Back to Home Page of CD3WD Project or Back to list of CD3WD Publications
6.3 Linkages

Contents - Previous - Next

Obviously, as already emphasized, FSD teams themselves do not have all the expertise necessary to undertake FSD work. Thus, FSD is very dependent upon contributions by people outside the teams. At least three groups of people have important roles to play in helping to plan, implement, evaluate, and use the results of FSD work. As mentioned earlier (see Section 2.4), in addition to the obvious ones, farmers, these are station-based researchers, extension/development staff, and planners.

Although these linkages are important, the relative contribution that each linkage will make depends on the stage in the FSD process. In Figure 6.1, the relative contributions at each research stage are indicated schematically. However, it should be borne in mind that a number of research activities generally are occurring at the same time, some of which are likely to be at different stages in the research process. Therefore, linkages are likely to be Important all the time.

Figure 6.1: Contributions of various "actors" at different stages in the FSD process

A key principle behind any linkage activity is to be sure at the outset that all parties:

With reference to the last point, commitment or cooperation can be thought of at three levels, namely.

Therefore, in nurturing linkages, it is important to observe the above points, Even the first one is better than nothing. Obtaining, the blessing of other potentially interested parties before undertaking activities has proven to be far superior in terms of winning acceptance of the results rather than discussing them only after their completion, The latter approach often results in a 'them versus us' stance, which does not engender an attitude of mutual help, cooperation, and collaboration. Thus, the above principles are important in ensuring the development of mutually beneficial interactive linkages -- the focus of the next three sections.

6.3.1 Links to On-Station Research

Earlier discussion indicated the complementarily between FSD and station-based research (Section 2.3). Mention also was made that collaboration between the two groups was likely to result in two approaches to FSD, that is FSD 'with a pre-determined focus' and FSD 'in the small, (Section 3.3). Obviously, collaborative activities represent the most intensive form of interaction. This is the most desirable form, because it eliminates the division between the two groups, thereby minimizing the probability of miscommunication and improving the chances that the results will be accepted by all concerned (see Box 6.1). However, as can be seen in Table 6.1, there are various degrees of collaboration. Also, there is some potential overlap between the various activities. For example, participation in the research programme team meetings can result in visits by station-based research scientists to the field to see plots, address farmer groups about specific technologies, and cooperate in joint trials.

6.3.2 Extension/Development Linkages

The value of the interaction between FSD workers and extension/development staff can be summarized as follows:

TABLE 6.1: POSSIBLE TYPES OF COOPERATION BETWEEN EXPERIMENT STATION-BASED RESEARCH TEAMS AND FSD WORKERS

NATURE OF COOPERATION DEGREE OF COMMITMENT
  STATION FSD
A. Mainly Communication:    
Circulating papers on work programme and results to interested parties Low Low
Research programme team meetings Some Some
B. Visits:    
By station-based researchers to farmers' fields, to farmer groups, to give advice in identifying and solving problems, etc. -- usually at the invitation of FSD workers Some Low
By FSD workers to station-based researchers Low Some
C. Collaborative work:    
Surveys undertaken by FSD researchers to address specific issues raised by station-based researchers -- sometimes latter help in design, implementation, etc. Some Much
Farmers evaluation of technologies station-based researchers are interested in (e.g., crop varieties, implements, etc.) Some Much
RMRI trials undertaken on experiment station to address issues raised by farmers, FSD workers and extension staff Much Low
Joint responsibility for designing, implementing and evaluating on farm trials by FSD and station-based researchers Much Much

BOX 6.1: COLLABORATIVE ACTIVITIES BETWEEN STATION-BASED AND FSD RESEARCHERS ARE PREFERABLE

A technological package for cotton was tested in Northern Nigeria and proved to be unsuitable, because it involved substantial labour inputs at a time of the year when farmers wished to concentrate on their food crops, However' there was immediate acceptance of this preference by the station based cotton researchers, who collaborated with FSD staff in testing the cotton package with the farmers. As a result, attention focussed on developing a cotton technology package that fitted in better with the farmer priorities (i.e., could involve planting later to avoid the labour bottleneck for food crops) and eliminating the need of large amounts of water for spraying with the help of ultra low-volume sprayers [Beeden et al, 1976; Norman et al, 1974 and 19751.

Thus, extension staff can make constructive contributions at all stages of the FSD process, although, as indicated in Figure 6. 1, the relative level of contribution will vary.

FSD teams usually are located in research institutions that are separated from institutions responsible for extension/development. In spite of control being exerted 'vertically' in most institutions, some 'horizontal' linkages usually can be developed, as indicated in Table 6.2. The activities involved once again imply various levels of commitment and can result in promoting further collaborative efforts. Once again, there is considerable potential for the overlapping of activities. For example, consultation activities may lead to collaborative activities, whereas FSD participation on a supportive basis in dissemination-type activities may lead to new items for the research agenda.

