participatory extension approaches (pea) in zimbabwe · participatory extension approaches (pea) in...

Participatory Extension Approaches (PEA) in Zimbabwe

Published byMinistry of Agriculture, Mechanisation and Irrigation Development and Practical Action Southern Africa, Harare Zimbabwe.Second Edition: June 2010

Copyright © 2010 – Second EditionMinistry of Agriculture, Mechanisation and Irrigation DevelopmentPractical Action Southern Africa

Copyright © 1998 – First EditionDepartment of Agricultural, Technical and Extension Services (AGRITEX)German Development Cooperation (GTZ GmbH)Intermediate Technology Development Group, Zimbabwe (ITZ) – Now Practical Action

All rights reserved.

Front Cover Photo (taken by Irvine Siyafa): Farmer to Farmer sharing of the A-Frame technology used in soil and water conservation in Gokwe District based on farmers' own experiments and experiences.

Back Cover Photo: Action Learning Cycle of participatory extension

Design and layout: Hudgehog Design & Communication

“This document has been produced with the financial assistance of the European Union. The contents of this document are the sole responsibility of Practical Action and can under no c i rcumstances be regarded as ref lect ing the posi t ion of the European Union”

Participatory Extension Approaches (PEA) in Zimbabwe Table of Contents

Acknowledgements 1

Foreword 2

What this booklet is about 3

Background to agricultural extension 4

Defining Participatory Extension Approaches (PEA) 15

Defining some methods and tools used in the PEA process 19

Processes and steps leading to best practices 25

Examples of PEA best practices in ZImbabwe 32

Suggested learnership process for PEA 35

Conclusion and recommendations 39

References 40

Participatory Extension Approaches (PEA) in Zimbabwe Acknowledgments

This booklet on Participatory Extension Approaches (PEA) has been updated with the contribution of a National PEA Core Team made up of staff from Practical Action Southern Africa, the Ministry of Agriculture, Mechanisation and Irrigation Development and the Zimbabwe Farmers Union. Special mention goes to the Delegation of the European Union (EU) to the Republic of Zimbabwe and Practical Action Southern Africa for the provision of resources to fund the review and production of the Second Edition of the PEA booklet. Practical Action Southern Africa also extends their appreciation to the Ministry of Agriculture, Mechanisation and Irrigation Development for endorsing the review of the PEA process since September 2009. Recognition also goes to Kuda Murwira and Dr. Evison Moyo for technically supporting the reproduction of this booklet.

Finally, special mention also goes to the final editorial team comprising Absolom Masendeke, Joseph Kamuzhanje and Reginald Sithole.

Last but not least we would like to pay special tribute to farmers in the four provinces (Manicaland, Masvingo,Mashonaland East and Matebeleland South) where the PEA workshops were conducted, and ward level ministry staff whose comments and input during the workshops helped to improve the quality of the booklet to make it more relevant to the situation on the ground.

1 A Guide to an Approach Developed in Zimbabwe

Zimbabwe is an agro-based economy and therefore the agriculture sector plays a key role in the economic development of the country. The agricultural sector has however evolved through so many changes over the past few decades, especially in the area of land reform. The past ten years have been characterised by economic decline which, among other issues, has seen increasing national food insecurity. The Zimbabwe economy was affected by runaway inflation, shrinking income levels, chronic shortages of foreign currency to buy inputs, and emigration of skilled labour to the private sector and neighbouring countries. In the agricultural sector, the combination of these factors resulted in the deterioration of the national agricultural extension services, particularly to small-holder farmers.

Although previously disadvantaged small-holder farmers have been provided with some resources and inputs through the Government of Zimbabwe initiated land reform programme, little resources are being channeled towards agriculture research and extension service.

If agriculture in Zimbabwe has to realise its full potential and regain its position as the bread basket of the region, an inclusive and participatory approach to provision of research and extension services needs to be explored by all key stakeholders including government, NGOs and the private sector. Farmers on the other hand need to be empowered and become better organised for linkages with both markets and services.

Despite limited resources, the Ministry has remained open to new and innovative ideas for improving the performance of the agricultural sector. The Ministry has been working with partners such as Practical Action Southern Africa to explore new ways of providing extension services to small holder farmers in Zimbabwe. The engagement with Practical Action Southern Africa has made it possible for the Ministry to develop this Participatory Extension Approach (PEA) booklet. I am fully aware that PEA, if well planned and executed, can provide practical guidelines for addressing a number of extension bottlenecks that the Ministry is confronting.

The Ministry is committed to the mainstreaming of this approach at all levels through awareness raising, staff training and expanded collaboration with all stakeholders working with farmers in rural areas to improve their livelihoods. In this vein, it would be useful to incorporate this booklet into curricula of all our agricultural colleges in Zimbabwe in order to increase their performance in the field.

It is the hope of the Ministry that the use of this booklet will go a long way in transforming the agricultural service delivery in this country and ensure more responsiveness to the needs and priorities of our farmers in the rural areas.

Participatory Extension Approaches (PEA) in Zimbabwe

Foreword by Minister of Agriculture Mechanisation and Irrigation Development


Joseph MadeMinister of Agriculture, Mechanisation and Irrigation Development

This booklet is the second edition to the one published by AGRITEX, GTZ and Practical Action (then ITDG) in July

1998, titled “ Learning Together Through Participatory Extension Approaches – A Guide to an Approach

Developed in Zimbabwe”. In this edition, the reader is offered new insights into the evolution of not only

agricultural extension in practice, but also participatory approaches in extension from a global and local

perspective. The booklet advocates and clearly supports the trend towards participatory extension approaches

because of the valuable positive lessons learned in Zimbabwe as well as other countries.

The booklet clarifies methods, concepts and tools relating to PEA without being too academic. A sample of case

studies is provided from Zimbabwe as well as other countries to demonstrate what has been achieved in the field

from the adoption and implementation of PEA. It describes in more detail the process and steps undertaken in

Zimbabwe to achieve success and best practice, and hopes these can be replicated in similar environments.

PEA has been a learning process for NGOs, government extension workers as well as communities, and based

on such experiences, the booklet further suggests how a learnership program can be designed and implemented

for training and building the capacity of field workers in the effective application of PEA.

This booklet provides practical guidelines to field workers and development practitioners who are involved in both

agriculture and other development initiatives with resource poor communities who are keen to improve their

participatory development skills for increasing access to services.

Participatory Extension Approaches (PEA) in Zimbabwe What is this booklet about?


Today, agricultural extension is a highly developed and successful sector in most industrialised countries. However, in developing countries the degree of success varies from country to country. In Southern Africa a number of management and institutional problems have contributed to the low rate of success.

Extension services were first introduced in the middle of the nineteenth century, and later towards the end of the century, deliberate efforts to create extension services became common. The need to disseminate new knowledge among farmers, to extend it beyond the walls of the universities and research stations became apparent. In addition, widespread agricultural problems such as outbreaks of crop disease and adverse economic conditions affecting levels of production required that farmers be given assistance to overcome such difficulties or to adapt to circumstances. For this reason, it became necessary to recruit and organise bodies of trained, specialised extension personnel whose task would be to go out and visit the farming community to offer information and guidance on the principles of good crop and animal husbandry, and possibilities of change open to it through the adoption of proven, tested and acceptable technology or any other recommended farming practices.

The term “extension” was first coined in England during the 1840s to describe the method of spreading knowledge from the University of Cambridge to the great mass of people outside its walls by Richard Moulton, a lecturer in literature in 1867. Oxford University then became the second university to introduce it into their curricula. Lecturers would organise outreach programmes to various towns to teach adults who were too busy to attend formal education, particularly those employed in factories. Although this teaching was not focused on agriculture, it featured the four elements common to modern agricultural extension programmes:

?The knowledge to be extended.?The people to be served.?A central extension organization.?The extension agent or contact man.

Between 1830 and 1840 the process of providing informal adult education to the adult farming population was also introduced in Western Europe. In 1850 Germany introduced the process with the appointment of the first group of extension officers who travelled widely to assist and advise farmers. France enforced the practice through institutionalizing it as a law in 1879.

By 1866 a formal structure within the Local government had been developed for providing farmers with agricultural extension services. This process led to the formation of farmer co-operatives and farmer organisations. Each extension worker was assigned to work with a specific community. The purpose of the Act was to facilitate the spread of useful and practical information to farmers and their families on subjects relating to agriculture and home economics. State universities and land grant colleges were set up for research, training and evaluation. All these roles and functions have been replicated in Southern Africa, including Zimbabwe.

By 1900 France had 256 well-qualified professional extension officers who were effectively serving more than 300 000 farmers. Of great significance was their work in assisting farmers to graft vines to disease free rootstocks. Also there were 260 extension workers in Germany. Seaman A. Knapp was the first to demonstrate work on cotton in early 1900. He employed field extension workers starting 1906. In 1910, in the USA farm management extension was introduced in Pennsylvania State. In both South Africa and Zimbabwe PEA was introduced in 1991 and 1998 respectively and later reinforced through a number of Acts to institutionalize their practices. Agricultural colleges were established to train extension staff.

