Hand-out 1 - Institute-client liaison
Hand-out 2 - Importance of agricultural extension in the agricultural development process
Hand-out 3 - Major extension trends, approaches, programmes and methods
Hand-out 4 - Role of agricultural research institutes in transfer of improved technology
Hand-out 5 - Generation of improved technology and its on-farm validation
Hand-out 6 - Farming systems research
Initiate discussion with client liaison. Ask the participants: 'Who are the clients of their institutes?' 'Why liaise with them?' Show EXHIBIT 1. Observe that, in the final analysis, the only true measure of a research institute's impact is how well its research findings are received by farmers. This necessitates linking research with extension.
Devote some time to discussing agricultural extension as it operates in different countries. Observe that most existing extension models have ignored resource-poor farmers, especially those in less productive and heterogeneous agro-ecological areas.
Neither research nor extension can fulfil its responsibilities without the other: hence good communication, strong interaction and effective collaboration are primary requisites. There are differences between researchers and extension workers which very often have prevented collaboration and linkage between research and extension. These differences are historical, and related to the fact that research is complicated. Researchers are considered professionals, and consequently enjoy higher status and benefits. In contrast, extension staff are in contact with low-status farmers. The perceived differences in status have led too many researchers to adopt a supercilious, patronizing attitude. Make the observation that extension can improve its position by becoming more professional, taking a general role in information integration, making recommendations and participating in adaptive research. Researchers can respond by building closer links with extension staff. Over time, there has been a change in the attitude of both researchers and extension staff. Technology transfer is becoming central to both groups, and their operations are becoming increasingly more dependent on each other.
Show EXHIBIT 2 and discuss concerns pertaining to research and extension. The concerns include:
· research problems being investigated are generally not in accordance with the priority needs of agricultural producers, and· knowledge generated at research stations has not been effectively transferred to producers.
These issues arise because of weaknesses in the links between research and extension institutions. Technology development and transfer functions are treated in isolation.
Discuss the importance of research and extension linkage. Reasons for the need for strong linkages include influencing formulation of research agendas based on problem identification, and the need to evolve technology suitable for the prevailing socio-economic and ecological environment. Extension can provide information and facilitate interaction between researchers and farmers. Simultaneously, extension also requires a constant flow of information on new and improved practices, necessitating a two-way communication process.
The concept of technology flow is fundamental to the design of research and extension systems. This facilitates diagnosis of research-extension linkage problems. Show EXHIBIT 3 and discuss the sequence of technology flow. Mention various models which have been developed to describe the technology flow concept.
Research and extension have their own priorities, which determine their main activities (EXHIBIT 4). Stress the linkage problem. Observe that, in a research organization, technology integration and production activities are too often neglected. Usually, the farthest it goes is testing the technology generated. In contrast, extension activities are limited to technology production and dissemination. Therefore, the most critical linkages are at the stage of technology integration and again at technology testing and production. Observe that linkage problems have not been appreciated until recently. Ask participants for examples of the effects of the linkage problem.
Show EXHIBIT 5 and discuss the classification of agriculture proposed by Chambers in the context of the need for linkage between research and extension. Observe that good research and extension linkage exists in high-input, high-yielding production systems, as well as in areas which have benefitted from the green revolution. There is a need to strengthen the research-extension linkage in circumstances of poor and diverse endowments and ecological conditions.
Show EXHIBIT 6 and discuss: causes for poor research-extension linkage; principles; types; and mechanisms for achieving the desired linkage. Poor research-extension linkage may be due to political, technical or organizational reasons.
Political reasons include pressure groups, such as government, farmers, donors and industry. Limited resources can lead to competition for funds between research and extension, and can seriously impair established linkages. Traditionally, extension has in general received less funding than has research, and has not been able to recruit people of high calibre.
Technical reasons include:
· an inability to undertake location-specific diagnosis of problems and adaptation of technology;· lack of infrastructure support, resulting in choice of inappropriate technologies; and
· lack of flexibility in developing different links appropriate to developed and developing countries.
Organizational reasons for poor linkage include:
· the orientation and work style of scientists, who are more oriented towards the general scientific community and have a longer time horizon compared to extension staff, who are oriented towards farmers and pressed with immediate concerns;· poor assignment of specific responsibilities;
· loss of credibility as a result of the diffusion of inappropriate technology;
· centralization of authority; and
· institutional incompatibilities.
Now discuss motivational factors, which revolve around incentives, recognition and rewards.
Human and financial resources may impose constraints. Communication problems may be accentuated by orientation, value systems and work styles.
Now discuss the six principles of linkage. Linkage becomes effective with a common purpose and commonly perceived advantages for institutional collaboration. It is facilitated by a common ground or proximity of location, incentives for individuals, and effective communication and feedback. Linkage should also be compatible with other activities of the participating groups.
Based on ways and channels of communication, linkage may be of four types. Refer to EXHIBIT 6 and discuss these types. Ask participants which one of these is prevalent in their extension systems. Observe that the most effective system uses all four types.
Ask participants what mechanism exists for achieving research-extension linkage in their countries. Again refer to EXHIBIT 6, and discuss structural, organizational and managerial modes. Experience shows that linkages may not necessarily be achieved by implementing one or other of the suggestions: linkage has to be environment sensitive and situation specific.
Discussion can now move to alternative research and extension systems. Several models have been suggested, based on past experience. Show EXHIBIT 7 and discuss each of these models.
The conventional models for transfer of technology are top-down and feedback (EXHIBITS 8 & 9). The top-down model (EXHIBIT 8) does not involve farmers when identifying constraints and adapting research to local conditions. In the feedback technology model (EXHIBIT 9), users remain passive. An improved version of this is the modified feedback technology transfer model (EXHIBIT 10). In the farmer-back-to-farmer model (EXHIBIT 11), farmers and extension personnel are actively involved in the research process.
Show EXHIBIT 12 and discuss the increasingly unified research and extension system, based on a synthesis of several alternative systems. EXHIBIT 12 (a to e) presents increasingly integrated research, extension and producer interaction systems. Beginning with the conventional fragmented system, integration is achieved in various stages.
Now initiate discussion on integrated approaches for research-extension linkage. Observe that several methodological approaches have been developed to link farmers directly with the research process. The farmer is seen and recognized to be a primary client of research, and so should be involved in the various stages of research and thus influence research priorities and the design of technological solutions based on constraints identified.
Two models have been suggested towards such an integration. The farming systems research (FSR) model has evolved on the premise that farmers do not reject technologies out of sheer ignorance, conservation or sloth: instead, they apply criteria for evaluating technologies which differ from those of the scientists. It is also essential to study the existing farming systems and appreciate the prevailing agro-ecological variation and specifications so as to develop relevant technologies. Using an FSR approach, the farm is viewed as a system and the focus is on the interdependencies between the components under the control of the farm household, and how these components interact with the physical, biological and socio-economic factors not under household control. Show EXHIBIT 13 and discuss how the FSR team implements the FSR process.
