A|{D NATI.

IRAL REsoUcEs
MINISTRY or AGRICULTURF,,LIVESTOCK

ZA|%IBARcAsHcRoPsTARMINGSYSTEMSPROJECT

RwiewMecting
Paperpreprcd for theZARCfunual Ressarch
Nocnrber14fi & 15,1995

PARTICIPATORY TNCHNOI,OGYDEVELOPMENT
WITH FARMER RESEARCHGROUPS

By: Ismatt MgPni

tvlartin Walsh
RuPert woods

zccFsP
PO Bor 228it
Zanzlbor

Tel./far: (05Q33121
CONTENTS

Pageno.
Introduction I

Localsocial,economic andinstitutional
factorswhichled I
to theadoptionofthe FRGapproach

WhyformFarmerResearch
Groups? 2

Initid orperiences 2

Currentmethodfor selectingandforminggoups 4

Methodsfor workingwith groups 6

Problemareas 9

Otherapproaches
beingusedby ZCCFSP
andMALNR l0

Theinstitutional
constraints
to furtherdevelopment of the t2
FRGapproach in Zanabuandprospects for thefuture

Lessons t2
Summary
of methodology l4

ABBREVIATIONS

FRG FarmerResearch group

MALNR Ministryof Agriculture,
Livestockandnaturalresources
PRA Participatory
Ruralappraisal
zccFsP ZanabuCashCropFarmingSystems Project
INTRODUCTION

The ZanzibarCashCrop FarmingSystemsProject(ZCCFSP)startedin l99l with the

cashcrop farmingsystems,increasing
principleobjectivesof developingsustainable
foreignorchangeearnings,reducingexpenditureon importsandraisingthe incomesof
rural householdsonZanzibar(PembaandUngujaislands). It is fundedby Overseas
Devetopment Administration(ODA) of the UK andmanagedby the NaturalResources
Institute (NRI).

It wasoriginallyfoundedon the principlethat new exportcropscouldbe developedto

the existingexportcrop of cloves,for whichthe world
replace,or at leastto supplement,
marketdemandhasgreatlyreduced.

At the outs€f,therefore,the approachtakenwasto selectindividualcropswhichwere

thoughtto havea good market,whichwould grow well andbe acceptable to Zarvibari
farmers. A process of PRAs, market surveys and agtonomic investigationresultedin the
compilationof a list of candidatecropsfor furtherresearchanddevelopment.

top-downcrop-oriented
Thisessentialty andthe decision
approachmetwith little success
was soonmadeto adopta moreparticipatoryapproach,to concentrate moreon the
farmingsystemspart of the projecttitle.

This paperdescribes with the development

our experiences of FarmerResearchGroups
(FRGs)asa key methodfor enhancing researchandextension,
farmer-participatory

LOCAL SOCIAI,, ECONOMIC AND INSTITUTIONAL FACTORS WHICH LEI)

TO THE AI}OPTION OF FRG APPROACH

Thc choiceof mostsuitablemethodsfor workingwith farmersdependsto a largeextenton

socialandeconomicfactors,Theconditionsthathavebeenexiatingwithin
institutional,
Zulzibarcanbe summarised asfollows;

Within Ministry of Agriculture,LivestockandNaturalResources (MALNR)

o A top-downepproachhasbeenused,usingthe principlethat the researchsectionsdo
'taught' to farmers'
the researchandthenthe resultinginformationis
o Researchhasmainlybeenfocusedon theoreticaltechnicalfixes:fertilizers,spacing,time
of planting. It is seldomproblemorientatedor takesinto accountfarmerknowledgeor
socio-economic conditions.On-stationtrialshavebeenusedandsomeon-farmtrials
with scatteredindMduals.
r Lack of coherentpoticy. The policyis relatedto countryobjectives(eg productionof
rice) andseldomrelateto farmerproblemsor conditions.
r Projectisation andunderfunding.Donor-supported projectsattrastthe bestof the staff
andareoftenautonomous in decisionmaking. Very little co-ordinationbetween
sections, Fundingfrom the governmentis essentially limitedto payingstaffcostsand
little is givenfor runningcosts.
r Long historyof freeor subsidised inputs(fertilizers,seeds,agro-chemicals,tractor
services).Thisis now reduceddueto lackof funds,
 o Organisation
by crop or discipline:makesit difficult to respondto moregeneral
problemsfacedby farmers(eg declineof soil fertility).