Participatory Extension Approaches (PEA) in Zimbabwe 1Background to Agricultural Extension


In Britain lectures on agriculture subjects were introduced towards the end of the 19th century. The two world wars affected a lot of institutions and administrative structures in extension, for example the British farming standards are now highly developed such that the government has had to institute charges for agricultural advice. Towards the end of the 19th century there was increasing level of awareness on the need for farmers to have access to information and to share such information among themselves. This resulted in the establishment of farmers' clubs and organisations. Platforms were created to discuss problems, to share information and to receive advice from professional agriculturists. Colleges and Research stations started to produce literature for farmers. The first efforts in extension involved collecting and distributing improved seeds and plants.

The Cooperative Extension system in the United States of America, is an agency for change and for problem- solving, a catalyst for individual and group action. It ensures availability of knowledge within the land- grant agricultural institutes to those outside the institutions. It brings universities and colleges to the doorstep of the farmers. In the US nearly 27% of the farmers farm 70% of the cultivated land, and contribute 90% to the market.

Extension methods used between the 1920s and 1930s included educational films from the USA, lectures and demonstrations. The demonstrations became more popular and were organised in cooperation with farmers' organisations on the basis that “seeing is believing”. This led to the adoption of new farming techniques. Organisations were set up to support the provision of loans and marketing of agriculture products.

1.1 Extension ApproachesAfter the Second World War, efforts were made in the “Betterment areas” to conserve and protect both grazing and arable land, improve crop and livestock production methods and improve the management of grazing areas with the support of specialists. There was resistance to all these efforts by the local communities.

1.1.1 Extension Approaches in the 1950s – 1960sAfter the Second World War, the extension approach was based mainly on the Transfer of Technology (TOT) to the developing countries. Researchers took what happened in other countries like Europe and America who were doing very well, and tried to apply it in Asia, Latin America and Africa. During this time the trend was that technology was developed by researchers and then transferred by Extension Workers and utilised by farmers (see Figure 1.1). This was also seen as the way people could become modern.

Figure 1.1: A concept for Top-down approach



1950s1960s

Researcher“We must teach Farmers The Right Technology”

Extensionist

!!

?? ?

Resource Poor Farmers

RPF

Technology does not address the situation

This approach is shown in Figure 1.2, which is known as the transfer of technology (TOT)model

Researchers

Extensionists

Families (early adopters)

Farmers(laggard)

Develop technology

Transfer the message

Take the messages

Copy from the early adopters

In this way, this approach was seen as the way to increase agriculture production and improve human capacity and the market position of the agricultural sector. However, a lot of problems were noted from this approach:

I. It disregarded the fact that the majority of small-scale farmers did not have economic resources to buy and adopt these expensive technology packages.

ii. There was passive resistance of the target groups to this new concept of modernisation because it tended to

regard local knowledge as a sign of traditionalism, ignorance and a lack of flexibility (Tillmann 1995).



Figure 1.2: Transfer of technology model

The role of the Extension Worker in the TOT model

Although the model shown in Figure 1.2 reflects that research was well planned, it could not suit most of the rural farmers because of the following key reasons:?It is a top-down approach?There is distortion of messages to late adopters and the-so-called “laggards”?The resource poor farmers did not benefit but only a few elites ?Minority groups benefited?Technologies were not always based on farmers' needs and circumstances?The analysis of needs and priorities of the actors in agriculture was done by outsiders?The main mode of extension was the agent to farmer?The main role of the extension agent was to teach and train farmers only



Early role of Extension worker

Tended to be largely vertical; one-way communication based on transferring information to the farmers

1.1.2 Extension approaches in the 1970s- and partly in the 1980s

The Training and Visit (T&V) Approach

A later approach in the 1970s to 1980s was adopted which is known as Training and Visits (T&V). The approach was also tried out in Zimbabwe. This is not a separate approach from TOT, but was one way to try to organize ministry –based extension. The approach was meant solely to solve some very specific problems of conventional extension services. For example, to implement the TOT model on a large scale, the training and visit system for agricultural extension was introduced in many developing countries. Therefore the Training and Visits (T&V) was designed mainly as a management system for energising extension staff and poorly motivated field staff into effective extensionists. They were given intensive training focusing on technical skills to be passed on to the farmers they contacted. These farmers were selected on the basis of literacy, wealth, readiness to change and progressiveness, which often set them apart from the rest of the community.

In this way only a few favoured farmers in favoured areas were reached. The system concentrated on contact farmers to pass on the information to fellow farmers with similar problems. As most of the farmers had both the same financial resources and technical skills, the secondary transfer of the message was less successful than predicted and adoption rates were usually very low among non-contacted farmers (who were classified as late adopters and laggards).

To ensure regular field contacts, fixed visits at regular intervals are prescribed. T&V works best in large and high potential areas dominated by a few key crops for which uniform recommendations can be developed. However, the low-potential, highly diverse farming areas, inhabited by resource poor farmers, were largely disregarded (Roling, 1998).

?First, the contact farmer concept meant a two – step flow of information from the extension worker to the contact farmer and from there to other farmers and as a result there was distortion of information. The extension workers were blamed for most failures although the root of the problem lies within the technical philosophy of the T&V.

?In practice, it has been a top-down approach with little possibility for participation and initiative, both for farmers and extension workers.

Some problems of the Training and Visit (T&V) Approach

Farming Systems Research (FSR)-1970s to 1980s

After the poor performance of the T&V approach in the 1960s and 1970s, researchers and Extensionists realized that it was not enough only to teach farmers what to do, but also to identify causes of the non- adoption of these technologies. To do this, they researched on the farming systems that these farmers were practising, how they were ploughing, implements used, inputs applied, irrigation systems, etc. Trials were conducted together with the farmers to identify the constraints of existing production systems and the new improved technology packages. The major role of the farmers in this on-farm research was to provide land and labour and act as an experimental control by farming an adjacent plot with his /her traditional/ standard practices. Extension staff worked with the farmers to identify their problems.



Simple as the prescriptions seemed, implementation proved to be difficult because of the following reasons:

Farming Systems relate to the whole farm rather than individual elements. It is driven as much by the overall welfare of the farming households and by goals of yields and profitability. Farming systems are closely linked to livelihoods because agriculture remains the single most important component of rural people's living and also plays an important role in the lives of many people in the peri-urban areas.

Farming systems involve a complex combination of inputs, managed by farming families but influenced by e n v i r o n m e n t a l , e c o n o m i c , institutional and social factors.

1970s

1980s

“We must ease the constraints so farmers can adopt” (i.e. credit for

implements and inputs)

Resource rich farmers profit

RPF:Often uneconomical in their situation

Figure 1.3: Farming Systems in the 1970-80s

They acknowledged that there were /are many constraints for adopting and implementing modern technology and therefore the researchers came with new solutions .The new solution to these constraints was to provide inputs such as implements and credit to be accessed by these farmers.

Farming Systems Research and Extension (FSR/E)The main objective of the FSR/E was to facilitate significant interaction between agricultural research, extension and farmers and to give adequate attention to the problems at all levels of farmers. The basic assumption of this approach was that the low levels of success will not change unless proper linkages between all contributors to research have been fostered and collective accountability has been enhanced. The approach also acknowledged that farmers could make a meaningful contribution to technology development. For this to happen they needed to study their livelihood system too in order to develop technologies that fit the situation of the farmers

Figure 1.4: A concept for FSR

This system was developed to bring closer together extension, research and farmers. Seen as a new solution for easing the farming constraints, the researchers thought it would be best to study the farming conditions on site, to analyse them and to design appropriate solutions

This approach has been criticised because it did not have an overwhelming impact, in particular for small-scale farmers in remote areas.



“We are all here, sir: extension agent for seed, soil tester, fertiliser supplier, plant breeder

- only him over there I don't know.”

Figure1.5: A concept for FSR

early 1980s “We must understand the conditions of farmers and design technologies which fit.”

Figure out solutions study the system

RPF:Involved as source of information about their

conditions

Livelihood Approach

LivelihoodsLivelihoods are the activities, entitlements and assets by which people earn a living. Assets in this context are defined as natural / biological (for example, land, water, common property resources, flora and fauna) but also social (community, family, social networks), economic (jobs, income), human (education, labour, health, nutrition), political (participation, empowerment), and physical (roads, markets, clinics, schools, bridges).

Livelihood systems are described as a dynamic realm that integrate both the opportunities and assets available to a group of people for achieving their goals as well as interactions with and exposure to a range of beneficial or harmful ecological, social, economic and political perturbations that may help or hinder group's capacities to make a living.

Livestock Production System Crop Production System

Fodder/grazing management

Animal husbandry Crop management Pest management Soil management

Farming system

Social/ cultural /local organization system

Economic system

Production consumption

systemOff-farm income

Local markets

Village system

Family system

Migrant labour

Local organisations/ institutions


Figure1.6: The livelihood system

The sustainability of a livelihood depends on whether the households can cope with and recover from stresses and shocks, maintain or enhance their capabilities and assets, while not undermining the natural resource base.

