SF

: sunflow

er

GN

: gro

undnuts

2.6.3 Conclusions

Through construction of the Participatory Budget the farmers were able

to express why they opted for the different crops. It was found that

farmers with little family labour and no money to hire labour grow

sunflower as groundnuts require more labour than sunflower. Better off

farmers, or those who have more family labour, often grow groundnuts

as it is a more profitable crop and there are more uses for it. However,

those who grow groundnuts will often also grow sunflower as an

insurance policy in case there is a drought, as groundnuts are much

more susceptible to drought than sunflower.

The budget illustrated clearly the resources required for the two crops

and their profitability . Visualising the farmers knowledge in this form

clarified and summarised the differences between the two crops for

them. The process of constructing the budget also assisted

communication between the facilitator and farmers, particularly

regarding what factors influence farmers choices between the two crops.

All the farmers were enthusiastic about the exercise and keen to repeat it

for different enterprises.

Photograph 6 Farmers constructing a Participatory Budget for sunflower andgroundnuts, Buhera District, Zimbabwe


2.7 Uses of Participatory Budgets

Participatory Budgets have a variety of potential uses in both research

and extension. As is demonstrated in the previous example, they can be

used by extension staff to jointly explore options with farmers. They can

also be used at several stages of the research process: in preliminary

needs assessment; in the suitability assessment or screening of

technologies / solutions, particularly with reference to their resource

implications; and in the monitoring and evaluation of technologies during

on-farm trials.

Some specific uses of Participatory Budgets include:

! Exploring the suitability of a new enterprise or technology by

analysing its demand for resources at different times of the year and

comparing this with other demands on those resources

! Comparing a new enterprise or technology with an existing practice

! Examining the likely effects of making changes to an existing

enterprise e.g. replacing chemical fertiliser with manure or compost

! Investigating the effects of timing of activities e.g. to determine the

best timing for poultry production activities to exploit the Christmas

market

! Exploring risks and the effects of factors outside the farmers control,

by the examination of What if ? scenarios

! Determining the size of a loan required and the realistic timing of

repayment

2.8 Potential pitfalls

It is important that Participatory Budgets are not used to convince the

farmer of something, nor should they be seen simply as tools to predict

or record profitability . Their purpose and strength is in helping the

farmer to consider the different factors and issues involved in starting a

new enterprise, or in changing an existing enterprise, in order to help in

their decision-making. Interacting with farmers in this process helps

researchers and extension agents to understand resource options

available to the farmer and the basis for farmers decisions. It is essential

therefore that when using PBs farmers consider what they actually do,

not what they think the outsider wants them to do.


The facilitator also needs to ensure that the exercise does not get side-

tracked into just considering money. Although PBs can be used to predict

or record profitability , their primary purpose is to enhance

understanding about resource allocation options and decision-making.

All resource inputs and outputs that the participants consider to be

important should be included — however care should be taken to avoid

the budget becoming too complicated.


Education

Participatory Farm Management