Rural areas
r High populationdensity,smallfarm size,considerable landbonowing in manyareas,
r Significantvariationbetweenare&s:agro-ecological; oropsgrown;importanceof ofl
farm income;accessto markets;involvementof womenin agriculture.
o Historyof governmentcontrolhasresultedin a reductionin the sens,eof responsibility
of farmersfor solvingtheir own problemsanda lack of communitystructurewithin
villages,outsideof familygroups. Also an expectationof directbenefitswhenworking
with government.
r Low input-low output agriculturepractisedin most il€as.

WHY FORM FARMER RESEARCH GROUPS?

asfollows.
The reasonsfor usingthe FRG approachcanbe summarised

o Relevanlresearch.With farmerresearchgroupsthe researchprioritiesarisefrom the

constraintsandopportunitiesfacedby the farmerswithin the group. If the group is well
chosenthe newideasor technologies whicharedevelopedby the groupwill be relevant
to a wide sectionof farmingfamilieswithin that farmingsystemzone.
o Organistion. From anorganisational point of view it is easierto work with 15 farmers
in a group,ratherthan l0 individuals.
o Contirurry. If farmersdrop out otherscanjoin, the groupwill havea'memory' of what
hasbeendoneandthereis morechanceof activitiescontinuingif the directproject
assistanceends, Long-termcontact.
o Exchangeof informationwithin thegroup. The learningprocessis muchquicker as
farmerscanlearnfrom eachothers' experiences.
t Responsibility.Farmersaremorelikely to takeresponsibilityfor their own problemsby
talkingtluoughthernandsearchingfor possiblesolutions.
t Collaborationhelweenfarmers. Thereareadditionalbenefitsfor the farmersfrom co-
operationin a group:sharingresources; marketing;andattractingattentionfrom other
organisations.
t Collaborationwithin lult4l.ilR. It was felt that the FRG approachwould be a good
methodfor encouraging co-operationwithin the MALNR, Differentsectionscan
collaborate on differentproblems.Thecollaboration canbe demand-led by the farmers,
whichreducesthe problemsof 'ownership' (the problemof one sectionbeingaskedto
helpwith anothersection'strials).
!; ;.': ' o Trainlng. Good training experiencefor ministry staff
'-.
:1.i,'.:

,5:t.':.:.''
'il{iil{
, .:: ..
,l
r:::i'iRi; INTIIAL EXPERIENCES
' '"1,1 "]j

ZCCFSPis a so-called'processproject', Thismeansthatthe preciseend-pointandthe

methodsfor gettingtherecannotbe clearlydefinedfrom the outset. To this enda flexible
approachhasbeenusedto try to developmethodsbestsuitedto Zanabu conditions.
':;.",
' "' i
'1i:'lr'
'.,:'
"_. .1.:
'i'.';:,il
. ' l;1,';.,;iili
:.'i.::\1.I
. . : : -: 3
.,r..,;::.' l.

The farmerresearchgroupprogrammehasbeencautiouslybuilt up. Formingonegroupat

a time anddevelopingthe approachovertime. In this way it is hopedto avoidmakingtoo
manymistakes.This is particularlyimportantwith farmerresearchgroupsbecause
considerableinvestmentis madeat the outsetto starta group. Cunentlytherearea total
of six FRGs,threeon eachisland(PembaandUnguja).

A rangeof differentmethodshavebeenusedfor startingandworking with thesegroups.

The experiences gainedduringthe formationof the first few groupsaredescribedbelow,
beforediscussion of the currentmethods,

Farming SystemZones

As a first step,beforeforminganyFRG,the islandswere sub-dMdedinto FarmingSystem

Zones. The objectivesof this exercisewereto describewhat washappeningin agriculture
within the differentzonesandthen,ttrough a seriesof meetingswith othersectionsof
MALNR' to identify the mainagriculturalconstraintsand opportunitiesfor eachzone.

I sv es regarding locati on

It was decidedthat formationof FRGswould relateto the FarmingSystemZones. The key

issuesregardingthe locationwerewhetherto targetareas:whichhavethe mostcashcrop
: opportunities;or whichhavethe mostproblems,or wherechangeis happeningfastest;or
to try andcoverall areas? Also whetherto selecta villagerepresentetive
of a certainzone
or a villagewheretheyhaveaccessto two zones.

/ssaesregwding granp seleclion

Therearotluee mainfactorsto consider

e Size
o Composition
o Method of forming a group

In the pastfarmerswereselectedmainlyon the basisof willingnessto co-operatein doing

research.Whenforminga researchgroupthereareadditionalrequiranents,suchas
wealth,familygroupings,race,gender,ageandwillingnessto do research.Thesefactors
haveto be consideredfor selectionof a groupwhichis representativeof a wider population
andwhishwill be ableto work together.