1.1.3 Towards Participatory Extension Approaches in the Late 1980s – Early 1990s

To be sustainable, a livelihood should be capable of responding to change, both internal and external dynamics, and to continually renew and develop adaptive strategies.

In an effort to move forward after the low acceptance of early approaches, another paradigm for rural development emerged with the promotion of active participation, empowerment and poverty alleviation. Scientists became aware that though they had been analysing in detail the conditions and designing sound solutions for farmers, still the farmers did not adopt their recommendations.

It was then that the researchers and Extensionists began to develop another approach, which entailed the following:?To ask farmers what they really want?On the basis of such information researchers developed solutions?These solutions were brought back to farmers so that they could select out different options

The Farmer First (FF) ApproachThis was when the Farmer First (FF) Approach was introduced.

The introduction of the Farmer First Approach represents the reversal of traditional agricultural research and extension. Making the starting point of active extension development and an equitable partnership between rural people, researchers and extension workers.

The FF approach concentrated on the technical side of the local knowledge, but the follow-up movement went to begin what is known as Beyond Farmer First (BFF) Approach, launched in the early 1990s, which expanded the FF perspective.



Figure1.7 Towards Farmer Participation

Sustainable livelihoods

Late 1980s

early 1990s

Figure out viable solutions

“Farmers have to say what they need, andevaluate the possible solutions.”

RPF:Participate in planning

& evaluation of research programmes

Beyond Farmer First (BFF) Approach

The BFF program incorporated a socio-politically differentiated view of development, where factors such as gender, ethnicity, class, age and religion are highlighted as having implications for research and extension practices.

Although this approach was a step forward in the right direction by considering farmer's participation, it also did not generate positive large-scale impacts. The fact is that farmer's participation still remained passive and did not challenge them to become actors.

To understand this, Table 2.1 illustrates the differences between the transfer of technology (TOT) and the Farmer First (FF) Approach.

INDICATOR TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER FARMER FIRST

Main objective Transfer technology Empower farmers

Analysis of needs and priorities by:

Outsiders Farmers assisted by outsiders

Transferred by outsiders to farmers

PreceptsMessagesPackage of practices

PrinciplesMethodsBasket of choices

The “menu” Fixed A la carte

Farmers behaviour Hear messageAct on preceptsAdopt, adapt or reject package

Use methodsApply principlesChoose from basket and

Outsiders desired outcomes emphasis

Widespread adoption of technology Wider choices for farmer's enhanced adaptability

Main mode of extension Agent- to- farmer Farmer- to- farmer

Roles of extension agent TeacherTrainer

FacilitatorSearcher for and provider of choice



Table 1.1: The “technology – transfer” and the “farmer first” approaches (Chambers, 1988)

1.1.4 Extension Approaches from the 1990s

According to the principles of the BFF, new participatory approaches had to be developed for agricultural research. It was realised that real development in rural communities could only be reached if communities become responsible actors in the entire process. Participatory Action Research (PAR), Farmer Participatory Research (FPR), Participatory Technology Development (PTD), Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA) and Farmer Field School (FFS), all share the elements of participatory research and extension.

Figure 1.8 Farmer Participatory Research and Extension

The role of an Extension worker

The role of the extension worker in this regard is of being a facilitator, who supports farmers in articulating their needs as well as coordinating the different service providers so that these work for fulfilling the needs of the communities. The change agent facilitates the joint development of solutions by bringing farmers, researchers and change agents together. It is now acknowledged that farmers can play a role in agricultural development if opportunities for their participation are provided. This new way that began with the introduction of farmer first approaches is widely identified as a participatory approach.

In this model, the Extension Officer strives to link the farmers with relevant service providers by using what was called a linkage or facilitative model. The role of the Extension Officer is to organise all the service providers to present issues concerning local communities.

To do this effectively, it means that communities have to be more organised in order to collectively negotiate and gather information for their own benefit. The main function of this body is to facilitate the linkage with external services providers. This model saves time and demystifies development initiatives. It also helps farmers and facilitators to have a common shared vision.



Late 1990sFarmers, Researchers and extensionists must all contribute their specific knowledge & skills, & experiment jointly

NGO / Private sector

Input supplier

Research & Extension

Markets

Local government

Other govt. Sectors

Other private service providers

CommunityOutside world

Other communities

Figure 1.9: The Facilitative Linkage Model

The following table summarizes the changes in research and extension, 1950-2000

Table 1.2: Research and Extension: The dominant beliefs and modes from 1950-2000

Time

Explanation of farmers non-adoption

PrescriptionKey extension activities

Socio-Economic research frontiers

Dominant research methods

1950s-1960s Farmers' ignorance

ExtensionEducation

Teaching Understanding the diffusion and adoption of technology

QuestionnaireSurveys

1970s1980s

Farm-level constraints

Remove the constraints

Supplying inputs Understanding farming systems

Constraints analysisFarming systems

1990s Technology does not fit(Irrelevant technology)

Change of process

Facilitating farmer participation

Enhancing farmer competence.Understanding and changing professional behaviour

Participatory research by and with farmers



The aim of this chapter is to enable readers to understand the terms participation and extension, what PEA is, including its values and principles in practice. The chapter also provides and defines selected PEA tools and methods, and why they are used.

2.1. Defining ParticipationParticipation has become a central theme in development. It is new orthodoxy in the World Bank, where it is being mainstreamed.; the United Nations, international and national NGOs as well as government agencies in the South are pushing for the widespread adoption and implementation of participatory programs and projects. But what does participation mean?

Generally the term participation refers to the role that has to be played by the beneficiaries of development programs and projects. In conventional approaches, “outsiders” (i.e. researchers and extension agents) study the context and overall environment of a selected community, identify the problems, prescribe the solutions/recommendations, plan the necessary interventions and monitor and evaluate the development process. In this case, the beneficiaries' role is restricted to implementation of the superior ideas of the “outsiders”. What is currently being demanded is the active involvement of beneficiaries in all the steps/phases of programs or projects that are intended to improve their livelihoods. Participation is therefore the process of getting the active involvement of the intended beneficiaries in analysing their own situation, identifying problems/constraints, prioritising these, searching for their own solutions using their situation-specific indigenous knowledge (which they can combine/blend with outsiders' knowledge) and capacities, implementing the solutions as well as monitoring and evaluating their own development. Defined this way, participation makes the beneficiaries the main actors who champion their destiny, while “outsiders” play a facilitative role and also learn from local people (Blackburn and Holland 1998). The advantages of such participation have already been highlighted in Chapter 1.

Table 1.3 tries to summarises the types and characteristics of participation in relation to development. From the presentation, it is clear who is in charge as well as the roles of the different actors.

Table 1.3 Typology of participation (Pretty et.al., 1995)

Typology Characteristics of each type

Passive Participation People participate by being told what is going to happen or has already happened. It is a unilateral announcement by an administration or project management without listening to people's responses. The information being shared belongs only to external professionals

Participation in Information Giving

People participate by answering questions posed by extractive researchers using questionnaire surveys or similar approaches. People do not have the opportunity to influence proceedings, as the findings of the research are neither shared nor checked for accuracy.

Participation by Consultation People participate by being consulted, and external people listen to views. These external professionals define both problems and solutions, and may modify these in the light of people's responses. Such a consultative process does not concede any share in decision-making, and professionals are under no obligation to take on board people's views.

Participation for Material Incentives

People participate by providing resources, for example labour, in return for food, cash or other material incentives. Much on-farm research falls into this category, as farmers provide the fields but are not involved in the experimentation of the process of learning. It is very common to see this called participation; people have no stake in prolonging activities when the incentives end.

Participatory Extension Approaches (PEA) in Zimbabwe 2Defining Participatory Extension

Approaches


Typology Characteristics of each type

Functional Participation People participate by forming groups to meet predetermined objectives related to the project, which can involve the development or promotion of externally initiated social organisation. Such involvement does not tend to be at early stages of project cycles or planning, but rather after major decisions have been made. These institutions tend to be dependent on external initiators and facilitators, but may become self-dependent.

2.2 Understanding Extension and its OriginsMuch has already been mentioned in Chapter 1 regarding the evolution of extension in various contexts. This section summarises that evolution.

Over the years however, the definition of extension has evolved to cater for today's demand for participation, and can be defined in terms of the modus operandi of communication between researchers, extension agents and farmers, and their respective roles.

As such, extension can be described in a way that recognises farmers as the main actors and as people who also know something unknown to the “outsiders”: Extension involves the conscious use of communication of information to help farmers/people form sound opinions and make good decisions based on their circumstances.

2.3. What are Participatory Extension Approaches, then?After defining the terms participation and extension, it becomes much easier to define participatory extension approaches (PEA) based on the experiences of Practical Action and GTZ working in collaboration with AGRITEX in Masvingo Province of Zimbabwe towards the end of the 1990s. In Chapter 1, the pitfalls of one-way, top-down approaches and their “paternalistic” nature were highlighted, and reasons have been given for the gradual shift towards participatory approaches.