On-farm, client-oriented research (OFCOR) is the other model which uses the FSR approach. Show EXHIBIT 14 and discuss it. Observe that the OFCOR model has been quite effective in establishing and sustaining linkage between research and extension.
Now discuss the subject-matter specialist model, which emphasizes technical guidance and support to research staff.
Next discuss the training and visit (T&V) system, which is based on a systematic, time-bound programme of training and visits (EXHIBIT 15). The T&V system comprises a system of schedules of work, duties and responsibilities, clearly specified and closely supervised at all levels. Frequent, one-day training events for field-level extension staff are an integral part of the system. A specific schedule of visits to farmers' fields is rigidly followed. The field staff get feedback on the problems of farmers and communicate them to researchers. The T&V approach requires a large number of trained staff fully dedicated to extension work, and this is possible only when resources are available and committed.
Several other models have been proposed. These include:
· adaptive research and planning teams (ARPTs), regionally based and area focused,
· managerial approaches,
· agricultural knowledge and information systems (AKIS),
· agricultural technology management systems (ATMS), and
· the ISNAR research and technology transfer linkages (RTTL) framework.
Depending upon availability of time, the trainer might wish to discuss in detail some of the recent models mentioned above.
Show EXHIBIT 16 and discuss AKIS, which adopts a knowledge-system perspective and has a well specified linkage mechanism. The key element is knowledge management.
Show EXHIBIT 17 and discuss the ATMS model, which focuses on overall management of technological activities. Adopting a systems approach, it has technology at its core.
Finally, discuss the RTTL framework. It contextually considers political, technical and organizational factors, which together condition the choice, operation and effectiveness of linkage mechanisms.
Conclude the session by recalling that several approaches have been adopted in order to integrate research and extension. Some of the recent models have adopted a systems perspective, where linkage forms a part of the system. Irrespective of the model, the task is to ensure effective research-extension-farmer linkage, particularly in resource-poor countries.
EXHIBIT 1
|
CLIENT LIAISON |
|
Why? | ||
|
| ||
|
Whose responsibility? | ||
|
| ||
|
|
· The Director | |
|
|
· Heads of division | |
|
| ||
|
When? | ||
|
| ||
|
|
· A continuous activity | |
|
| ||
|
Who are the clients? | ||
|
| ||
|
|
· Sponsors | |
|
|
|
- government agencies |
|
|
· Supporters | |
|
|
|
- international organizations |
|
|
|
- public enterprises |
|
|
|
- private enterprises |
|
|
|
- NGOs |
|
|
· Users | |
|
|
|
- research organizations |
|
|
|
- universities |
|
|
|
- extension agencies |
|
|
|
- farmers |
EXHIBIT 2
|
CONCERNS |
|
1. Research is not in accordance with the priority needs of producers. |
|
2. Results of research have not been effectively transferred to producers |
EXHIBIT 3
|
TECHNOLOGY FLOW PROCESS |
|
Science |
|
Technology | |
|
| |
|
|
· Generation |
|
|
· Testing |
|
|
· Adaptive research |
|
|
· Integration |
|
|
· Dissemination |
|
|
· Diffusion |
|
|
· Adoption |
EXHIBIT 4
|
DISRUPTION OF A CONTINUUM |
EXHIBIT 5
|
ORGANIZATION OF AGRICULTURE AND THE NEED FOR RESEARCH-EXTENSION LINKAGE |
|
1. High input, high yielding production systems |
|
2. Areas benefited by the green revolution |
|
3. Poor and diverse resource endowments and ecological conditions |
Source: Chambers, R. 1983. Rural Development: Putting the Last First. London: Longman.
EXHIBIT 6
|
RESEARCH-EXTENSION LINKAGE In a system, people play different and often complementary roles, with differing responsibilities. Their actions can be consciously linked and carefully managed to achieve the goals of the agrotechnology system | |
|
| |
|
MECHANISM | |
|
| |
|
STRUCTURAL |
MANAGERIAL |
|
· Combining research and extension functions into one unit |
· Redefining job descriptions to strengthen relationships |
|
· De-centralizing research and extension activities into regional |
· establishing joint reviews of research and extension activities |
|
· Fielding subject-matter specialists in extension |
· Improving individual incentives (personal, professional and financial) for collaboration |
|
· Starting extension liaison positions in research institutions |
· Exchange of personnel resources, e.g., posting extension staff in a research organization |
|
· Establishing communication-cum-information departments |
· Joint training for expanded roles in a technology system |
|
· Agency agreements for collaboration |
· Joint use of facilities and services, e.g., soil testing, demonstrations |
|
· Redefining roles and responsibilities between research and extension units |
· Promotion of informal linkages |
|
· Creating inter-agency committees or councils |
· Information exchange using jointly developed protocols |
|
· Developing inter-agency agreements for collaboration |
|
|
· Physically locating research units adjacent to extension units |
|
|
· Providing for farmer participation in research activities |
|
|
· Liaison with private and non-governmental organizations |
|
|
TYPES | |
|
· Formal versus Informal | |
|
· Top Down versus Bottom Up | |
|
· Internal versus External | |
|
· Downstream versus Upstream | |
|
PRINCIPLES | |
|
· A common purpose (domain consensus) | |
|
· Perceived advantages from institutional collaboration | |
|
· Common ground or proximity to facilitate collaboration | |
|
· compatible points of contact ('meshed gears run smoothly') | |
|
· Individual incentives for working together | |
|
· Effective communication and feedback flows | |
|
CAUSES OF INADEQUATE LINKAGE | |
|
A. STRUCTURAL AND ORGANIZATIONAL PROBLEMS | |
|
· No one assigned to perform functions such as adaptive research or provide feedback to researchers | |
|
· Linkage activities assigned to an inappropriate institute or department, or divided in such a way as to reduce effectiveness | |
|
· Excessive centralization or de-centralization | |
|
· Insufficient authority to ensure that institutions coordinate their activities and perform their responsibilities | |
|
· Institutional incompatibilities, such as research by commodity and extension by region; different clientele; or different time schedules for planning and budgeting | |
|
B. MOTIVATION AND INCENTIVE PROBLEMS | |
|
· Individuals may have little incentive from management to perform linkage functions | |
|
· Maintenance of institutional autonomy may be reinforced | |
|
· Rewards for journal publication may be higher than for technology transfer activities | |
|
C. RESOURCE PROBLEMS | |
|
· Financial resources may be scarce for linkage functions such as publications, testing of research results and training of extension staff | |
|
· Human resources may be overloaded and unavailable for linkage functions | |
|
D. COMMUNICATION PROBLEMS | |
|
· Value systems, educational backgrounds and communication patterns may differ widely between researchers and extensionists | |
|
· Physical means of communication may be weak or non-existent in critical areas | |
Source: Based on Kaimowitz, D. 1987. Research-technology transfer linkages. Paper presented at the International Workshop on Agricultural Research Management. ISNAR, The Hague, the Netherlands.