For our purposeswe wanteda goup which wasmostrepresentative

of the peoplemost
involvedin agriculturewithin that area.

It is easyto get homogenousgoups (eg womenor family-based groups),whicharethe

sort of groupswhichthe extensionserviceusuallyworks with. A mixedgoup, however,is
moredifficultto achiwebecauseit maynot representa naturalgrouping.

The first groupwasformedby invitinga contactfarmerto selecta $oup. The resulting

grouphasa reasonable mix of ages,but too manyof the groupmembersarerelated. There
is only onewomanin the group,but womenarenot muchengagedin agriculturein this
area.
 4

For the secondgroupit wasdecidedto targetwomenonly. This decisionwasbasedon the

observationthat womendo mostof the agriculturalactivitiesin the selectedfarmingsystem
zone,whereasmenaremostlyinvolvedin earningoFfarm income. Followinga more
detailedstudy,howwer, it wasdiscoveredthat althoughwomendo mostof the
agriculturalworlg theywerenot muchinvolvedin farmingon the coralrag, an important
farmingareafor the village,becausethey arenot ableto do the necessarybushclearance,
A discussion washeldwith the womenaboutthis issueandtheydecidedto includefour
menin the group.This groupnow consistsof eightwomenandfour men.

CURRENT METHOD FOR SELECTING AND FORMING GROUPS,

Vlllage selection

Therewasmuchdebateaboutwhereto form the mostrecentgroup. Therewere somethat

favouredstartingin a FS zonewherethe projecthadnot hithertobeeninvolved,but where
thereareperhapsfew cashcrop opportunities;othersfavouredhavinga secondgroup in
the largestzone,wheretherearethe mostconstraintsandopportunitiesfor agricultural
dcvelopment.The compromise that wasreachedwasto selecta villagewithin the largest
zone,whichwasfar from the existinggroupwithin that zoneandwhichalsohadaccessto
the adjoiningzone. It wasfelt that anytechnologies
developedwould therebyhave
relevanceto two zones.

Severalvillageswere chosenwhich met this generalselectioncriteria. Thesevillageswere

visited over a period of two daysandinformationwas collectedon agriculturein each
village. Finallyonevillagewaschosen,whereit wasconsidered that the mostnew
developments were happening (independent
of outsideassistance).

Group selectlon

Havingdecidedon the village,a teamof turo peoplewere sentto the villagewith the task
of identiffingpossiblegoup members.Threeseparateinformantswere identifiedwithin
the village,who wereselectedon their abilityto be ableto identify possiblegroup
members. Theseinformantsweretold aboutthe aimsof forminga researchgroupand
wereaskedto suggesta mix of people-difFerentages,gorder,wealth,familygrouping.
The importantcharacteristicfor all groupmembersbeinga willingnessto participateand
' ' . 1 try newtechniques.

Followingthesediscussionsandbasedon a comparisonof the threeseparatelists a final list

of I 5 nameswasdrawnup. Our experience is that the idealgroupsizeis from 12to 15
people,anylargerthanthis andthe groupbecomestoo difficultto managewith no extra
benefits.
:;;:'i,-rt.i\i
. ,r':i1..i
' . t : : I
Creatinga researchprogrqmme

We havefoundthat the importantfirst stepwith farmerresearchgroupsis to gaina

thoroughunderstanding of their farmingpracticesandsocio-economicconditionsbefore
 'ij
".:, '- !

:..r;i;.':,ii
\'l',!ii i.:
'ij t iri:*
'..',:'',',.'}
'...
..'.:,..,.
. i'l.i.'; .:r::
'','.;'.il.

makinganydecisionsabouta possibleresearchprogramme.Thereforewe conducta tlpe

of mini-PRA The methodologyusedis asfollows.

l. Soonafterthe selectionof a researchgroup,we hold a discussionwith the groupabout

the conceptof researchandthe aimsof formingsucha group. A dateis thensetfor doing
the PRA.

2, ThePRA teamareselected,Theaimis for 8-10teammembers, drawnfrom the

sectionswithinMALNR thathavean interestin collaboratingwith the researchgroup. The
teammeeta few daysbeforethe PRA anddrawup a checklist for datacollection.Topics
that arecoveredinclude:Landuseandownership;labourissues;soil fertility and
associatedpractices;croppingsystems(food andcashcrops);forestry;livestock;
marketing;incomesources;household andgenderissues.
decision-making;

3. Informationcollectionis baseduponsemi-structured interviewsandvisitsto the

individualplotsof eachFRG member.A teamof two or threeinterviewersspendoneday
with a singlefarmer,the morningvisitingthe farmer'splotsandthe afternooncompleting
the interviewat the farmer'shome.