In many countries, paternalistic extension is gradually being replaced by more participatory approaches, in which the knowledge and opinions of farmers is considered to be just as important as that of researchers or extension agents. Participatory approaches involve information-sharing and joint decision-making. Other terms related to this include “interactive” and “bottom-up”. Although there is no single description that can replace the “top-down” transmission model, two ideas are becoming widely accepted in defining participatory approaches:

?Communication in the context of participatory extension cannot usefully be described in a linear manner with distinct groups of “senders” and “receivers”. Instead, extension activities take place within a knowledge system consisting of researchers, extension agents and farmers, all playing different roles at different times.

Although some actors in the knowledge system have more authority than others, communication usually involves a negotiation rather than a transmission. What takes place is a dialogue, with actors collaborating in the construction of shared meanings rather than simply exchanging information.

Admittedly, the 90's have witnessed tremendous growth in the number and application of participatory methods and approaches: from Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA), Participatory Technology Development (PTD), Farmer Field Schools, to Participatory Action and Learning (PAL) and many more others. A common feature of all these approaches and methods is the fact that the farmer is the main actor, with the ability to analyse, identify problems and try out different options for solving problems through experimentation. In all cases, the role of the extension agent changes to that of a facilitator in a process of joint learning. PEA, then, emphasises experiential learning and building the capacity of farmers to solve their own problems through experimenting and sharing of knowledge.


Approaches


The process does not confine itself to what happens in the crop and livestock sub-sectors, but can also be used for establishing and nurturing local farmers' organisations that serve the needs of the farmers and their community.

PEA thus requires changes in behaviour and attitude, not just for the farmers, but also on the part of extension agents and researchers.

2.4. Principles and Values of Participatory Approaches PEA operates on a number of principles and values. The major point to note however is that in the application of the approach, all stakeholders are viewed as equal partners who have different but important roles to play. The identified principles of PEA are:?Integration of community mobilisation for planning, implementation, monitoring and evaluation with rural

development, agricultural extension and research.?PEA is based on an equal partnership between farmers, researchers and extension agents who can all learn

from each other and contribute their knowledge and skills.?PEA aims to strengthen rural people's problem- solving, planning and management abilities.?It enhances and strengthens the capacity of farmers to adapt and develop new and appropriate technologies

and innovations in all sectors of the rural economy.?PEA encourages smallholder farmers to learn through experimentation, building on their own knowledge and

practices, and blending them with new ideas. This takes place in a cycle of reflection and action which is referred to as “action learning.”

?PEA recognises that communities are not homogenous, but consist of various social groups with conflicts and differences in interests, power and capabilities. The goal is to achieve equitable and sustainable development through the negotiation of interests among these groups and by providing space for the poor and marginalised in collective decision making.

Again through experience, a core set of values are recognized as underpinning PEA:?Self-reliance: local people should be empowered to rely on their own capabilities and assets rather than

expect handouts, which often result in dependency on the external agent,?Inclusiveness: development initiatives should not discriminate against any members of the community but

rather aim for the total inclusion of all persons, rich and poor, men and women,?Ownership and control: people should take decisions and lead development activities that affect their lives,?Building on indigenous technical knowledge: development interventions should always aim to build on

local knowledge and draw upon local experiences in problem- solving,?Learning through sharing and experimentation: people are better able to understand new ideas and adopt

new technologies when they have learnt of the potential benefits of sharing and self-experimentation,


Approaches


?Unity and co-operation: local organisations are important as vehicles for organising people and securing a common vision,

?Conservation of natural resources: sustainable development can only be achieved when people conserve their natural resources.

2.5. Some Lessons Learned from the Application of PEA

After several years of implementing PEA both locally and regionally, it has proved to be an effective approach for community empowerment as well as an effective approach for service delivery by extension staff. Extension staff attest to the fact that by far participatory methods are key for people to participate as well as to better articulate their demands. Some of the most important successes observed with this methodology which are effective for service delivery include the following;

?Local communities that have been part of the process have become better organized and are now well linked to a range of service providers.

?The communities in pilot areas are now well capacitated to take ownership of the development initiatives in their areas, and they are also able to address some of their needs independently.

?Development Agents/field extension workers were trained and now have competencies to understand and facilitate development initiatives at the community level.

?Beneficiary ownership and control of the process?Sustainability?Decision making?Lesson learning opportunities?Knowledge and skills in planning and other management aspects?Broad benefit sharing

The PEA approach also shows some positive outcomes in trying to improve the livelihood system of the rural communities in an integrated approach, and this proves that this method of training and facilitation (Participatory Development Approach) is not only relevant for dealing with agriculture development, but also efficient and effective in facilitating development in other livelihood sectors of rural communities.

PEA applies a variety of methods and tools at the levels of farmers as well as in the learnerships for extension agents. A few of the most effective are described below.

Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA) is a methodology that is also used in PEA. It can be defined as “a family of participatory approaches, methods and tools which emphasise local knowledge and enable local people to do their own appraisal, analysis and planning. PRA uses group animation and exercises to facilitate information sharing, analysis and action among stakeholders”. It is important to note that from this definition, PRA is action-oriented and enhances learning among all actors. It also allows the actors to monitor and evaluate the results of interventions.

Robert Chambers (1997) has identified five major sources of PRA:?Participatory Action Research?Agro-Ecosystem Analysis?Applied Anthropology?Farming Systems Research ?Rapid Rural Appraisal


Approaches


For further reading on these sources, readers are referred to Chambers (1997). In the context of this booklet it is sufficient to list the key principles of PRA :?Reversal of Learning: one of the most important characteristics of PRA is that learning takes place from the

local people at the spot. Both physical and local circumstances are added to the learning, and this is the reason why it is different from the survey approach where learning commences after assemblage.(Such reversals include: closed versus open, measurement versus comparison, verbal v e r s u s visual, individual versus group etc)

?Offsetting Biases: PRA is a methodology by which rural development tourism and anti-poverty biases are avoided consciously.

?Triangulation: triangulation is vital for PRA; in simple terms, it means cross-checking. It is adopted as a principle to improve accurateness. It verifies information from different sources.

?Optimal Ignorance: PRA gives emphasis to usefulness of information which is different from questionnaires where there is a propensity to seek additional data. This also helps to minimize the cost.

?Diversity: PRA is concerned with changeability, capturing the beauty of complexity and diversity rather than looking for representativeness of results. Efforts are made to recognize and scrutinize challenges, exceptions, peculiarities, etc.

?Rapid and Progressive Learning: PRA emphasizes on innovation of different methods and tools, and on providing opportunities for rapid and cumulative learning.

There are various PRA methods and tools which are used in the application of PEA, depending on the issue to be analysed; they can be either space- or time-related. Such tools include:

?Participatory mapping and modeling: this allows stakeholders, in particular farmers/communities, to analyze their physical environment; resource and social maps are essential in land-use planning and management. Maps or map-models are to be viewed as “snapshots” of the present, and can be compared with past maps, thus allowing stakeholders to identify and discuss changes that may have taken place over time, including the reasons and causes. Such maps can be drawn and visualised by farmers to indicate a future desirable situation. Changes occurring through agreed interventions can be monitored by comparing past, present and future maps.

?Aerial photography analysis: while a significant number of professionals/technocrats do not believe in the ability of local communities to interpret and use aerial photographs, experience in the field found otherwise, and this depends on the quality of facilitation. Jointly interpreting aerial photographs is a helpful means of communication to make the history of the local landscape more accessible to the farmers/community. Older members of the community can describe what the landscape used to be like(past) while the whole community can discuss the changes that they see today(present), and develop a common vision for the future.

?Transect walks: this is conducted by a team comprising locals as well as outsiders to observe and talk about issues of local importance. Transects can provide a baseline, and can also be used to generate new actions that may be necessary in the community; they closely consider the local knowledge base, and can be used for monitoring purposes.

Participatory Extension Approaches (PEA) in Zimbabwe 3

Defining some methods and tools commonly used in the PEA process and why they are used.


?Seasonal calendars: seasonal analysis is a representation of recurring patterns in village life which contrast the differences in seasonal patterns of women and men's lives. The calendar (to be elaborated by the community itself) can depict the distribution of labor demand for various activities ( e.g land preparation, planting, weeding, harvesting etc) as well as the involvement of men and women. Facilitated well, this tool can help identify problems, constraints and opportunities.

?Matrix scoring and preference ranking: both follow a similar process whereby interview/discussions with farmers are held to identify people's options and the respective criteria, which may differ depending on gender, age, resource endowment etc, thus allowing inclusivity in the development of options for livelihood improvements.

?Venn and network diagramming: a venn diagram (drawn by the community) shows the key institutions and individuals in a community, including their relationships and importance for decision-making, provision of services. The tool can also help identify strengths and weaknesses/limitations of specific institutions/individuals in relation to the community's need to improve their livelihoods.

?Pie diagrams: proportional pie diagrams are useful to quantify proportions of a whole, particularly where absolute values of the whole may be difficult to calculate (e.g. household expenditure, amount of remittances).