EXHIBIT 7
|
ALTERNATIVE RESEARCH AND EXTENSION MODELS |
|
1. Technology transfer models |
|
2. Integrated approach to research-extension linkage: - farming systems |
|
3. Other approaches |
|
4. Recent approaches: - agricultural knowledge and information system (AKIS) |
EXHIBIT 8
|
TOP-DOWN TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER MODEL |
EXHIBIT 9
THE FEEDBACK TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER MODEL
EXHIBIT 10
|
THE MODIFIED FEEDBACK TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER MODEL |
FSR/E = farming systems research/extension
EXHIBIT 11
|
'FARMER-BACK-TO-FARMER' TECHNOLOGY GENERATION AND TRANSFER SYSTEM |
Based on: Rhoades, R., & Booth, R. 1982. Farmer-back-to-farmer: A model for generating acceptable technology. CIP Social Sciences Department Working Paper, No. 1982-1.
EXHIBIT 12
|
|
Research (R) |
Extension (E) |
Producer (P) |
|
a) |
|
Conventional systems fragmented: commodity and/or discipline | |
|
b) |
|
Unified research system extension system fragmented by commodity | |
|
c) |
|
Superimposed research, pre-extension and extension systems | |
|
d) |
|
Unified Research-Extension system | |
|
e) |
|
Triangular system of collaboration with institutions committed to individual and specific functions | |
|
f) |
|
Integration of functions | |
Source: Stoop, W.A. No date. Linkages in technology generation and technology transfer. ISNAR Working Paper, No. 11.
EXHIBIT 13
|
FARMING SYSTEMS RESEARCH (FSR) |
|
The systems approach applied to on-farm research considers farmers' systems as a whole, implying: · studying the many facets of the farm household and its setting through close and frequent contacts with household members on their farms; · considering problems and opportunities as they influence the whole farm; · setting priorities accordingly; · recognizing the linkages of sub-systems within the farming system and considering them when dealing with any part of the system; and · evaluating research and development results in terms of the whole farming system and the interests of society. |
|
The FSR team implements the process by: · selecting areas and groups of farmers with reasonably similar characteristics as targets for research and development; · identifying and ranking problems and opportunities, and setting forth hypotheses for alternative solutions; · planning experiments, studies and data collection procedures; · undertaking experiments on farmer's fields, in conjunction with other research, to identify or generate improved technologies suitable for farmers' conditions; · coordinating the on-farm experiments and studies with commodity and discipline-oriented research; · evaluating the acceptability to the target farmers and society of the experimental results; · extending the results widely to farmers in and outside the target area; and · focusing attention on ways to improve public policy and support services to assist both the target farmers and those operating under similar conditions. |
Based on: pp. 13-14 in: Shaner, W.W., Philipps, P.F., Schmehl, W.R. 1982. Farming Systems Research and Development: Guidelines for Developing Countries. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
EXHIBIT 14
|
ON-FARM, CLIENT-ORIENTED RESEARCH (OFCOR) |
|
Definition: 'A set of methods integrating trials, formal and informal surveys, and a variety of farm-level activities, which range from the diagnosis and ranking of problems, through the design, development, adaptation and evaluation of appropriate technologies to solve them' (Merrill-Sands, 1988) |
|
FUNCTIONS |
· Service |
|
· Adaptive research |
|
|
· Feedback |
|
|
LINKAGE |
· Different models and forms |
|
MECHANISMS |
· Joint actions |
|
LIMITATIONS |
· Difficult to maintain dynamism |
EXHIBIT 15
|
FUNDAMENTALS OF THE T&V SYSTEM |
|
Professionalism of the extension service at all levels is essential to support meaningfully the farmers. |
|
A single line of technical and administrative command which is solely accountable for the operation of the extension service. |
|
Concentration of efforts exclusively on extension activities. Non-extension activities to be excluded. |
|
Time-bound system of regular training and contact with major farming and socio-economic groups. Schedules of visits to be known in advance. Purpose of visit related to farming operations to be carried out during that period. |
|
Regular and continuous training of extension staff to update their professional skills, to receive feedback from the field, and to discuss the specific production recommendations required by farmers. |
|
Linkage with research to impart a field and farmer orientation to research. |
Source: FAO. 1984. Agricultural Extension: A Reference Manual. 2nd edition. Rome: FAO.
EXHIBIT 16
|
AKIS: AN AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH AND EXTENSION LINKAGE SYSTEM |
Source: Roling, N. 1989. The research-extension interface: A knowledge-system perspective. ISNAR Staff Notes, No. 89-48.
EXHIBIT 17
|
ATMS: THE AGRICULTURAL TECHNOLOGY MANAGEMENT SYSTEM |
ITGS = international technology generating system
ITTS = international technology transfer system
TGS = technology generating system
TTS = technology transfer system
TUS = technology using systemSource: Elliot, H. 1977. Farming systems research in francophone Africa: methods and results. Paper presented at the Ford Foundation Farming Systems Seminar, Tunis, Tunisia, 1-3 February 1977.
Research organizations acquire market orientation and commercialization as they develop. This means that they are not only trying to ensure that the output is exploited, but that, more importantly, they are making considerable efforts to identify market needs and develop research programmes to satisfy those needs. In general, changing sources of support and a tighter economic situation have necessitated a change in the orientation of research organizations. There is also increasing recognition that the only true measure of a research institute's impact is the quantity, quality and significance of its services actually utilized by its target clients. Everything is reflected in the client's satisfaction, and hence the aim of arriving at a good relationship between the institute and the client.
In an agricultural research institute, the director is responsible for client liaison in addition to other responsibilities. The director is also expected to provide technical guidance.
In an environment of fierce competition for financial support, programme heads are finding themselves becoming more involved in helping find at least some financial resources to maintain programmes at present activity levels. To do this, programme heads need to develop close contacts with existing and potential customers or clients, and also to be constantly aware of the need to generate new research opportunities.
In a situation where clients are already well-known to scientific personnel, there is no great problem, since the organization has already established rapport and even credibility. However, where such conditions do not exist, marketing of research can be very difficult and time consuming. Nevertheless, the effort is necessary, as client liaison is a continuous activity and may yield returns in the long term.
THE CLIENT SPECTRUM
For a research organization, clients can be of three types, as considered below.
Sponsors
In most developing countries, the government is the main sponsor of research. The concept of 'customer' or 'client' is very complex in such situations because, for a given procurement, many people from many government organizations may be involved. For example, contract administrators, project engineers, planners, financial analysts, users and others may all combine to constitute the client system. Each of them has some influence in the project.
Supporters
Supporting organizations include international agencies, public and private enterprises. Some of the public and private enterprises can be very large enterprises, such as seed production companies with very complicated bureaucratic structures. They may also be regionally distributed, government controlled and have other characteristics which put constraints on an effective institute-client relationship.
Users
Farmers as users of research have special characteristics, deriving from a concentration on cost-benefit factors, interest in less speculative or generic objectives, and other considerations relating to the special nature of the product.
CLIENT AWARENESS
Whoever the client, a very important factor to be considered is the client's awareness of a research institute. Does the client know the institutional goals? Is the client informed enough about the institute's structural and organizational characteristics? It is extremely important that clients understand capability, ability, expertise, staff skills and such other details in order to have a reasonable expectation of potential services.