4. Eachday'sfindingsarediscussed collestivelyeacheveningandanynecessary
modificationsaremadeto the checklistof the followingday.

5. A meetingwith all the membersof the FRG is heldon the final morningto providean
opportunityto pres€ntanddiscusspreliminaryresultsof the surveyandoutlinesubsequent
stagesof the researchprocesswith farmersbeforethankingthemfor their co-operation,

6. Backin theoffice,a dayis givento the qollectiveanalysis

of the data. Minutesof the
analysisaretakento form the basisof a reportsummarisingthe findingsof the study. Also
notesarecompiledon eachfarmer,whichgenerallytakesabouta week. Responsibility for
drawingup the reportis givento two teammembers.

7. Theteamthenget togetherto drawup a tist of possibleareasfor researchandany

furtheractionneeded,basedon the collectiveanalysis.

8. Finallythe researchproposalsandcommentsof the teamarediscussed with the FRG to

modifr andrefinethe proposals,togetherwith anyadditionalsuggestion.

The advantages of this mini-PRAprocessareasfollows:

anddisadvantages
'.r.!
:
Advantages
r importanttrainingfunctionfor projectandMALNR staff Improvesinterview,report
writing andanalyticalskills.
o More rapidthanconventiondPRA whichinvolvesmatrixandwealthranking.
r The informationgatheredcanbe directlyused.
I

Disadvantages
o Sometypesof informationarediffictrltto obtainwith zucha rapidprocess,for example
informationaboutincome.
o Farmersexpectquickrespomefrom the researchteam.
o Time consumingfor farmer.Takesroughlylr/2 daysfor eachfarmerand 4 - 5 daysfor
the wholegroup.

METIIODS FOR WORKING WTTH GROUPS

The methodsusedfor workingwith groupshasdevelopedover time. The historyof

researchwith the oldestgroup(DayaFRG) is givenaBan exampleof this development.

wasput on doingsimpletrialswith new cashcrops(chillies,ginger,

Initially the ernphasis
furmeric). Simpletreatmentswereused,suchas* or - shade,r or - mulch, Monitoring
wasdonebi-monthly.This approachwasnot very successful asthe farmersexpecteda lot
from the newcropsandtwo of the threecropsprovedunsuitablefor the localconditions.

Subsequently, the groupwasgiventhe choiceof a wide rangeof tree crop seedlings,

availablein the projectandforestrynurseries,The seedlings rate,
were soldat a subsidised
choiceof species,numbers and where to plantwas left to the farmer.

This was still not very satisfactoryasit wasdifficult to dealwith majoriszues,suchas soil
fertility andredevelopment of the cloveplantationares. A detailedstudywasthen
undertakenof eachfarmer(asdescribedfor PR.lrabove). Fromthis a muchwider rangeof
researchthemesarose.The themesareactuallyquite similarfor all the FRGs,although
therearesomedifferences.The cunentthernesfor DayaFRG are:

Soilfertility mointerwnce. suchaserosioncontrol,compost

This cov€rsinvestigations
making,agroforestrymixedcropping,economicuseof fertilizers,mulchapplication,useof
legumes,rotatioq greenmanure,covercroppingandfallowing. Also the adviceto
concentrate effortson a smallerarea.

Farn outptttdivvrsilicatioz. This is particularlyaimedat developmentof the clove areas,

whereonly cloves,cassava andbananas aregrown. Oneobjectiveis to ortendthe home
gardenideainto the cloveplantation,to havemulti-storeycroppingof a rangeof crops.
Main emphasis is on trylng newspecies,extendingcultivationof someexistingspeciesand
trylng improvedfood crop varieties,CIher activitiesin this themeincludenursery
monkeycontrolandbreadfnritdrying,
establishment,

Development of rice areqs. It is felt that the ricevalleysareunder-utilised,despitethe fact

that manyhavewaterall the year. The objectiveis to improveproductivitythroughcrop
diversification,diversificationinto newuses(eg sugarcaneor vegetables insteadof rice)
anduseof bundsto improvewaterholdingcapacity.