?Semi-structured interviews (SSI): a semi-structured interview is a dialogue where important information develops out of casual conversation; it is guided interviewing, where only some of the questions are pre-determined and new questions emerge as the dialogue progresses. SSI is considered the core of PRA; it is a tool that uses the so-called “six helpers”: what, who, when, how, where and why? A good facilitator can generate useful information through the use of such questioning, while at the same time “forcing” the interviewee/s to reflect on the issue under discussion.

?Well-being and wealth ranking: there are inequalities and differences in wealth in every community. These differences influence or determine people's behaviors, coping strategies, and views. Wealth ranking is a tool that allows stakeholders to investigate perceptions of wealth differences and inequalities; it helps to discover local indicators and criteria of wealth and well-being, as well as establish the relative position of households in a community (who is poor, who is rich?)

Facilitated well, PRA can lead to increased enthusiasm on the part of the community to tackle their own problems as well as build a shared vision for the future.

The application of these methods and tools is an empowering and participatory process of appraisal, analysis, planning, action, monitoring and evaluation. It must be emphasised that the usefulness and quality of PRA results is highly dependent on the quality of facilitation.

The Farmer Field Schools (FFS) as a farmer training method was first developed by the FAO-assisted Indonesian National Integrated Pest Management (IPM) Program in 1989, and was inspired, in part, by previously developed programs for literacy and primary health care. The concept behind an FFS is that groups of farmers meet on a regular basis in a field to do practical structured learning exercises that allow them to combine local knowledge with scientific ecological approaches (Settle et al 1996).All courses are hands-on, practical and field-based, with few or no lectures and using the field itself as a teacher.

The FFS activities are a response to and an evolutionary step within the Training and Visit framework. Instead of using the T&V demonstration plot/field, which was managed by extension staff, the FFS site ( a field in the community) id managed directly by the farmer groups as a study field where structured learning exercises and experiments are carried out by the farmers themselves.




In FFS, the role of the extension agent revolves from that of a primary knowledge source to that of a facilitator of knowledge creation. He/she no longer has to have all the answers, and the “messages” of extension are not centrally contrived but, instead, relate to locally relevant problems emerging from the FFS study field. The FFS methods have transformed farmers from recipients of information to generators and manipulators of local data. FFS activities are recognized in PEA as being central to developing a community of experimenting farmers.

Experience has shown that the concept of strengthening local organisations, in particular the stimulation of leadership and cooperation, requires more than a number of PRA tools. A broader philosophical framework for the participatory development process is required in the form of Training forTransformation (TfT). This training program was developed in Kenya in 1974 and adapted to the Zimbabwean conditions by Hope and Timmel (1984). TfT originates in the pedagogy of Freire (1982) and is built on the notion of conscientization through participatory education, where learning is based on the experience of confronting and reflecting together on problems and issues as they occur. Teaching consists of facilitating dialogues centered on the technique of problem posing. Identifying and reflecting on problems requires the facilitation of communication flows which allow groups/communities to ask relevant questions and find causes and solutions for themselves, rather than receive teaching based on “foreign” knowledge and realities.

Training for transformation provides concrete methods and tools (e.g. codes, role plays, poems) to implement Freire's approach practically. It empowers local people to gain greater control over their circumstances by participating actively in their own development through the sharing and joint construction of ideas and knowledge. It stresses the importance of participation and cooperation as key elements in the building and strengthening of institutions which enable people to become self-reliant.

The philosophical depth of Frère's concepts of dialogue and conscientization has made his broad approach relevant and powerful for people of different disciplines, backgrounds, status and personality. It manages to integrate and unite divergent interests under one umbrella.PEA borrows Freire's concepts for changing the mindset of researchers, extension agents and farmers.

Improvisation is a key element of the ability of field practitioners to make PEA more effective. For example, various codes and role plays are used in PEA as tools to enhance critical thinking and reflection among actors. The code shown below illustrates the need for better communication and collaboration in order for all in a community to benefit from development interventions; in a conflict situation, there is no winner, and all must work to achieve win-win outcomes.




Figure 2.0 A code to discuss co-operation and communication

This picture can be used by the e x t e n s i o n w o r k e r t o s h o w h o w perceptions differ. Some people see an old woman, others see a young woman. The facilitator asks: “ Who is wrong and who is right?” and oftena h e a t e d d e b a t e a r i s e s , d u r i n g which they conclude that different perspectives need to be accepted and discussed without calling them wrong or right




Figure 2.1 How perceptions differ

Lack of education Theft rising

Poverty

Low Yields

Fear of new Things

Jealousy

Lack of will Disagreement in families

People discouragedby Each other

Aggressivenessfrom children

Lack of cooperation

Lack of respect

Leadership/Management

poor

Mistrust in groups

Late planting Lack of soil fertility

Lack of Draughtpower

Lack of farming implements

Cattle died during 1992 draught

Cattle no easy toacquire

Lack of sufficientgrazing

Cattle diseases(tick bourne)

No dip tanks Cattle dip tanks are too far

Technical Problems Social Problems




Figure 2.2 Problem Tree

Generally, communities/farmers will need to work towards a common vision. Facilitators can use various tools for getting the community to define their own vision. The following “Bus code” is a useful tool for achieving this. It generates debate, creates enthusiasm and motivates communities to work towards clearly defined goals. As already mentioned, results of using a particular tool will always depend on the quality of facilitation.

4. Process and Steps which have been followed leading to best practices

Below are the five major steps or phases in the PEA Cycle, and what each step or phase aims to achieve:

4.1 Phase I: Initiating ChangeThis is the first phase in the PEA Learnership programme. This is a joint learning process for both farmers and facilitators.

4.1.1What this phase within the PEA process is all about??It is an entry point of the learning process to self-mobilise people to engage in an inclusive process ?It is about sharing with the wider community the basic values and principles and major steps of the learning

process ?It is about raising critical self-awareness, enhancing communication amongst individuals and local

organisations while ensuring local leadership support in the development “journey” soon to be defined by the community with assistance of external facilitators.




Figure 2.3 The Bus Code

4.1.2 What should be achieved in this phase??Building a trustful relationship with communities, removing fears and suspicion?Clarifying roles and responsibilities between community members and facilitators ?Mobilising the community by creating awareness on existing institutional set-up?Bringing everybody on board?Awareness on previous achievements through self-organisation & self-help?Awareness on conflicts within the community discouraging common decision making processes & co-

operation to solve problems?Awareness on different perspectives according different social groups ?Awareness on existing personal and collective opportunities ?Awareness on past and present communication patterns in order to enhance communication with the

community, between different groups of people as well as leaders and subordinates. ?Awareness on power, leadership, multiple leadership functions, unbalances?Awareness on local values, rules and norms ?Awareness on past and present patterns of solving problems and making decisions in community and the

related changes?Awareness on future implications of the present behaviour and patterns and the change requirements

needed to improve the situation. ?Past-Present- Future (local organisational set-up, resources, problem solving, decision making, ?Unleash energy for change, creating discomfort through self-awareness

4.1.3 What would local farmer groups & other community–based organisations have learnt and do differently after this phase?

?Have experienced a different way of external agents approaching them ?They have started to realise and accept own responsibility for lack of development in their area?Through sharing they have realised that there are opportunities which they could pursue within their own means ?They have become aware of their own potential in terms of innovations and knowledge and skills in their area and

gained confidence in articulating them and put more value on them as a basis for change· They have realised the different roles and responsibilities of the different community organisations?They have learnt about the importance of involving those who were never involved / consulted before (probably

before it was only master farmers who mattered.) ?They have realised the importance of sharing as a major way of learning and gaining knowledge.

4.2 Phase II: Searching for New WaysThis is the second phase or major step in the PEA Learnership cycle.

4.2.1 What this phase within the PEA process is all about?Identification and prioritisation of key issues/priority needs for the community?Analysis of the cause-effect relationships of the identified priority needs.?Identifying and exploring possible solutions through linking with a range of service providers and local innovators?Identifying and exploring options and opportunities for self-organisation.?Exposure to new sources of information leading to generation of new ideas to solve priority problems

4.2.2 What should be achieved in this phase??Awareness on strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats for the community.?Awareness on existing challenges for initiating change process?Acceptance of the responsibility for lack of progress in their own community?Willingness and strong commitment of the community to take full responsibility for effecting the change process

Participatory Extension Approaches (PEA) in Zimbabwe 4Process and Steps which have been

followed leading to best practices


?Community defines a new role for itself in the change process.?Community establishes a relationship with new service providers?Community gets exposed to experiences of both local and external innovators?Community embarks on a self-organisation process to address its priority needs?New values of representation, transparency, inclusivity, accountability and the feedback culture are

internalised within the community and become part of the guiding values for the change process?Possible solutions for priority problems in the community are identified and shared.