Effective client liaison can only be effected on the basis of a commonality of interests and priorities. Therefore, the more a research institute and its client know about one another, the better their relationship will be.
Agricultural development is a dynamic development process. It implies a shift from traditional methods of production to new, science-based methods of production that include new technological components, new crops, and even new farming systems. For farmers to adopt these new production technologies successfully, they must first learn about them and then learn how to use them correctly in their farming systems.
Simple changes, such as the adoption of a new cultivar, may involve a minimal extension input. However, if such a change involves a new time of planting, a higher plant population, more fertilizer or the use of pesticides, farmers may have much to learn to adopt the new technology successfully. Furthermore, once the shift to new, science-based technology begins, there is the expectation that this is the first step towards more intensive and productive cropping and farming systems. This process is the essence of agricultural development, and each step in this process will require an educational and communications input. Therefore agricultural extension, regardless of how it is provided, must be viewed as an essential component in the agricultural development process.
If it is agreed that agricultural extension is essential to agricultural development, why are agricultural extension organizations sometimes criticized? People have a wide range of views about the relative value of agricultural extension, because in different situations it has been organized in different ways to pursue different objectives. Views range from very positive to negative, depending upon each observer's knowledge of, and experience with, agricultural extension. For example, agricultural extension has been criticized because it has neglected certain categories of agricultural producers, such as women and small-scale farmers. These omissions are, in fact, a reflection of many factors, among them the agricultural development objectives being pursued, unusually high ratios of small-scale farmers to extension personnel, the way in which extension is organized, the difficulty of reaching women in some cultures, and the extension strategy being followed. Thus agricultural extension can have both positive and negative consequences - sometimes simultaneously - depending upon the goals pursued, the clients served and how success is measured.
Extension has also been criticized because it has been ineffective in persuading farmers to adopt a particular recommendation, when, in fact, the technology being promoted may not have been appropriate or was poorly suited to the farmers' conditions. Finally, extension has been ineffective in certain situations because of inadequate resources, poorly trained field staff, mobility problems, limited teaching resources or the field staff having too many non-extension responsibilities causing role conflicts.
Past experience of agricultural extension (as is more fully documented in Hand-out 3) demonstrates that the function of extension is essential to the agricultural development process. Farmers cannot successfully adopt a new technology unless the extension concept has been appropriately applied. At the same time, it is essential to differentiate between the extension concept itself, inappropriate technology that may have been disseminated, and inappropriate objectives that may have been pursued, whether intentional or not. The extension process can be applied to help bring about broad-based agricultural development.
Although extension is one of the components supporting development, it is also supported and affected by the quality of agricultural research, the degree to which policy and prices promote the adoption of new technology, and the effectiveness of the supporting infrastructure. Considering this from an extension point of view, failure of any one of the supporting functions can lead to collapse or weakening of an otherwise effective extension organization. In an aggregate sense, extension can be illustrated as the link between research and farmers.
Extension linkage with research and farmers
Extension approaches differ from country to country, and sometimes even within countries.
On the one hand, extension can be viewed broadly as a multipurpose, educational and technical advisory service designed to bring about broad-based agricultural and rural development. On the other hand, agricultural extension can be narrowly viewed as a technology transfer mechanism, sometimes dealing with only one commodity, that is also involved in input supply, credit and marketing services.
The particular approach to extension followed in any area is greatly influenced by organizational factors. More than 90% of all extension work is carried out through a ministry or department of agriculture, at the national, state or provincial level. These public extension systems tend to be multipurpose, governmental organizations, responsible for a broad range of extension and other governmental activities. Government policy toward extension generally mandates the specific type of programmes and approaches pursued in each country.
Single commodity production system extension activities can be carried out by a private company, parastatal organization or a commodity ministry. These systems are generally limited to cash and export crops, and are heavily oriented toward technology transfer. These vertically integrated systems are usually quite successful because they have a relatively simple organizational structure; focus on high-value crops that generate sufficient resources to cover technology transfer costs, including input supply, credit and technical assistance; disseminate tested, economically viable production technology for a single crop (i.e., a limited focus); and have adequate numbers of well trained and adequately supported field personnel for the task involved.
Extension approaches in developing countries are frequently influenced by external agencies, and are sometimes dominated by government policies that favour urban consumers instead of assisting farm households to improve their productivity and standard of living.
In the late 1950s and 1960s, the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) was a major external supporter of extension, pursuing a broad-based educational approach, patterned in part after the land-grant university system of the United States of America. In retrospect, these systems were developed at a time when improved technology was not widely available in most developing countries. In addition, these systems were established within ministries of agriculture, rather than being attached to agricultural universities, which were weak or non-existent in many countries. This structural arrangement resulted in weak linkages with research; the consequence was that many of the newly emerging extension systems had little impact on agricultural productivity and development.
During the 1970s, most international donors supported integrated approaches to agricultural extension and rural development. The approach was built on the premise that farmers needed an integrated package of services - including extension, input supply, credit and marketing services - to increase their productivity. This approach also had limited impact. These systems were difficult to administer because of poor communications and inadequate managerial capacity at field level. Credit and input supply were used largely for marginal technologies and productivity gains were frequently insufficient to cover input costs. Consequently, many of these systems were not self-sustaining because of high overhead costs, system inefficiencies and low levels of loan repayment by farmers.
Agricultural extension in the 1980s was dominated by the Training and Visit (T&V) approach to extension promoted by the World Bank. T&V was an effort to reform the general agricultural extension organizations by improving system management and narrowing the focus of extension, mostly to technology transfer. The assumption was that new, improved technology was now available for most food crops, due in part to the work of the international agricultural research centres (IARCs) working in cooperation with national agricultural research programmes. Initial results of T&V extension in irrigated areas were quite encouraging, particularly where the high-yielding varieties of the Green Revolution varieties and accompanying inputs were available. However, when T&V was expanded into rain-fed areas, where technical potential was more limited and farmer risk higher, it faltered due to limited impact on productivity. In addition, T&V was criticized as being rigid, too top-down in orientation, costly to operate because of high recurrent personnel costs, and too heavily focused on technology transfer at the expense of human resource development.
Throughout much of this period, many extension scholars, development practitioners and technical assistance and donor agencies - such as FAO and IFAD - called for more participatory approaches to extension. Experience, empirical studies and extension theory all pointed to the need for more farmer participation in programme planning and policy formation: the essential 'feedback system.' However, it is difficult to institute such changes in top-down-oriented government extension systems. Although both donors and government extension officials talk about participation, too little systematic effort has been made to increase client participation in many national extension systems.
Source: pages 15-17, in: FAO. 1990. Report of the Global Consultation on Agricultural Extension. FAO, Rome, 4-8 December 1989. FAO, Rome.
Role of research institutes and agricultural universities in transfer of technology
Information communication
Conclusions
Despite the availability of highly productive and remunerative technology, a wide gap exists between what scientists have achieved on their experimental farms and research stations and the average yield obtained on farmers' fields. Research institutes and universities therefore have to assume more prominent roles in the transfer of improved farm technology.