Followingthe PRA in Daya,the findingswerediscussed with the groupandthe individual

theywould do. Now thereis a mix of :
farmersdecidedwhat sort of investigation
t Semi-Iormaltrials. Examples:comparisonof artificialfertilizer,compostandcattle
manureon bananas.Thesetrialscouldbe categorised asresearcher designed- farmer
implemented,
e Inlormal investigalions.Examples:compostmaking,monkeycontrol,trying new
crops/varieties.Couldbe describedasfarmerdesigned- farmerimplemented.
 7

o Discassionon topical issaes.Examples:developmentof clove areas,managernent of

forestarcas,discussion aboutcrops. New investigations mayarisefrom the disqussions,
otherwiseanydevelopments arenoted. Oftenthe point is madein thesediscussionsthat
the farmersmusttakeresponsibilitythemselves andthat they shouldco-operatebecause
if only onepersonactson their own thuyarelikely to fail.
t Tloining. Studytours, visits

Meaflrements and recording

All trialsarekept very simple. The majorobjectiveis to get the farmers'opinionsabout

the viabilityof a technology(technicalandsocio-economic).In sometrialsthe farmer
measures the yield,in othersno measurementsaretaken,

An exampleof a trial whereno measurements aretakenis an erosioncontroltrial. This is a

completelynewconceptfor the farmersanda wide rangeof specieshavebeenplantedon
the contour,togetherwith a comparisonofvegetativeand mechanical methodson a single
farm.The ideais to get a first response
of the farmersaboutwhatt)?e of methodsmay
havea chanceto work. This will alsoserveasa demonstration plot.

Thereis not a strongtraditionof recordinginformationor writing paperswithin the

MALNR andwhereaseffortsaremadeto improvethe analyticalandreportwriting skills,
paperworkis alsokept to a minimum.The currentthinkingis to havea shortannualreport
on the progr€ssofeach group.

Inprts

Materialinputsshouldbe kept to the minimumpossible. Therearecases,however,when

the outcomeof a trial is completelyuncertainandthe costsof materialsor labourarehigh;
or wherethe benefitsto the projest,in termsof the knowledgegained,maybe potentially
greaterthanthosefor the farmer;or whena largeplot hasto be plantedto get realistic
results. In thesecaseswe feelit is justifiableto give a great€rlorel of support.

In a recentexample,a farmerwaspaidfor someof his labourfor implementinga large

erosioncontroltrial on his farm.Someof the plantingmaterialwasalsoprovided. Before
agreeingthe rateto be paid an independentlabourerwasaskedto give a quotefor carrying
out the work andthe paymentof the farmerwasbasedon this. Erosioncontroltechniques
arenew to the islandsandthe aimwasto comparea largenumberof techniqueswithirta
singlefarm,

Farmer training and studytours

The useof trainingor studytoursis an importantcomponentof the work. Sometimes

farmersaretakento otherareas(eg from one islandto the other)to get first-hand
experience,This maybe to se€a specifictechnology(eg compostmaking,vanilla
cultivation,erosioncontrol),or to seenewfarmingsystems (eg cattlecropintegration).
Trainingin the villageis alsogrvenfor somenewtechnologiesfor whichthe farmershave
hadlinle experience,
 8

Meetings

Meetingswith the grouptakeplaceat irregularintervals,dependingon the time of yearand

the researchactivitiestakingplace,the intervalcanrangefrom 2 to l0 weeks.In between
the groupmeetingsindividualfarmersarefollowedup.

Group Ieader ship/organisation

Someof the groupshaveappointeda chairmanandsecretary,othershavenot. Decisions

of this kind areleft to the groupsto decide.For the groupswhich haveseveralmembers
from a singlefamilygroupit is perhapsbetternot to haveanychairmanasthis maycause
rifts.

Topical studies

Sometimes issuesor researchpossibilitiesarisefrom the work with the FRGsfor which

moredetailedstudyis required.An example(plannedfor October1995)is a studyon the
agroforestrypossibilitiesfor the coralrag (soil type). The objectiveof this studyis to
identifyindigenousandimportedtreespecieswhicharecurrentlygrowingon the coralrag,
to investigatethc performance of eachspeciesandthe way in whichtheyareused. From
this studywe expectto be ableto designagroforestryinterventionsfor adaptationby the
KangaganiFRG.

Reyalts

It takesat leasta yearbeforeanyrenrltsof co-operationwith FRGscanbe seenandmay

takelonger. It needstime to fosterganuineparticipation;for the farmersto understand
the
conceptof researchandto startto overcomethe problernsof unrealisticogectationsfrom
the farmersgroups.

of a group:the
Therearetwo areasto considerwhentrying to evaluatethe effectiveness
changeswithin the group andthe effect on farmersoutsidethe group.