6.3.3 Support Systems and Policy Linkages

As indicated earlier (Section 2.4), important factors influencing whether the productivity and the welfare of farmers will improve are the policies that shape the economic environment in which they operate. Many policies influence production decisions by farmers. The influence of these may be direct or indirect. For example:

Obviously, such policies not only influence the farmers, but can also have an impact on what constitutes relevant agricultural research. FSD programmes can provide information to the policy makers that may be used to create new policies to enable farmers to adopt relevant improved technologies (see Box 5.9).

TABLE 6.2: POSSIBLE TYPES OF COOPERATION BETWEEN EXTENSION STAFF AND FSD TEAMSa

  COMMITMENT LEVEL
NATURE OF COOPERATION EXTENSION FSD STAFF
A. Consultation:    
Regional Coordination Committees involving discussion of work programme -- proposals and results -- with regional extension staff and other interested parties in the region (e.g., development agency staff, NGOs etc.) Low Some
Attendance, when desirable, by FSD staff at regional extension meetings and district monthly management meetings Much Low
B. Visits:    
Local extension staff help in organizing village meetings to present proposals and results of FSD work programmes Some Some
By senior extension staff to trials undertaken by FSD teams Low Some
Attendance by extension staff at farmer field days - sometimes help in organization Low Some
C. Work Programme Collaboration:    
Assignment of locally stationed extension staff to the PSI) teams to help in implementing all the activities of the FSD teams Much Some
Joint planning, implementation, and evaluation of trials (e.g., national tillage trials) Much Much
D. Dissemination    
Participation by FSD staff in in-service training courses forextension staff Much Some
Supportive role by FSD staff in organizing competitions at agricultural shows to encourage adoption of improved technologies Much Some
Supportive role by FSD staff in extension-oriented farmer groups Much Some
Supportive role by FSD staff in helping extension staff in 'hands-on' training of farmers to adopt improved technologies Much Some

a Non-Government Organizations (e.g., development trusts cooperatives. etc.).

For example:

In general, however, linkages of FS teams with those responsible for both developing and implementing policy/support systems still remain poorly developed (Box 6.2). Both linkages deserve and need greater emphasis at two levels: regional and central (see Section 3.6).

6.3.4 A Case Study: Institutionalization of FSD Activities in Botswana

The FS approach has become institutionalized within the NARS in many countries throughout the world. Although FS activities have had a long history in Botswana, institutionalization has occurred fairly recently (i.e., late 1980's). For illustrative purposes, the institutional set-up in Botswana is described, where it is still called FSR. However, to be consistent with the terminology in the rest of the manual the term FSD is used in the following discussion.

For many years in Botswana, FSD activities were donor financed and largely donor controlled. With institutionalization of the FSD approach, three significant changes took place:

BOX 6.2: INCREASING REALIZATION OF VALUE Of LINKAGES BETWEEN RESEARCHERS AND PLANNERS

Although very rarely formalized, linkages between FSD researchers and planners appear to be evolving. For example, in Tanzania, meetings between planners and FSD economists have been organized; in Botswana, FSD teams have been asked by planners to help in evaluating development programmes; and in Bangladesh and Kenya, recommendations have been made in development projects for linkages to be strengthened between researchers and those involved in input distribution and product marketing.

With reference to the last point, the current administrative arrangements are as follows:

The programme activities are directed by Programme Committees, to which the Programme Leaders are accountable, The functions of these Programme Committees are to:

Although the regional FSD type teams operate somewhat independently of each other, all have functions in common, namely:

The National Programme Leader of the PSP provides a vital interactive linkage between the Regional FSD teams and the station-based programmes. In support of this, the National Programme Leader of the PSP and the Programme Committee of the PSP play critical roles in terms of disseminating information, helping decide on the appropriate research priorities and methodologies, and apportioning the research resources available to the PSP.

Given the special requirements of FSD type work and the fact that staff relating to activities under the PSP are geographically very widely dispersed, the National Programme Leader of the PSP has two other major responsibilities, namely:

The Regional FSD Team Leaders, as indicated above, are responsible not only for the on-farm research programme in their areas but also for liaison with development-related activities in their areas. There are two formalized mechanisms for facilitating this.

Finally, the Regional FSD Team Leader also is invested with a high degree of accountability for research resource allocation and utilization, He or she is also accountable for obtaining results for the region and for effective monitoring and feedback,

Although the above administrative setup does have considerable merit and operates reasonably well, there are also obvious problems. These basically stem from the appropriate split between coordination and control from the centre or from the periphery. Three problems that are by no means unique to Botswana are as follows:

In spite of some problems relating to the current administrative setup, which are inevitable in any NARS, it is a significant improvement over the situation in the late 1980's in terms of accountability and constructive interaction.