Agriculture occupies a strategic position in the economic development of most developing countries. Realizing its importance, most developing countries are in the process of modernizing their agriculture, which, in turn, depends largely upon the application of improved practices based on science and technology. To achieve a high standard of agriculture production, a country has to have strong research and extension systems. The infrastructure for research and extension are being strengthened and reorganized in many countries so that more relevant and appropriate research can be conducted to solve farmers' problems and increase agricultural production. As a result, an unprecedented breakthrough in agricultural technology is taking place not only in developed but also in many developing countries. In fact a form of technology explosion has occurred in the last two decades in terms of crop improvement (e.g., breeding and multiplication of high yielding varieties), crop production, crop protection and post-harvest technology. Nevertheless, despite the availability of highly productive and remunerative technology, a wide gap exists between what scientists have achieved on experimental farms and research stations and what average farmers obtain on their fields. There are many factors responsible for this. One of them is an ineffective system of transfer of improved farm practices, resulting in inadequate knowledge and managerial ability of farmers.
Evolving new agricultural technology and its quick dissemination requires a series of integrated and communicating linked systems among the agencies concerned. This involves three sub-systems:
· a research system, responsible for generating and evolving new agricultural technology and innovations;· a linking (extension) system responsible for transfer of new technology, facilitating its adoption and also reporting back field problems to the research system (feedback); and
· the client system (farmers), the ultimate users of technology.
It is necessary to understand the nature of linkages and communication patterns between and within the three systems, and their roles in speedy transfer of technology. This understanding, unfortunately, is poor and currently inadequate, resulting in distortion and loss of messages in the transfer process. This paper deals with the roles of research institutes and agricultural universities in transfer of improved farm technology.
As noted above, the transfer of improved agricultural technology requires a number of interrelated steps and actions, implemented by a number of institutes and agencies, including research institutions, extension services, farmers' organizations, input, credit and marketing agencies, etc. Most countries, both developed and developing, have an extension service of their own, which is mainly responsible for transfer of improved farm technology from research institutes to farmers' fields and serves as a link between the two. Agricultural research institutes, in recent years, have been undergoing many changes in their organizational structure and functioning, particularly in developing countries, with the result that highly productive and remunerative agricultural technology is now available. However, as stated earlier, not all of these technologies have reached farmers' fields and there is a wide gap between potential and actual agricultural production. Efforts are being made to reorganize extension services in many developing countries, but research institutes, in addition to their main research functions, have also a key role to play in the transfer of improved farm technology and the upgrading of the professional competence of extension workers and farmers. It is high time that these roles were clearly defined, understood and performed. Some of the main roles are discussed below, and illustrated in Figure 1.
Development and advisory role
Research institutes and agricultural universities should undertake agricultural development work on a limited scale to provide direct transfer of information by educating extension workers and farmers regarding the advantages and potential of new technology developed by them. This could be done in various ways.
Demonstrations on farmers' fields
A team of institute and university scientists as appropriate, consisting of agronomists, soil scientists, plant protection specialists and agricultural engineers, should conduct a number of demonstrations on farmers' fields to show the potential of new technology and educate the local extension workers and selected farmers step-by-step in how to apply it. These demonstrations could be single crop, multiple crop, whole farm or even whole village demonstrations, depending upon the stage of development of the area. The composition of the team would vary according to the area and nature of the technology being transferred.
Pilot project
In this approach, a pilot project is established in a particular area for a specific period to test the applicability and validity of selected technology, programmes or approaches, with a view to expanding it to other areas if found successful.
Figure 1 Role of research institutes and agricultural universities in transfer of technology
Operational research project
The institute or university can undertake one or two operational research projects, based on their tested farm technology, to demonstrate its impact directly under farmers' field conditions, and also study constraints, if any, to its adoption. This will help perfect the technology and make the scientists aware of field problems. Examples of such operational research projects could be integrated pest control, water management or technology transfer on small and marginal farms.
'Minikit' trials
Scientists could conduct minikit trials, with small quantities of seed of the latest cultivars and other inputs on farmers' fields. This can help to get the reaction of the farmers regarding the new technology before it is generally released.
Working with local extension workers
Scientists associate and work with local extension workers, providing technical advice and themselves experiencing the actual field conditions. This is beneficial to both.
Subject-matter specialists
In many countries, research institutes and agricultural universities have teams of subject-matter specialists at institute as well as district or local levels to provide advice directly to extension workers, farmers and others, covering new farm technology and its management. These specialists, when working at district or local level, should also have their mini-laboratories or agricultural 'first-aid kits.' This approach helps to establish close links between researchers, extension workers and farmers.
Formulate packages of practices
One of the important tasks of research institutes and agricultural universities is to collect, process and formulate appropriate packages of practices, based on recent research results and farmers' needs, and then to disseminate them using suitable media and methods. Handbooks on packages of practices have been found very useful by extension workers.
Advice to visiting farmers or through correspondence
The institute should have a built-in mechanism - such as a cell or centre with technical staff - at both main as well as sub-campuses - where farmers can go personally or write and get free technical advice.
Training
Training is one of the most important methods of imparting knowledge and skill to extension workers and farmers concerning new farm technology, and helps speed up dissemination. Training, therefore, should be an important function and integral part of research institute and agricultural university activities. They should plan, organize and conduct production- and problem-oriented training programmes of short and long duration for extension workers and farmers. Short-duration training programmes, e.g., on specific crops or technology, should be organized before the start of the crop season. These programmes should be practical in nature and the trainees should be provided with the opportunity of 'learning by doing.' Institutes should also organize training on the pattern of the T&V system, synchronizing with field operations and highlighting key points, to keep subject-matter specialists and field extension workers up to date on the latest farm technology.
Long-term training programmes should also be organized periodically for subject-matter specialists and other senior extension staff so that they may go through all the operations from sowing to harvesting of a crop or the life-cycle of a domesticated animal.
Special, need-based, training programmes for farm youths and farm women should be organized on-campus and also in the field or villages by mobile teams.
Institutes and agricultural universities should also organize training programmes for other agencies, such as input suppliers and credit and other agencies, in order to educate them about the nature, characteristics, potential and requirements of modern agriculture.
Training should be a regular activity of research institutes and agricultural universities, and there should be a separate unit for this purpose, supported by core technical staff and other training facilities, including teaching and audiovisual aids, transport, hostels, etc. The training programmes should be planned in advance and made known to all concerned. Each training programme should clearly state its objectives, technical content (syllabus) and methodology, and should be orientated to the training needs and professional level of the trainees. The training programmes should emphasize not only subject-matter content but also extension methodology and understanding of farmers' characteristics and behaviour.
Research institutes and agricultural universities are continuously evolving and releasing new technology, but, owing to weak systems for information communication, not all the technical information is reaching those for whom it has been generated. More attention should be paid to effective, two-way communication. For this, the specific steps considered below are suggested.