The changesthat haveoccurredwithin the groupsare significant. To take the example

againofthe first goup, Daya:
o All farmersarestartingto useorganicmatterrnanagement methodswhichtheywere not
usingbefore- use of mulches,
compost and cattlemanure.
r Farmersaretakingresponsibility for reducingthe monkeypopulatioqwhichis allowing
themto plantlargerrangeof cropsoutsidethe immediatelocalityof the village.
o A largenumberof newcropshavebeenassessed, somecontinueto be grown others
wererejected.
. All farmersarestartingto diversifytheir cloveplantationareas,plantingsomecropsthat
theyhadformerlylaughedat the ideaof (eg timberspecies,cinnamon,othertree crops).
r Somefarmersarestartingto raisetheir own tree plantingmaterial.
o Somefarmersareconcentrating their effortsin a singlearea(beforetheywereusing
scatteredplots).
r Startingto try som€new cropsin ricevalleys(eg sugarcane).
o The farmersarenow 'researchminded'.
The Dayafarmersgroupis now startingto repaythe effort requiredto startit. Noneof the
farrrershavedroppedout. Someadditionalfarmerswantto join, but the grouphavenot
wantedto expand.Thefarmersreportthat otherpeoplein the villageusedto makefun of
the farmerswhentheyhavetried new cropsor techniques, but the group farmersthink that
the lastlaughwill be on them,

We haveyet to evaluatethe impactof the farmerresearchgroupwork on farmersoutside

of the groups. For mostofthe gfoupsthis wouldbe premature,but a studywill be done
within the localareaof the first grouplaterthis yearto determinethe extentof the dispersal
of new ideasandadoptionof newtechnologies.

PROBI.EM AREAS

Expectation

The dominantproblemwhentry to work with groups,or individualsfarmersfor that

matter,is that of expectation.The expectationof what the farmerwill get out of
participatingwith the projectand expectationof the relativerole of farmerandprojectin
problemsolving. This issuemustbe tackledbeforoanyrealparticipationcanbe realised.

The historyof strongstatecontrol,subsidies

andtop-downapproachhasreinforced
farmersunderstandingthat:
. farmerswill be giveninputsor otherincentiveswhenco-operatingwith the government.
r all problemsoutsidethe immediatecontrolof an individualwill be tackledby the
governmentandnot by the community.
. anYtrialsareseen&sbelongingor beingfor the benefitof the Ministry andnot for the
farmer.

Onefarmersaidthat he thoughtof the governmentasbeingmotherandfather.

Therehasbeenlittle historyof realparticipatoryschemesinZamibu. Althoughtherehas

beena moveby variousdepartments within the governmenttowardshelpingg.upr, this is
oftencounterproductive asthe groupshavebeenformingsolelyto attracttangUte
resourees (tools,inputs)andnot througha desireto try andalleviateproblemsthrough
joint action.Thetypesof groupsthathavebeenencouraged arethosefor joint production,
whichoftenfail, Thereareno localNGOsworkingwithin the agriculturalsector.

Conceptof research

It takessometirnefor the farmersgroupsto reallyappreciate

the conceptof research.The
Dayagroup,for example,expectedthat theywould be ableto quicklypiantlargeareasof
introducedcashcropsandtherebymakemoney, Whentheyweregivenplantingmaterials
of newgropstheywantedto plantthemin a largeareabeforetheyknewhow thlesecrops
would perform. The projectobjectiveswereto experimentwith a rangeof options,
plantingsmallareasonlS andaomeup with improvedsolutions,
 l0

WorHngin malti4isciplinary mode

The project'sremitis development of cashcrops. The ideatwhenworking with FRGsis to

havea multi-disciplinaryteamof researcherVextensionists,
whereeachmemberof the team
cancontributedifferentareasof expertise.Cunentlythereis no suchgroupwithin
Zanzibar,so therearea numberof alternatives:
o involveothersections;
. cover all areas;
e limit the group exclusivelyto cashcrop problems,

In practicewe areusinga mixtureof the three. We aredoingsomejoint work with other

sections(particularlyforestry),we aredealingwith someproblemsoutsideof our direct
remit andwe arealsorejectingsuggestions from the FRGswhicharecompletelyout of our
capabilities(or suggestotheragencies whichmightbe ableto helpthem).