4.2.3 What would farmers groups and other community-based organisations have learnt and do differently after this phase?

?Have realised that they need to take the main responsibility for the lack of development in their community?Have become aware of the priority issues for their community, which they need to address as a community.?Have become aware of the importance for them as a community to become better organised in order to

successfully address the priority issues.?Have realised the importance for them as a community to acquire new values for themselves eg; self-reliance,

self-esteem, self- organisation, transparency, accountability, learning and sharing?Have realised their potential in terms of initiating the change process in their own community.?They have learnt about innovation as a process for change.?They would try to build linkages with a range of service providers.?They would have realised their potential in creating solutions to their problems.

General lessons for farmer groups and other community-based organisations

?Principles behind solutions can be generalised across different situations but there are no standard solutions for any single problem.

?Solutions do not look for problems but it is problems that require solutions.?Without change there is no development.

Skills gained by the Community after this phase.

The following are some of the skills which the community would have acquired after going through this phase:?Self-organisation?Problem identification?Problem analysis?Problem solving?Networking?Facilitating




4.3 Phase III: Planning and Strengthening of Local Organisational Capacity

4.3.1 What this phase within the PEA process is all about?The community prioritising their needs?The community exploring the possible solutions and selecting the ones to test.?Identification of possible service providers to partner with ?Community developing an action plan to address their priority needs (Community Based Plan).?Community developing a monitoring and evaluation system together with indicators for performance

evaluation?Community identifies its role and contribution to the whole process?The values of self-organisation, teamwork approach, collective decision-making, inclusivity, ownership and

control, self-reliance and self-respect are getting internalised.

4.3.2 What should be achieved in this phase??Shared vision and plan for the community is developed.?A process for self monitoring and evaluation is developed by the community?The community develops plans and strategies for linking with a range of service providers.?Plans for capacity building the community members are elaborated.?Possible constraints to the implementation process are identified.

4.3.2 What would farmer groups and other community-based organisations have learnt and do differently after this phase?

?To articulate their priority needs?To use the consultative and teamwork approach in solving their problems.?To develop local based solutions for their problems

Skills?Reflection?Planning?Problem identification and analysis?Community mobilisation?Networking?Team approach

General lessons for the community?Communities should become the prime movers of their development process?For sustainable development, local self-organisation capacity is a pre-requisite.?Communities should value the attributes of communication, consultation and consensus in their quest for

development.?Communities should realise the importance of enlisting each other ̀ s support to enhance development of their

communities (You cannot succeed on your own!)?Development is not coincidental or incidental but it is a carefully planned process designed to achieve specific

goals in life.?External agents should play the role of facilitators rather than taking a leading role in the development process.?Plans on their own are rather meaningless unless they are followed by action (Communities should make

realistic and achievable plans.)




4.4 Phase IV: Experimenting, Implementing Actions and Monitoring Progress

4.4.1What this phase within the PEA process is all about?Initiation of experiments to address prioritised issues in the community?Partnering with service providers in addressing problems within the community ?Testing of different possible solutions to the problems in the community?Operationalisation of key process values by the community, such as unity and co-operation, self reliance,

self organisation, inclusivity, building on local knowledge and skills, sharing and feedback etc?Implementing community based monitoring system

4.4.2 What should be achieved in this step??Positive relationship between community members and a range of service providers built on mutual trust

and respect ?Thriving spirit of experimentation within the community as a means to improve livelihood?Linking technical and social innovations?Maximum participation by community members in the experimentation process?Deeper understanding of local people's perceptions and aspirations?Deeper understanding of people's weaknesses and opportunities?Improved local capacity to diagnose problems and identify possible solutions to overcome these problems?Improved level of awareness with regard to ways of addressing problems especially using local solutions ?Improved knowledge management systems?Exchange of knowledge and ideas between local communities and service providers?Improved linkages between local communities and sources of innovations?Identification of appropriate solutions relevant to most community members?Improved levels of representation and accountability through internalising feedback culture?Experimental designs that community members are able to manage and evaluate with little or no external help?Improvement of local community capabilities and skills to experiment?A community based monitoring system that is able to provide both qualitative and quantitative data?Improved ability of the community to analyse and interpret results of their experiments

4.4.3 What would farmers groups and other community-based organisations have learnt and do differently after this step??Mobilisation of resources including ability to link with sources of information and ideas ?Initiation of own experiments to address local problems based on local knowledge systems?Ways of monitoring activities within the community and providing a forum for sharing and feedback?Negotiation with service providers in order to guarantee quality of service to be provided

Skills· Facilitation skills?Monitoring and evaluation skills?Problem solving techniques?Negotiating skills?Documentation skills?Technical skills?Analytical skills




General lessons for communities?There are no ready- made solutions to problems?Local problems require local solutions?Problems in the community cannot easily be solved without higher levels of self organisation?External experts cannot be solution providers but facilitators to enable communities to build their own capacity?Experimentation as a way of life in addressing problems and challenges ?Reliable results from experimentation can only be obtained through an effective monitoring system and

regular feedback and sharing

4.5 Phase V: Reflecting on Lessons Learnt and Re-planning

4.5.1 What this step within the PEA process is all about?Completion of learning cycle (reflection after action)?Analysis on which the future planning is based in order to improve the action

4.5.2 What should be achieved in this step??Community to reflect on the strengths and weaknesses of the process and their action. It should facilitate

people's own learning and analysis to generate ideas for future action. ?To share experiences and activities, (strengths and weaknesses) between groups, umbrella organisations and

local leaders etc. This way it should create the feedback loops between group / individual experiences and the broader community

?To reinforce ownership through self-reflection on the process. This will make transparent the decision making mechanisms and create accountability of the leaders to farmers as the decision making mechanisms will be reviewed

?To enhance broad participation and inclusivity of farmers and their groups. Particular emphasis is put on the participation of marginalized groups and on the social differentiation (men-women, young-old, rich-poor) in terms of their perspectives and benefits from participating and non-participating

?To reinforce experimentation for learning and problem solving through an analysis of the experiments carried out as options to solve their problems. This supports farmers' creativity through screening and adaptation of relevant technologies and through recognizing the ideas coming out of the 'competitions for best ideas'.

?To revisit the problem analysis based on process self-reflection. Often the initial problem analysis, which was the entry point for action, is now challenged by new insights. Reflection on whether the initial problem analysis still holds or whether the new insights have changed the problem perception broadens the areas for problem- solving in the next cycle

?To strengthen the collective vision and orientation towards community development. When re-visiting the initial vision the community had developed often the action will trigger new perspectives and visions for development in the community. For example, after having experienced the difficulties in uniting people, a new vision might emphasize more on the issue of social cohesion etc.

?To strengthen the community capability to articulate feedback to the support system (e.g. service delivery). The analysis of linkages and services provided to support peoples learning process reveals the real needs for services and thus enables people to articulate them better and enable them to improve the linkages to service providers.

?To create a platform for farmers to set the agenda for extension and research. The analysis of the process and the experiments will clarify what needs to be done next and through this the type of support they require from extension and research will be defined.




?To enhance representativity and accountability between group, members and leadership in the community. The analysis of procedures and performance of local organisations in relation to their mandates given or reinforced during the planning process reveals the areas for improvement and provide feedback to the leaders

4.5.2 What would farmer groups and other community-based organisations have learnt and do differently after this step?

?Local farmers' groups and other community-based organisations have discovered their own achievements in solving problems through self-organisation and experimentation and they obtained recognition from other which encourages them to go a step further and continue sharing their ideas with other farmers

?Local farmers groups and other community-based organisations have learnt about their weaknesses and are able to better position themselves for addressing them and identify appropriate solutions

?Local farmers groups and other community-based organisations have discovered the benefits from sharing and networking with other groups and communities to improve their own capacity to solve problems and have developed and improved mechanisms for sharing

?Local farmers groups and other community-based organisations have identified suitable technological options and/or other innovative approaches to address their problems and are committed to try them out and have planned for experimentation

?Local farmers groups and other community-based organisations have discovered the weaknesses and have become aware and understood the importance of their own roles and the roles and tasks of their representative local organisations and the roles and tasks of the service providers are committed to be responsible and demand accountability of leaders and service providers

?Local farmers groups and other local organisations have gained a deeper insight into their situation and problems

?Local farmers groups and other community-based organisations have experienced the weaknesses of electing a leader based on criteria such as status, wealth and degree of literacy, instead of making reference to capability, performance, accountability. They are now using these criteria in electing their representatives now, for the first time

Skills?Community representatives have improved their skills in facilitating their own meetings and workshops and

they seek to improve for better participation?Local farmers groups and other community-based organisations have experienced the need for analysing

critically and deeply their problems and have improved their analytical skills in analysing root-causes and cause-effect relationships of their problems and the effects and implications of potential activities

?Local farmers groups and other community-based organisations have improved their evaluation and planning skills and use these skills to plan on their activities independently

?Local farmers groups and other community-based organisations have improved their presentation skills and are more confident in presenting issues in public.




General lessons for the community?Local farmers groups and other community-based organisations have found out for themselves the

importance of participating actively in the development process and the problems they face due to a lack of involving actively people who were not participating. They see a need and are committed to take responsibility to involve and encourage others and increase the level of participation.