Publication
Institutes should have a publication programme for simple extension literature, containing technical recommendations in local languages - in the form of bulletins, handbooks on packages of practices, folders, leaflets, etc. - for use by extension workers and farmers. This should be in the form of packages of practices for all crops and livestock of the area, and also on other specific technology evolved by the institute, university or others. The literature should stress key points, and also stress 'do's' and 'dont's.'
If possible, the institute should publish its own magazine or newsletter for rapid dissemination of research results.
Preparation and supply of simple audiovisual aids
Research institutes and agricultural universities should prepare simple and inexpensive audiovisual aids, such as slide sets, film strips, posters and photographs for use by extension workers. These are simple aids, but have been found very effective in field extension work. Slides and filmstrips could form a series on individual crops and livestock, showing in sequence all the stages involved in production, or on other technology. Institutes having the facilities could also produce short documentary films.
Information centre
The institute or agricultural university should have an information centre on its campus, containing all the information which the farmers might need. This should be manned by technical people, who should also be responsible for taking the farmers round the experimental farm, arranging discussions with scientists, and helping to solve the farmers problems. The centre should have a small museum and library of extension literature.
Organization of exhibitions and farmers' fairs
Agriculture exhibitions and farmers' fairs help in dissemination of information. Research institutes and agricultural universities should organize such exhibitions and fairs on their main campuses and sub-stations during each crop season to highlight the latest developments in farm technology. Emphasis should be on action-orientated programmes and live exhibits, and organized discussions between scientists and farmers. Besides research and trial plots, crop demonstrations should be laid out on the institute's farm, clearly labelled with details of the technology being demonstrated. The institute or university should also have mobile exhibition units to bring organized exhibitions to remote rural areas.
Organization of workshops, seminars and symposia for farmers and extension workers
Research institutes and agricultural universities should organize short-duration workshops, seminars and symposia on specific problems, in which extension workers and selected farmers should be invited to participate.
Television, radio and the press
Mass media - including television, radio and local-language newspapers - can help enormously in the dissemination of improved technology. There should be some kind of institutionalized mechanism for making use of these media by researchers. In some countries, agricultural universities and research institutes have their own radio and television air time, and use it to broadcast and telecast technical programmes. The credibility of such programmes has been found to be very high.
Visitors as source of information communication
Research institutes and agricultural universities are visited by a large number of farmers, extension workers, students, teachers and others. There should be proper arrangements for their stay, for showing them round and for helping them to obtain solutions for their problems. This should help establish good public relations and promote the spread of farm information.
Other activities
Research institutes and agricultural universities can also take on some service and supply functions in a limited way. Services such as soil and water testing, taxonomic identification of insects, diagnosis of diseased plants and providing proper advice to farmers can be very effective in helping farmers. The supply of small samples of seed of newly released cultivars and other plant material could be another method of disseminating them quickly. The supply of soil testing kits, plant protection kits, dairy and veterinary kits, etc., could also be undertaken wherever possible.
The success of efforts to transfer technology will depend on understanding the nature and character of the technology and its specific requirements, the characteristics of the farming community, coupled with effective communication strategy. Research institutes can help extension workers in all these, based on their research and expertise.
Although the main function of research institutes and universities is the generation of improved farm technology and innovation, at the same time they can play many important roles in the transfer of new technology to farmers. These activities and programmes should be considered as legitimate functions of research institutes and agricultural universities, and not treated as an additional burden.
Most of the developing countries realize that the average yields of the major agricultural commodities are only 25-30% of their demonstrated potential under conditions of optimum management on farmers' fields or on experimental stations. Thus there is the potential for achieving a three- to four-fold increase in the yields of various crops by proper use of the available national resources. Moreover, with rapidly increasing populations in most of the developing countries, it is important that agricultural potential is realized to the maximum by efficient management of the complex agricultural production system.
The foundation of agricultural production is the package of production technology evolved by well-organized basic and applied research, which is then passed on to the farmers through the extension system. However, it has been realized time and again that the relationship is often poor between agricultural research and extension systems or services. This situation is common in developing countries, and has developed over many years as a result of competition for funds, personnel and physical facilities, and a mutual lack of perception of the value of each other's.
There is often little or no contact between personnel of the two services. Often there are power struggles between the heads of the two agencies. As a result, the farmer, the consumer and the agencies that finance these services all suffer.
Studies carried out in India and other countries indicate that new technology (often developed on experimental stations) at times is inappropriate for the farmers for whom it was developed. Extension personnel sometimes recognize this, and make no effort or only a halfhearted effort to deliver the technology. Research personnel thus criticize extension for non-delivery, while extension personnel criticize the research arm for not developing appropriate technology. This mutual criticism often destroys trust between research and extension personnel. Farmers are ultimately the sufferers: benefitting from neither research nor extension efforts.
Something, therefore, needs to be done to help both research and extension services so that they develop trust in each other and so that the technology generated for the benefit of farmers enjoys the support of both. Research and extension, like two faces of a coin, should work in unison for the benefit of farmers. Agricultural research findings have no
Module 8 - Session 1 Hand-out 5 value unless they are used by the farming community; extension without scientific information generated by research will have no programme content.
Mutual respect and job satisfaction can be restored to both research and extension services by involving them in a joint strategy of research and technology development and transfer. This strategy should aim at research on farmers' fields as a team effort. Farmers, extension staff and research staff meet and work together on this common ground. Biological and social scientists are involved with extension personnel at all stages of on-farm activities, each taking the leadership in their area of expertise.
The major components of the strategy of research and technology development and transfer should be:
· an applied research programme carried out by research scientists;
· on-farm testing of the technology on farmers' fields; and
· adaptive trials by extension workers, technically back-stopped by research scientists.
Applied research programme
Applied research develops an appropriate package of technology for agricultural production in the various ecological and socio-economic situations in a country. The technology should, however, be developed under conditions similar to those prevailing on farmers' fields. It has been observed that, in most of the developing countries, agricultural research is being undertaken at state-run experimental stations, under conditions which are vastly different from those prevailing in farmers' fields. Experimental fields are maintained in excellent condition, with high fertility levels and optimum management, without regard to cost of production or the farming system under which the particular technology is expected to be applied by farmers. No wonder that extension workers and farmers are sceptical about the recommendations given to them, based on experimental farm results. The whole package of technology - including varieties, agronomic practices and farming system - has to be evolved keeping fully in view the agro-ecological and socio-economic conditions of farmers in different areas.
Most farmers in most developing countries are smallholders, with land holdings of 2 to 3 ha or less. They practise intensive cultivation, using family labour and low levels of inputs such as fertilizers and biocides. Unless the package of technology suits the conditions of such farmers, it will not be adopted by the vast majority of the farming community, thereby rendering the technology generated ineffective in terms of improving living standards through improved agricultural production. Even in the same village, the different categories of farmers may need different packages of technology for the same commodity. For example, in the case of wheat, a small-scale farmer, for whom wheat straw is as valuable as grain and who needs low-capital-risk technology, would prefer a medium-tall cultivar capable of giving good to moderate yields of grain and a good amount of better quality straw, with the application of small amounts of fertilizer. Even the techniques for harvesting, threshing and storing the crop vary between small-scale and large-scale farmers.