Workingoutsidethe remit of the projectis not idealasit mayrezultin duplicationof effort,

but on the otherhandthe divisionsbetweensectionsaresomewhatartificialandarenot a
logicaldividebut relateto donoractivity. Most MALNR staffreceivegeneraltrainingin
agriculture.Someget specialised trainingbut thenmaybe postedto anothersectionon
returnfrom training. The structureof the Ministry haschangedmanytimeswithin the last
l0 yearsandwill probablychangeagainin the future,

Someproblemsarediffisultto classify,anexamplebeingthe problemof damageby

monkeys.We felt that this problemis onethat relatesto the PlantProtectionDivisioq they
saidthat monkeysareunderthejurisdictionof the districtgovernmentoffice,who in turn
saythat it is an issuefor the Departmentof Environment,andso on. In reality,monkeys
area majorconstraintin thearea,because thefarmersareunwillingto plantanycrop in the
areasawayfrom the villageapartfrom cassava, rice andthe existingclovetreesor wild
trees. Thereusedto be a governmentprogramrne for shootingmonkeys,but this
progranrmeceasedmanyyearsego.

Our input hasbeento: givetrainingon trappingandpoisoningmethods;to persuadethe

villagersthat it is their problemandonly theycansolveit throughcommunityaction;andto
advisethat if thereis largescaleplantingof cropswhicharesusceptible
to monkeydamage,
thendamagesufferedby eachindividualwillbe reducedandalsomonkeyhabitatwill be
reduced.

OTHER APPROACHES BEING USED BY ZCCFSPAND MALNR

The FRG programmeis the mainmethodusedby the projectfor doinglong term in{epth
researchandderrelopm€ntof newtechnologiesin a participativenunner,but it is by no
meansthe only approachbeingusedby the projector the widerMinistry.

Other ZCCFSPapprmches

Differentapproaches
havebeentried,manyof whichwerezubsequently modifiedor
rejected,Onemethodwhichhasbeendroppedis the useof so-called'pilot trials'. This
approachwasbasedon commercialdevelopment of singlecrop. Within a givenarea
 ll

farmerswereidentified(opento anyfarmer),potentialtradersfoundandplantingmaterials
weredistributed.

The mainproblemswith this approachwere: the difficultyto correctlyidentifya crop

whichhadreal scopefor expansionto a commercialscale,the usualproblemsof
€xpectationof the farmers,aswell asthe physicaldifficultyof providingsufFcientplanting
materialof good qualityat the right time.

The Forestrysub-Commission hadmoresuccess with this typeof approachwith

development of Casarina production.This speciesfilled a realnichefor buildingpolesand
couldalsobe grown on'free land'. Plantingmaterialwasgivenfreeto farmersfor many
years,but is now soldbecausea realdernandhasdevelopedfor this species.

The currentproject progrunmeis betterintegratedandlesstop-down.

o Indivi&ral crops. Somework continueswith individualcrops,for which there is
considered to be realcommercialpotentialandsomeresearchquestionsremain.'
Examplesarethe agronomicassessment of vanilla;top-workingandvarietyselectionfor
mangoe3.
o Networking.Of individualsin differentareasfor agroforestryinvestigations,
t Topicalstudies.Whenmoredetailedinformationis needed.An exampleis the recent
asses$ment of blackpepperproduction.
' o Policy andplanning. Promotionof farmingsystemsapproachwithin MALNR.
Developmentof Crop Fact Sheets
t Germplasmdevelopmenl.Introductionof new propagationpractices;identificationand
selectionof superiorgermplasm. Dwelopmentof capacityfor villageplantingmaterial
production.
o Detailedsocio+conomicstudies.On rural households, their economicstrategiesand
relatedmatters.
t Marketing. Particularlyresearchanddevelopment of regionaltradingopportunities;
facilitationof export(reductionof bureaucracy).

Apprucheswithin other sectionsof M4LNR

In the pastthe emphasis within the Ministry hasbeento do traditionalon-stationandon-

farm researchusingresearcher designed- researcher managedtrials. More recentlyit has
beenrecognised that this methodwasachievinglittle. Subsequently manyof the different
sectionswithin the Ministry aremovingtowardsa groupapproach.

Unfornrnately,the problemsof poor co-ordinationwithin MALNR hasresultedin different

approachesbeingusedby differentsections.

Participatorygroupscanwork well if the contactpurposeor objectiveis clearandsimple

(eg treeplantinggroups)or is left openandflexible(eg FRGs). The problemoccurswhen
groupsareformedwith objectivesthat don't respondto a clearlyidentifiableneed, Thus
the PlantProtectionSectionencountered problemswhenthey formedgroupsfor pest
controlin certainfood crops. It soonbecameclearthatthe mainproblemsfacedby the
farmerswereproblernsof marketinganddecliningsoil fertility andnot pestsper se,
 t2

Potentialsolutionsto theseproblemswereto diversifycrops,agroforestryandother

organicmattermanagement practices,ratherthandirectpestcontrolmethods.