?Local farmers groups and other community-based organisations have discovered the importance and the benefits of providing and receiving feedback and constructive criticism and are committed to ensure transparency and accountability of themselves and their leaders through feedback processes at all levels

?Local farmers groups and other community-based organisations have experienced the benefits of systematically reviewing and evaluating their actions ('culture of learning') and actively use the action-reflection cycle to improve their weaknesses and level of progress.

?Local farmers groups and other community-based organisations have experienced their strengths in developing solutions and this become has become a source of inspiration and is building more confidence in their ability to solve more and better their own problems with minimum external help

?Local farmers groups and other community-based organisations are able to make better decisions based on analysis and information gained through the self-reflection and evaluation




Mr. Tias Sibanda, a farmer of Ward 17 (Manama Ward) reported the following achievements in their ward as a result of using the participatory approach;?Hosted other farmers from within Gwanda district as well as farmers from other districts such as

Matobo, Bulilima and Mangwe districts coming to learn about their self-organisational capacity and ways in which they were now able to mitigate against effects of drought through adoption of appropriate technologies.

?Provided farmer to farmer training on rainwater harvesting techniques in similar agro-ecological zones such as Ward 12 Ward 14 in Gwanda district and Gokwe in Midlands Province.

?Established marula oil pressing groups which are collecting and crushing the kernels for processing of oil at a later stage.

?Linked with the Department of Veterinary Services and got some of their community members to be trained as paravets who are now assisting the rest of the community in the treatment of livestock in the ward.

?Knowledge and skills in management of small livestock such as goats and indigenous chickens has improved resulting in lowering of mortality rates.

?Farmers through sharing their experiences in farming have realized the benefits of planting early in drought prone areas.

In the same district, the following achievements were made over the three year period:

?Improvement in the quality of goats through community goat breeding and introduction of herbal medicine for treatment of goat diseases.

?Training of community based extensionists and dissemination of training to other farmers in goat breed selection, management of does and bucks, kid management, husbandry practices, feeding regimes, bridging the crop-livestock interface, health management, record keeping and managing the goat farming business.

?As a ward the community has recently engaged in a momentous goat breeding exercise where they identified the bigger Boer goat breed from neighboring communities and money at ward level to buy 3 bucks so as to realize the potential of improved goat quality. By crossing indigenous goats with the prolific, hardy, faster and larger growing Boer goat both the local genetic material and income from goat sales improved. In the 2008 breeding season 27 kids (14 female and 13 male) were produced from the newly introduced bucks. The kids can be distinguished not only by the colour mix but also big body frame, higher birth weight and if they are male, bigger testicles.

5.1.1 Ntepe Ward 14, Gwanda District;

Participatory Extension Approaches (PEA) in Zimbabwe 5Examples of PEA best practices in

Zimbabwe over the past few years.

5.1 Gwanda District, Matabeleland South Province;


5.2. Matobo District, Matabeleland South Province

The Madwaleni (Ward 14) community after being exposed to Training for Transformation, a PEA tool used for change of mindset for communities as well as service providers soon realised their responsibility to take charge of their development process and to take the initiative to create a strong demand structure capable of mobilising resources and coordinating service provision in their community. They started by analysing their current situation and becoming aware of their strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats. They were able to embrace “new values” such as promoting accountability, responsibility, unity and cooperation, self-reliance, transparency, inclusivity, sharing and feedback culture. A Community based action plan was developed during a five day workshop where all socio-economic groups were represented and accorded space to articulate their own challenges and visions. From this planning process priorities for the ward were identified

The priority initiatives from the community based planning process included: water source development, soil and water management (infield rainwater harvesting integrated with other conservation farming techniques), local seed security strengthening, infrastructural development, curbing impact of HIV and AIDS, value addition to natural resources and crops, local economic development through training and capacity building e.g. blacksmithing/metal work, economic strengthening from improved small livestock production and marketing.

5.3 Chimanimani District, Manicaland Province

Mr.Peter Gudyanga, also nicknamed “Mr. Margarine” vice chairperson of Nyanyadzi Irrigation committee, Ward 19 says, “Before being introduced to the PEA process, Nyanyadzi irrigation scheme had too many problems which made it dysfunctional. For instance, there were political conflicts which affected the production system in the scheme. Sometimes it was only two blocks out of four which were able to irrigate their crops. Maintenance of irrigation canals was non-existent. Farmers were poorly organised and could not work together as one community. Access to both input and output markets was a problem. There was poor leadership with no accountability and lacked vision. After going through PEA process for 3years a lot of changes have taken place in the Irrigation Scheme e.g. leadership elections are held regularly, members meetings are being held once every two months, relationship with extension staff has improved, farmer to farmer sharing is being promoted through champion farmers, irrigation canals are being well maintained and schedules for irrigating crops have been developed and are being followed, access to input and output markets have improved and as a result crop yields have improved tremendously.”

Mrs. Joyce Moses Derera of Matiashe Village, Shinja Ward 9 boast about the successful “Pass On” indigenous chicken project which started in 2008 with the objective of assisting orphans and People living with HIV/Aids (PLWHA) and says, “Since this chicken program, which is community managed, started we have “passed on” the chickens three times and we are about to complete all households in this community with orphans and then we can start households with PLWHA. This is a sustainable program which will continue to benefit all disadvantaged households in the community. There are written guidelines on how to run this system which have been developed by the community itself. A lot of orphans are enjoying the project as they can now pay their school fees and buy stationery using cash from chicken sales. Their diets have also improved. Their skills and knowledge of managing chickens has improved.”




5.4 Chivi District, Masvingo Province

The Ward 21 Community which started getting involved with PEA process in the early 1990s has continued to be a torch bearer in terms of self-organizational capacity, self –reliance, being proactive in terms of initiating their own development process and linking themselves with a wide range of partners and other communities including those within the SADC region. The number of farmers' clubs has doubled from 33 in 1993 to 70 in 2009. Women group gardens have also increased from 28 in 1993 to 72 in 2009.

Farmers are organising their own field days using their criteria. They select farmers from all the villages to get on the panel to judge the best farmers. Agritex staff provides assistance for the final judgment using farmer established criteria. It is one community where evidence community self-emancipation has been attained. Every year they evaluate the activities of the previous year and take stock of their performance in each of the activities undertaken, strengths and weaknesses. Based on this evaluation they identify lessons for future. They conduct their own community based planning for the new year, including identifying areas where they need external support. Hey implement while monitoring and sharing their experiences until they get to the end of the year. Leadership rotates regularly. It is one community where both young and old, men and women, literate and illiterate members can share leadership positions.




The following PEA learning cycle or process was conceptualised to include both the theoretical as well as the practical contents to ensure that after completion of the cycle over an 18-months period, trainees will have internalised new values for working with farmers. Farmers involved in the process would have developed new skills and knowledge and have created a strong demand structure capable of articulating their service requirements with service providers. A paradigm shift would have been created on side of both the farmers and the extension agents. The process is inclusive of different field methodologies and tools (such as PRA), so allowing communities to address different needs for local economic development, strengthening livelihoods and social emancipation. Duration of implementation training is not to be taken as a blue print. This can be modified depending on the learning curve of both facilitators/extension agents and the community. For practical purposes a minimum of two extensionists are assigned a community to work with over this period of Learnership. While in the field both mentoring and coaching are provided to the team by a trainer/coach with more experience on the process. His process of strengthening local organizational capacity is continuous throughout all the phases of the cycle. However, more focus on it takes place from the planning stage to ensure that the community takes full control of the implementation, monitoring and evaluation process, including subsequent planning of activities in future. The following PEA cycle is adapted from a concept developed by the following: Dr Juergen Hagmann, Mr. Paolo Pier Ficarelli, Mr. Edward Chuma and Mr. Kuda Murwira while working with the Based program in South Africa (1999-2002). It was elaborated based on the experiences in Zimbabwe in the early nineties which are also documented in the first edition of this booklet: “Learning Together Through Participatory Extension”: A guide to an Approach Developed in Zimbabwe-published by Agritex in 1998.

Participatory Extension Approaches (PEA) in Zimbabwe 6Suggested Learnership Process for

PEA


(De

velo

pe

d b

y: J

Ha

gm

an

n, P

Fic

are

lli, E

Ch

um

a a

nd

K M

urw

ira

20

02

)

Figure 2.5: PEA Learning Cycle

6.1 Phase I- Initiating Change (Comprises 4 Steps)The following is a suggested duration of implementation for phase I of the PEA cycle.

Sub-step 1. 1. Informal visit- 2 weeksSub-step 1. 2. Meeting with community leadership- 1 weekSub-step 1. 3. Awareness creation- 2 weeks

Sub-step 1. Informal leadership with the Local organisations leadership or key stakeholders in the community - 1.5 daySub-step 2. Meeting with members of each organization 1 weekSub-step 3. Meeting with non members 1 weekSub-step 4.Documentation of Experiences and lessons learnt from the community- 2 weeks

Sub-step 1. Identification of innovation areas and innovators in the community- 1 weekSub-step 2. Documentation of the process of identifying innovations and innovators- 2 weeks

Sub-step 1. Feedback to the leadership- 2 daysSub-step 2. Feedback to the community- 3 daysSub-step 3. Documentation of Local Organisational capacity and Level of Innovation of the community- 1 week.