Farmers with large holdings prefer to grow crops more for commercial purposes. They invariably practise mechanized farming, use higher doses of inorganic fertilizers, and resort to chemicals for weed control. They would, for example, like to have more grain yield from high levels of inputs and prefer less wheat straw. Such factors have to be kept in mind while planning farm-oriented production research for different categories of farmers. Generation of farm-size-neutral technology is easier said than done.
In addition, the farming systems operating in different areas with different categories of farmers should be also be borne in mind while carrying out applied research. The best technology package for a crop may not work satisfactorily under different farming systems, and especially when farmers have to produce different food and cash crops on the same farm or piece of land, and maintain livestock as well. Technology should be evolved in accordance with farming systems and with the ultimate objective of maximizing the net income of farmers with limited resources.
On-farm testing of technology
On-farm research should be conducted under farmers' conditions on an adequate number of farmers' fields so that they are representative of the production situation and socio-economic conditions of the region. Conducting research at many locations increases the reliability of the results.
Having delineated the target area or group, such as small- or large-scale farmers, it is necessary to carry out a diagnostic survey to assess farmers' practices, decision criteria, resource availability, constraints and possible development opportunities. Diagnostic surveys are relatively informal and of low cost. They should involve a week or so of field travel for a multidisciplinary team, preferably consisting of an agriculturalist and an economist, who talk with representatives of policy making agencies, community leaders and a sample of farmers and their families. Such surveys should provide information on agricultural aspects of farmers' circumstances, such as soils, present level of production, weed problems, pest problems, livestock, etc., besides aspects of the farmers that affect their production decisions. Careful screening of the data should permit the identification of possible solutions to farmers' problems.
While carrying out on-farm testing, both researcher-managed and farmer-managed trials are crucial. The evaluation criteria should be the same as that used by farmers. Performance of improved and new technology will, of course, drop as it is moved from experimental stations to farm level, particularly under farmer-managed conditions, where it is being tested for compatibility with the existing system.
Farmer-managed trials should have fewer treatments than researcher-managed trials. Farmer-managed trials should have larger plots and involve as many farmers as convenient on a continuing basis. Farms chosen should be such as representative as possible of large areas. More cooperative and average farmers should be taken as collaborators to get a satisfactory appraisal of the technology under test.
Extension workers and agents should be involved directly in the on-farm testing activities so that they are fully informed. Working with researchers, the extension agents have the opportunity to learn something more effectively than through the traditional top-down system. They, together with researchers, should also monitor the spread and evaluate the performance of the newly introduced technology. Collaborating farmers in farmer-managed trials will supplement these efforts by disseminating the technology to fellow farmers. Interviews and discussions with such farmers on radio, television and during field days will go a long way in encouraging other farmers to adopt the new technology. Research and extension staff can provide farmers with economic information on various technologies, especially during field days at the time of harvest of a crop, when farmers can evaluate the returns and risks. The farmers' reaction to new technologies provides the feedback for the guidance of future research work on the experimental stations.
Adaptive trials
Adaptive trials involve fairly large areas for final testing of technology packages. These trials should be in the hands of extension specialists, with the support of agricultural researchers and economists. Farmers participate in the management of these trials, thus forming local foci for dissemination of the technology. Not least, the farmers provide extremely critical and realistic evaluations.
Organizing field days involving neighbouring farmers should stimulate discussion of the suitability of a technology. Additionally, when seed production is a constraint due to lack of appropriate seed producing agencies, adaptive trials with the involvement of breeders and production specialists can form the basis for rapid, seed multiplication programmes. However, fields having such trials will have to be carefully supervised through the entire growth cycle of the crop to ensure varietal purity.
If a large number of adaptive trials are conducted throughout the area, more precise economic analyses of costs and returns for the new technology can be carried out. Primary management responsibility for these plots should rest with extension workers and farmers, with back-up support from researchers.
The process described above focuses on the organization of production research and extension programmes aimed at developing and transferring technologies appropriate for target groups of farmers. It strengthens linkages between researchers and extension workers and is an excellent training forum for the latter throughout the crop season. Joint participation of researchers and extension workers as a team in this process provides an excellent solution to problems arising from specialist interventions in isolation from the overall farming system. Furthermore, involving farmers in the strategy helps direct work toward development of technology suited to farmers' circumstances in order to accelerate production and productivity of the area, besides keeping researchers up-to-date with farmers' problems.
Benor, D., & Harrison, J.Q. 1977. Agricultural Extension: The Training and Visit System. Washington DC: World Bank.
Ministry of Agriculture. 1982. Agricultural Extension Manual. Department of Agricultural Extension, Ministry of Agriculture, Dhaka, Bangladesh.
Moshir, A.T. 1981. Three Ways to Spur Agricultural Growth. New York, NY: International Agricultural Development Service.
Evolution of the concept of farming systems research
Key FSR concepts as originally conceived
Sources used in preparing this hand-out
1. Abstracted from FAO. 1986. The technology applications gap: overcoming constraints to small-farm development. [FAO] Research and Technology Paper, No. 1.
Since the mid-1980s, farming systems research (FSR) has emerged as a popular and major theme in international agricultural research. Yet, despite the widespread use of the term, tremendous diversity persists in the research concepts, approaches, methods, activities and objectives to which it is applied. The activities incorporated under FSR range from computer models simulating small-scale farm systems to integrated rural development strategies, and from complex experiment station trials of cropping systems to simple on-farm testing of technologies. This diversity is due in part to the continuing evolution of the concept; the definition has changed with implementation and practical experience.
FSR evolved in the post-green-revolution era with the growing perception of the failure of agricultural research and extension institutions to generate and disseminate technologies that were adopted on a wide scale by small-scale farmers. 'Improved' technology, while perhaps sound by scientific standards, was of limited utility if not adopted by farmers. The problem was a lack of understanding of the conditions under which small-scale farmers operated, resulting from a fundamentally top-down approach to agricultural research and technology development. The analysis reflected a significant change in the attitude of the scientific community towards small-scale farmers, an attitude that had evolved during the 1960s and early 1970s. Several new assumptions concerning or perceptions of small-scale farmers figured prominently in the development of FSR.
First, small-scale farmers were not rejecting technologies out of sheer ignorance, conservatism or sloth. Rather, it is now accepted that small-scale farmers were rational, although they pursued goals and employed criteria for evaluating technologies which were distinct from those of the agricultural scientists working on research stations. Neither yield maximization nor even profit maximization could be assumed as the standard by which to measure the success or potential relevance of a new technology.
Second, indigenous small-scale farm systems in the tropics and sub-tropics came to be viewed as not merely primitive or underdeveloped agriculture, but as complex systems which have evolved in response to particular agroclimatic and socio-economic conditions and constraints. It was realized that, to develop relevant technologies, the existing farming systems had to be studied and understood, and the farmers' extensive knowledge about their environments brought into the research process.