The Extensionsectionhasalsostartedworkingwith groups. The problemsthey havefaced

include: the groupstheyareusingareoftenformedfor reasonsdifferentfrom the
or for socialreasons);the field staffhave
objectives(eg for attractingeconomicassistance,
of workingwith groupsin a flexibleparticipative
little experience mode; andthereis a
lack of ready-made technologieswhichcanbe extendedto farmers.

THE INSTITUTIONAL CONSTRAINTS TO FURT'HER DEVELOPMENT OF

TIIE FRG APPROACH IN ZANZIBAR AND PROSPECTSFOR THE FUTURE.

Therearemajorinstitutional,economicandpoliticalchangesin the offing andit is very

difEcultto predictexactlywhat futurethis FRG approachmayenjoywithin Zanabu.

Thereis a continuedproblernof projectisation, despitethe changesto the structureof the

Ministry designedto reducethis problem.Eachprojectimportsdifferentideasand
approaches.It difficult for the governmentto controltheseprojectsbecausetheir
contributionto the runningexpenses is minimal, Evenlessresourcesare direstedto
sectionswhicharenot donor-supported,Also incentivesgivenwithin projectsin the form
of allowancesandtrainingexacerbates the projectisation.Allied to this is the lack of a
realisticoverallpolicyon agriculture.

On the positiveside:
r The FRG approachreducesthe dependency of the groupon the institution,through
minimisingthe useof inputsandthroughparticipation.
r The MALhIR staffbenefitftom prolongedcontactwith farmersandthe flexibletwo-way
approachneededfor working with groups.
r Changlnginstitutionsis a slow process,oneof the bestinfluenceson positivechangeis
to demonstrate effectivemethodsfor agriculturaldevelopment.
o FRGsarean effectiveway of ensuringthat farmers'constraintsandoppornrnitiesform
the basisfor the work programme.
r FRGsareprobablyoneof the cheapestmethodsfor developingappropriateagricultural
technologies.

Therearea numberof methodological issuesfor the future:

r Will the learningcuryedrop oft? Is it mostappropriateto continuewith the same
groupsor would it be betterto changeto newgxoupsaftera certainperiod.
r Whennewideasor technologies aredeveloped,do you alterthe approachanddo more
networkingor startextensiongroups?

LESSONS

The mainlessonswhichcanbe drawnfrom the FRG progranrme:

r It is importantnot to import methodswholesale.Methodsneedto be adaptedto suit the
very differentcircumstances existingwithin differentcountries.
 l3

Whendevelopinga newapproachit is bestto startslowly,so that lessonscanbe learnt

andsuccesses built uponbeforetoo manyresourcesor farmersareinvolved. This is
oftendifficult whenprojectshaveshortlife spansandunrealistictargets.
FarmerResearchGroupsrequirea lot of timeneffort andthereforemoneyto setup. It
to selectthe groupandlocationvery carefully.
is essential
FarmerResearchCrroupsarean excellentmethodfor developingrelevant,useable
technologies.

,ji
' r':' '. ).-
:: ':'..i
- l.a
i ',,:i

. , '. ]
'."1

.::.:11
I l,r'i
'.1,
t'.. i
.:i.;::I
' '.1.i
t '{,-1
: I
.:t:i.iJ
t .;l

-t
!,,

' , . !

.'l
.1
,i
'. . : r

1
;
 t4

STIMMARYOF METHODOLOGY

Locationof FRG o Basedon farmingsystemzones.

o Villagewhichis representative.
o Createshortlistof villagesmeetingcriteria,do rapid survey,
selectone.

Groupselection o Mix of age,gender,family,wealth,

andformation r l0 to l5 members.
r Representative of type of peopleusingland.
o Must bewilling to participateandexperiment.
r Threeinformantsin villagemakesuggestions of possible
groupmembers, basedon givencriteriafor mix of members,
makea combinationof the suggestions.
o Discussconceptsof researchandaimsof researchgroup
o Mni-PRA. Mixed groupof MALNR staff(6-8), makecheck
list, visit eachfarmerindividually(discussionandvisit plots),
meetingat endof field work to giveinitial feedbackto
farmers,write reporton mainpointsandon individual
farmers.
r Draw up areasfor research(MALNR statr)
r Discussresearchproposalswith farmers,modiff plan.

Methodsfor Identifyresearchthemes
workingwith Mix of :
Sroups Formaltrials(Researcher designed- Farmerimplemented)
Informalinvestigations (Farmerdesignedurd managed)
Discussion on topicalissues.
Trainingandstudytours,
Minimisepaperwork.
Topicalstudieswhenmoreinformationneeded.
Minimalinputs,exceptwhenrisk to farmersis high.