6.2 Phase II- (comprises 4 Steps)

Sub-step 1.1 Meeting with community to create discomfort through situation analysisSub-step 1.2 Defining new roles for community in addressing identified issues and challenges


PEA

Step 1 Familiarization

Step 2 Identification of local organisations

Step 3 Identification of local innovations

Step 4 Feedback on the Identification of local organisations and Innovations

Step 1 Creating local ownership for problems and challenges

Step 2 Identifying and exploring possible solutions

Sub-step 2.1 Investigation on past existing experiences or current innovationSub-step 2.2 Organising for exposure visits- 1 weekSub-step 2.3 Exposure visits- 2 weeks


Sub-step 3.1 Identification of potential service providersSub-step 3.2 Initiating contacts with identified service providers- 1 weekSub-step 3.3 Facilitating dialogue between service providers and the community- 1 week

Sub-step 4.1 Feedback on undertaken exposure visits, investigation on current practices and service providersSub-step 4.2 Identifying possible options for testing- 1 week

Step 3 Identifying and learning about service providers

Step 4 Sharing and reflecting with community

6.3 Phase III-Planning and strengthening local organisational capacity (Comprises 4 steps)

Step 1 Elaborating community plans with local organisations

Sub-step 1.1 Linking needs to possible solutions- Sub-step 1.2 self- organisation for experimentation

Step 2 Developing a strategy for local Organisation transformation

Sub-step 2.1 Elaboration of vision for self organisation and good governance- 4 weeksSub-step 2.2 Reassessment of performance of different local organisationsSub-step 2.3 Elaboration of possible ways to improve governance and representation in groups and local organisations- 4 weeks

Step 3 Linking with identified sources of innovation

Sub-step 3.1 Analysis of information and input needs and ways to access them- 1 weekSub-step 3.2 Linking with sources of innovation 2 weekSub-step 3.3 Feedback to the community 1 week


PEA


Step 1 Enhancing creativity for experimenting

Sub-step 1.1 Initiating competitions for best ideas- 3 weeksSub-step 1.2 Facilitating competitions and provision of rewardsSub-step 1.3 Documentation of selected ideas- 1 week

Step 2 Trying out new ideas

Sub-step 2.1 Selecting reps to try out relevant experiments- 2 weeksSub-step 2.2 designing of experiments and a monitoring system- 4 weeks

Sub-step 3.1 Monitoring progress of social and technical innovation- 3 weeksSub-step 3.2 sharing of experiences with service providers, other groups and communities- 1 week

6.5 Phase V- Reflection on lessons learnt and re-planning (Comprises 2 Steps)

Sub-step 1.1 Preparation meeting with the umbrella and key group representatives- 1 weekSub-step 1.2 Feedback to groups- 4 weeksSub-step 1.3 Technology evaluation- 4 weeks

Step 2 Planning for next planning cycle

Sub-step 2.1 Group based self- evaluation- 2 weeksSub-step 2.2 Community based self evaluation- 1 weekSub-step 2.3 Group based planning, adaptation and finalizationSub-step 2.4 Re-planning experiments with support of researchers


PEA

Step 4 Linking local organisations with service providers

Sub-step 4.1 Assessment of demands in terms of quality and quantity of development 4 weeksSub-step 4.2 Meeting and negotiating with service providers 3weeksSub-step 4.3 Feedback to the community or groups1 week

Step 3 Monitoring of innovation process and building networks

Step 1 Reviewing progress in organisational capacities and Innovation


6.4 Phase IV- Experimenting while implementing (Comprises 3 Steps)

Several authors have written about the application of participatory approaches to agricultural extension and many organisations have also tried to apply it in the field to varying degrees of scale and intensity. While this booklet is not exhaustive, it has managed to synthesize the key issues that need to be taken into account.

Without doubt, the field of participatory extension will continue to evolve as more lessons are learned in various contexts. PEA as described in this booklet will go a long way in trying to improve the livelihoods of smallholder farmers.

For purposes of guaranteeing success, PEA needs to be adopted in a systematic way at the various chosen levels of application. In the Zimbabwean context, it is necessary for the Ministry of Agriculture to use the lessons to mainstream PEA in an inclusive manner to enable more widespread use by relevant stakeholders in government, NGOs and the private sector. The platforms already created for dialogue and engagement create a good opportunity for initiating policy review processes in support of participatory extension approaches.

At a practical level, making PEA part of the curriculum for agricultural training institutions will ensure that graduates from such institutions are fully equiped to tackle the extension challenges that have been experienced on the ground, enabling farmers to access essential services for increasing productivity and marketing.

Building on the current national demand for PEA by both professional and existing field workers, there are practical opportunities for kick-starting structured learnership programmes through collaboration efforts involving government, NGOs and the private sector. This could provide a good base for redirecting resources towards research and extension.

It will be critical to consolidate the emerging network of PEA practitioners within the country and region to ensure adequate support for initiatives on the ground. Given that attitudes and mindsets do not change overnight, strategies for supporting and backstopping such initiatives would require regular oiling through continued dialogue, interaction and knowledge sharing.

Participatory Extension Approaches (PEA) in Zimbabwe 7Conclusion and Recommendations


1. Blackburn, J. & J. Holland (ads)(1998) Who Changes? Institutionalizing participation in development. IT Publications

2. Moyo, E. and J. Hagmann (2000) : Facilitating competence development to put learning process approaches into practice in rural development. In FAO(2000):Human resources in agricultural and rural development, Rome , pp 143-163

3. Adams, M.E., 1982. Agriculture Extension in Developing Countries (Intermediate Tropical Agriculture series), Longman Singapore Publishers Pte Ltd.

4. Based Workshop Reports (unpublished)-(2001-2003)-Limpopo Province Department of Agriculture, South Africa.

5. Bembridge T J, The Practice of Agricultural Extension, a Training Manual, Development Bank of Southern Africa.

6. Moris Jon, 1997. Extension Alternatives in Tropical Africa, O D I, London.7. Scarborough Vanessa, et al 1997. Farmer- led Extension Concepts and Practices, Intermediate Technology

Publications.8. - BASED Programme, LPDA (unpublished reports), and 1999-2003.9. -Ife Jim, Community Development-Creating community alternatives- vision, analysis and practice10. -Murwira K et al, 2000, Beating Hunger, Intermediate Technology Publications, UK.11. -Swaanepoel H, 2000, Introduction to Development Studies, Oxford University Press, 2nd Edition12. Adams, M.E. 1982- Agricultural Extension in the Developing countries- (Intermediate tropical agriculture

series)13. BASED –LPDA Programme (unpublished reports)1999-200414. Bembridge T. J. 1993 edition,-The Practice of Agricultural Extension, A Training Manual. 15. Meyer, M, 2004 Effective facilitation. South Africa: New South Africa Books pty/ Ltd16. Www. Saskjustice.gov.sk.ca/ Dispute Resolution/ glossary. Shtml17. BASED-LPDA Programme reports (unpublished)2000-2004)18. Chiaromonte, F and Dosi, G. (1973). The Micro foundations of Competitiveness and their Macro-economic

Foundation in Foray, D and Freeman, C. (Technology and the wealth of Nations, the Dynamics of Constructed. Advantage. Printer Publishers, London.

19. Reij C & Water-Bayer (2001). Farmer Innovation in Africa. Earth Scan Publishers, London.20. Rogers & Everet M (1962) Diffusion of innovations. The Free Press. New York.21. Roosevelt F. D. (2004) Head-up on Organisational Innovation, Pollard principles.22. Saad N. (2002) Farmer Processes of Experimentation and Innovation (A literature review)23. BASED-LPDA Programme Training reports (Unpublished) 2000-2004.24. Fisher. and Ury, W. (1997), Gelling to Yes: Negotiating an Agreement Without giving in, Arrow Business Books, UK25. Fox, A. (2000), Managing Conflict, Spiro Press, London.26. French, A. (2003), Negotiating Skills, Spiro Press, London27. Lewicki, R.J. Saunders, D. M. and Minton, J.W. (1997), Essentials of Negotiation, Irwin McGraw-Hill, New York28. Manoff K, R (1998), Telling the truth to People at Risk: Some introductory Thoughts on Media and Conflict. 29. Oliver, D (1996) 101 Ways to Negotiate More Effectively, Cogan Page Ltd, London30. Sullivan, T. J. (1998). Introduction to Social Problems, Macmillan Publishing Company, New York31. BASED reports (Unpublished) 2000-200432. Morpheme M.W., Gatekeeper series no.36-33. Communities as Resource Management InstitutionsMRDP Report(unpublished)-34. PEA/ PDA Orientation and Learning Workshop- June, 200235. Upoff N, 1992-Gatekeeper series no.31- Local Institutions and Participation for Sustainable Development

Participatory Extension Approaches (PEA) in Zimbabwe 8References


participatory extension approaches (pea) in zimbabwe · participatory extension approaches (pea) in...

Documents