Primary factors which contribute to the complexity of small-scale farm systems in developing countries are as follows (Byerlee, Harrington and Winkelmann, 1982):
· a long growing season, or multiple growing seasons, which increases the range of crop choices and permits multiple and relay cropping systems as well as diversified enterprises;· high levels of uncertainty and risk created by significant climatic variability, unreliable input and output markets, unfavourable or erratic pricing policies, marginal resources and low farm incomes and productivity;
· the combination of subsistence and commercial activities within the farming system, creating multiple goals, priorities and criteria for evaluating technology in the farming household;
· general reliance on household labour as the primary factor of production, coupled with a chronic scarcity of cash;
· considerable heterogeneity in resources and factors of production controlled by farming households, even within a designated region.
Third, farm management economics could be applied to small-scale farm agriculture in the tropics, as shown by Collinson's (1984) extensive work on farming systems in Tanzania and Norman's in Nigeria (cited in Simmonds, 1984). Their work drew attention to the fact that small-scale farmers operating diversified farming systems have to make complex decisions about the allocation of scarce resources and factors of production among numerous enterprises. This had two critical implications for agricultural research. The first was that farmers' management strategies and decisions could only be understood within the context of the whole farm system. The second was that ideal management in any specific enterprise is not feasible in the small-scale farm situation. Ideal management, however, had been, and often still is, assumed in research station trials and in evaluating technologies.
Fourth, there is significant diversity among small-scale farm systems in terms of the socio-economic circumstances and physical environments in which they operate. This diversity renders many broad-based technologies inappropriate. CIMMYT studies of adoption of high-yielding varieties (HYVs) of wheat and maize among small-scale farmers conducted in the 1970s revealed that agroclimatic zone and socio-economic circumstances were the primary factors affecting adoption patterns. CIMMYT concluded that more fine tuning of technology was necessary if it were to be successfully transferred to small-scale farmers (Byerlee, Harrington and Winkelmann, 1982; Winkelmann, 1984).
Fifth, it was observed that technologies which depend heavily on petroleum products could, with rising oil prices, create significant instability, rather than benefits, in agriculture.
Last, systems theory and modelling emerged as a framework and tool for handling the complex interactions and multiple variables characteristic of small-scale farm systems (Simmonds, 1984).
Drawing on these new insights and concepts, FSR evolved as a potential technique for solving diagnosed problem of irrelevant technology generation created by the overly top-down approach of mainstream agricultural development. In its original form, there were two basic tenets:
· The farming system, with emphasis on interactions between components, is the appropriate unit of analysis for agricultural research on small-scale farms. A holistic view of the farming system should serve as the framework for designing, developing and testing technologies. The goal should be to improve the productivity of the farming system, not of specific components.· Technology cannot be developed in a vacuum. To be relevant and adopted, it must take into account small-scale farmers' (the clients') socio-economic circumstances, their goals for production and the constraints operating within the farming system. The most effective means to do this is to bring small-scale farmers into the research process.
These tenets explicitly called for collaboration between social scientists and technical agricultural scientists in technology development, design, testing, evaluation and dissemination.
FSR was developed to overcome perceived weaknesses in mainstream agricultural research by integrating a number of key activities and concepts into a coherent research process.
FSR is farmer oriented
FSR targets small-scale farmers as the clients for agricultural research and technology development. Consequently, its fundamental objective is to make technology generation more relevant to their goals, needs and priorities. Several mechanisms are commonly employed to attain this objective. Farmers are integrated into the research process. The existing farming system is studied before proposing improved technologies. Social scientists collaborate with technical scientists in the analysis of the existing system, constraint diagnosis and the development of alternative technologies. Technologies are adapted to local circumstances and the needs of a specific, relatively homogeneous group of farmers.
FSR is systems oriented
FSR views the farm in a holistic manner and focuses on interactions between components. This is necessary for understanding the complexity and functioning of small-scale farm agriculture. In practice, detailed analysis rarely encompasses the whole farm, but the farming system is used as a framework for the analysis while specific components, sub-systems or interactions are focused on.
FSR is a problem-solving approach
FSR is essentially operational research which first identifies technical, biological and socio-economic constraints at the farm level for major types of farming systems, and then endeavours to develop technologies which are feasible for adoption by the target farming households. The research process is both iterative and dynamic, with adjustments being made in technology design as understanding and communication with small-scale farmers develops.
FSR is interdisciplinary
FSR, by its very nature, cuts across traditional commodity and disciplinary boundaries. Collaboration between agricultural scientists of various disciplines and social scientists is needed to understand the conditions under which small-scale farmers operate, in order to diagnose constraints and develop improved technologies.
FSR is complementary
FSR does not replace mainstream commodity and disciplinary agricultural research; it is complementary to it. FSR was originally conceived to draw on the body of knowledge of technologies and management strategies generated by discipline and commodity research, and to adapt them to the specific environments and socio-economic circumstances of a target group of relatively homogeneous farmers.
FSR tests technology in on-farm trials
On-farm experimentation establishes the context for collaboration between farmers and researchers, and fosters a deeper understanding of the farming system among researchers. It also provides for the evaluation of technologies under the environmental and management conditions in which it is expected to be used.
FSR provides feedback from farmers
Feedback on farmers' goals, needs, priorities and criteria for evaluating technologies is channelled by FSR to station-based agricultural researchers and to national and regional policy-makers.
Byerlee, D., Harrington, L., & Winkelmann, D. 1982. Farming systems research: issues in research strategy and technology design. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 64: 897-904.
Chang, M.J. (ed) 1984. Issues in Organization and Management of Research with a Farming Systems Perspective Aimed at Technology Generation. The Hague, the Netherlands: CIMMYT and ISNAR.
Collinson, M. 1982. Farming systems research in East Africa: the experience of
CIMMYT and some national agricultural research services, 1976-1981. Michigan State University International Development Paper, No. 7.
Coulter, J.K. 1984. Activities of development agencies in support of farming systems research. Proceedings of a workshop. in: Chang, 1984, q.v.
Dillon, J.L., & Anderson, J.R. In press. Concept and practice in farming systems research. in: Martin, J.V. (ed) Proceedings of ACIAR Consultation on Agricultural Research in East Africa.
Elliot, H. 1977. Farming systems research in francophone Africa: methods and results. Paper presented at the Ford Foundation Farming Systems Seminar, Tunis, Tunisia, 1-3 February 1977.
Rhoades, R., & Booth, R. 1982. Farmer-back-to-farmer: a model for generating acceptable technology. CIP [International Potato Research Centre] Social Sciences Department Working Paper, No. 1982-1.
Shaner, W.W., Philipps, P.F., & Schmehl, W.R. 1982. Farming Systems Research and Development: A Guideline for Developing Countries. Boulder, Colorado, CO: Westview Press.
Simmonds, N.W. 1984. The state of the art of farming systems research. Paper prepared for the Agriculture and Rural Development Department, World Bank, Washington, D.C.
Technical Advisory Committee. 1978. Farming Systems Research at the International Agriculture Research Centers. Washington, D.C.: Technical Advisory Committee, Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research.
Winkelmann, D. 1984. Recent views in farming systems research. in: Chang, 1984, q.v.