6.4 Leverage and handling constraints

The two approaches of FSD mentioned earlier (i.e., FSD with a 'pre-determined focus' or FSD 'in the small' in Section 3,3) have different implications for the degree of leverage obtained in the system and for the problem of breaking constraints versus exploiting flexibility in the system, This section briefly examines these topics.

6.4.1 Leverage

FSD workers obviously are interested in maximizing improvements in the productivity of the farming systems being implemented by farmers, which hopefully will lead to improvements in their welfare. To accomplish this, it is important to identify the parts of the farming system where adoption of a change can have the greatest positive impact on productivity. In such a situation, potential leverage on the farming system is maximized.

High leverage interventions involve introducing changes in an operation or enterprise in a part of a farming system that is a major absorber of farm resources and/or where the timing of those resources is restricted. All other things being equal, the adoption of technologies that improve the productivity of such resources is likely to maximize improvement in the productivity of the farming system as a whole. Low leverage interventions, on the other hand, may not have a major impact on the productivity of the farming system as a whole, but may help in improving the productivity of a particular enterprise, Such interventions involve less change and are sometimes likely to be more acceptable to farmers (Box 6.3).

One issue relating to this is whether to focus research on a pre-determined commodity (i.e., FSD 'with a predetermined focus, ) rather than on the whole farming system or on the crop subsystem (i.e., FSD 'in the small') (see Section 3.3).

When research is undertaken in which the pre-determined enterprise in question is a major absorber of farm resources, then that enterprise usually will offer the best leverage on such system-problems as deficient income, excessive risk, and seasonal variability in the use of farmer owned resources. In fact, this approach with a small ratio of variables to parameters is methodologically much easier to undertake than one in which the ratio of variables to parameters is much larger. Geographically based FSD teams have the responsibility for looking at all crop and livestock enterprises in the system. Usually, the most leverage can be obtained with the major crop or livestock enterprises. However, this still is a complex situation when viewing the relationships between the various enterprises. Certainly, focusing on the broader farming system is advisable when there appears to be little scope for improvement by focusing solely on the farmer's major enterprise .

BOX 6.3: LOW-LEVERAGE INTERVENTIONS CAN HELP ADDRESS INTRAHOUSEHOLD INEQUITIES

Women are often responsible in many African countries for minor crops (i.e., often for home consumption purposes) and own small amounts of livestock (i.e., particularly chicken, goats and sheep). Helping women to improve the productivity of these socalled 'minor enterprises' can help improve their well-being and their position in the household, although the impact on the household as a whole may be limited.

6.4.2 Breaking Constraints or Exploiting Flexibility

There are two possible ways of dealing with an identified constraint: break the constraint or avoid the constraint by exploiting the flexibility in the farming system. For example, in a situation where sorghum is affected by a particular disease, numerous strategies could be applied to deal with the problem. The constraint may perhaps be broken by applying a seed dressing (i.e., requiring an input distribution system); breeding a disease-resistant sorghum (i.e., a long-term strategy requiring an input distribution system); or exploiting the flexibility in the farming system by planting the sorghum at a sub-optimal time, in terms of yield potential, to reduce or eliminate the disease attack. The decision on which approach to use in dealing with the constraint will depend on its severity, the flexibility of the existing farming system, and the availability of potential Improved strategies that break the constraints or exploit the flexibility. Breaking a constraint is a much more difficult problem, for both researchers and farmers, than the strategy of exploiting flexibility. However, major long-term increases in productivity have to come through breaking constraints. This must be a step-by-step approach moving away from the present system towards a new one -- each step being one that is acceptable and absorbable by farmers.

In fact, if one looks at the success of FSD to date, it generally has been most successful in more equable climates than exist in Botswana -- which is given as an example in Box 6.4. Examining the relative success of FSD in equable environments shows that much of it can be attributed to exploitation of flexibility in the farming system -- often requiring only minor changes on the part of the farmer -- rather than breaking constraints, Technologies involving exploiting flexibility in the farming system thus are more likely to be adopted spontaneously and are less likely to require strong policy/support systems and rigorous farmer training programmes to encourage their adoption (Table 6.3). Thus, effective interactive linkages between research and those responsible for designing and implementing policy/support systems are critically important in creating conditions conducive to agricultural development, particularly in harsh climatic areas,

TABLE 6.3: HYPOTHESIZED SIGNIFICANCE OF POLICY/SUPPORT SYSTEMS

CLIMATE ROUTE TO IMPROVEMENT NATURE OF NECESSARY CHANGE SIGNIFICANCE OF SUPPORT SYSTEM POTENTIAL TYPE OF ADOPTION
Drier Mainly break constraints Lumpy inputs/major changes Very critical More induced
Wetter Break constraints or exploit flexibilitya Divisible inputs/can be minor changes Important but less critical More spontaneons

a. Most success in FSD to date has been achieved in wetter areas through exploiting flexibility in the farming system.

Contents - Previous - Next