You are on page 1of 57

Communication strategies for rural development: a case study of the use of campaigns in Lesotho

Produced by: Natural Resources Management and Environment Department.

Author: Gary Coldevin Year: 1990 TABLE OF CONTENTS Acknowledgements Preface Communication strategies for rural development Background Overview of Campaigns Used in the Third-World A methodology for campaign design Setting the framework for multi-channel campaigns in Lesotho The National Setting The Agricultural Information Service (AIS) FAO Assistance in Designing, Implementing, Monitoring, and Evaluating Multi-Channel Communication Campaigns Campaign exercise I - increasing maize production, reducing post-harvest losses

Setting the Objectives and Target Area Conducting the Baseline Survey Designing the Campaign Strategy Production of Materials and Campaign Delivery Field Evaluation Procedures Results Campaign exercise II - increasing sorghum production, reducing post-harvest losses Setting the Objectives Strategy Development The Campaign in Action Post-Campaign Impact Survey Results Lessons learned as feed-forward for new campaigns References Appendix I Appendix II

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The author, who is Dr. Gary Coldevin of Concordia University, Montreal, wishes to acknowledge and commend the ground breaking efforts in mounting communication campaigns undertaken by the Lesotho Agriculture Information Service, under the guidance of the Director of Field Services, within the Ministry of Agriculture, Cooperatives and Marketing. A sincere note of appreciation is also extended to Headquarters staff of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) involved for their support, advice and guidance as the projects were implemented. Any errors in this Case Study are the author's responsibility and the opinions expressed in it are his; they do not necessarily reflect those of FAO. PREFACE This case study, like others in the series produced by the Development Support Communication (DSC) Branch of FAO's Information Division, is intended to shed light on outstanding examples concerning the use of communication to support rural

development. In this instance the setting is Lesotho, a small, rugged, mountainous country in southern Africa, completely surrounded by the Republic of South Africa. The case study per se derives from two FAO/ Technical Cooperation Programme projects (TCPs) carried out by the DSC Branch over a period of eighteen months, during 1987 and 1988. The overriding goal beginning in the first TOP and carrying on into the second was to prepare staff of the Agricultural Information Service (AIS) to design, implement, and evaluate multi-channel communication campaigns, one of the most effective strategies in the arsenal of DSC delivery mechanisms. In order to set a framework for the activities carried out in the combined projects, this monograph first examines the types of communication strategies used in rural development, and, in particular, the role of campaigns as catalysts to spur action in areas of high development priority. A sweep is then made of the range of campaigns used in a variety of Third-World development settings as background to outlining the DSC process model used in the Lesotho and other FAO projects. A description follows of the day-today experiences encountered as the normally headquarters-based AIS staff took to the field to conduct media presentations at the village level. Particular emphasis is given to the results of the evaluations carried out before and after each exercise in terms of levels of information gain and changes toward adopting recommended practices. Finally, the campaign methodology used is reexamined in terms of where weaknesses might be strengthened and successes underscored in the continuing quest to provide transferable lessons to other developing countries planning or already undertaking similar communication activities. The document is directed at project planners and governmentlevel decision makers with the aim of describing, and promoting, this relatively new and exciting strategy for improving the lives of rural people. COMMUNICATION STRATEGIES FOR RURAL DEVELOPMENT BACKGROUND During the past two decades the purposeful application of media and communication support has assumed an increasingly important role in many facets of rural development. Much of it has been subsumed under the larger movement normally referred to as Development Support Communication (DSC), or more recently, Development Communication. Broadly defined by the U.S. AID, the process refers to "The application of existing communication technologies and media to the problems of development" (AID, 1984, p. i). FAO more precisely delimits DSC as "The systematic utilisation of appropriate communication channels and techniques to Increase people's participation In development and to Inform, motivate, and train rural populations, mainly at the grassroots level" (Coldevin, 1987, p. 4). DSC sections are currently found in most international development agencies (although they may be subsumed under different titles), with spheres of project support ranging across agriculture, forestry,

fisheries, health, nutrition and population activities, to women in development and functional literacy. The idea of using media to assist Third-World development grew out of relatively consistent research findings demonstrating that focussed, receiver oriented communication strategies could play a significant role in accelerating the rate of technology transfer, whether it be process or product - or both. Thus, as communication technologies improved, became easier to use, and costs lowered, broadcasting and a variety of "small media" were increasingly harnessed to reach people at the village level. Prior to this, the main vehicle for linking scientific advances in agriculture, health and nutrition between researchers and rural adopters was the extension worker. Historically, however, their singular efforts have been limited by the thin spread of front line agents available in relation to the volume of people requiring information and training. Transportation difficulties have also tended to impede their outreach. In addition, effective communication with predominantly illiterate farmers was hampered by poor training in face-to-face communication techniques. Against this background, the use of media could accelerate awareness of, and adoption rates toward, recommended technologies through targeted information, motivational messages and training. Nowadays in rural development, it is common to talk about media categories which are taken to include broadcast (television and especially radio), group (video, tape-slides, sound film-strips, audio-cassettes, overhead projections, flip-charts, posters, pamphlets, and leaflets; as well, traditional folk media such as puppets and live-theatre may be included), and Interpersonal channels(community leaders, contact farmers, extension workers). And DSC delivery strategies have been hierarchically ranked, in terms of complexity, from interpersonal communication through radio and television broadcasting, and group media, to multi-channel campaigns. This ranking also subsumes the notion that each strategy can be made more effective by incorporating that which precedes it. Radio broadcasts, for example, have much more impact if they are backstopped with authoritative, village based interpersonal sources, and group media can benefit from both radio and interpersonal communication support. Well designed communication campaigns usually involve broadcasting, village based group media, and intensively trained field workers. The general rule of thumb emerging from two decades of field experience is to use multiple channels, wherever possible, so that each medium reinforces and multiplies the importance of the others in an integrated network. While there is no proven formula for selecting media for rural development, certain guidelines have emerged from practice. We know for instance that radio is particularly good at reaching a mass audience, quickly, with simple messages; print media like posters and pamphlets are good reminders or reinforcers of broadcasts, and interpersonal sources who provide opportunities for discussing information inputs are most useful for adding credibility to media content, shifting attitudes and prompting behavioural practice changes. Group media combinations have proven strikingly productive at the grassroots

level. The advantage of this strategy is the establishment of a two-way flow of information with an audience and the possibility for immediate feedback as the presentation unfolds. Central points can be reemphasized, remedial information provided where needed, and discussions started with a view toward putting the recommended changes into practice. Particularly effective use has been made of small format video combined with simple, well illustrated pamphlets and field worker support for direct training of farmers and participatory community development (Fraser, 1987a; 1987b). As mentioned earlier, all delivery strategies come to bear in the design of communication campaigns. In contrast to its founding "members" comprising field workers, broadcasting, and group media - which would normally function as part of an ongoing development support methodology - campaigns are usually carried out at a national or regional level, extend over a short time period, focus upon a specific topic of high development priority, and have a limited set of objectives. Most take advantage of multimedia impact and intensively trained extensionists. Other devices such as jackets, and Tshirts bearing campaign symbols are sometimes added. Often these campaigns are kicked off by the President or Prime Minister of the country. The primary purpose of most campaigns is to stimulate action on problems requiring short-term or simple solutions which in turn often serve as the thin-end of the wedge toward embarking on broader, long term development goals. As such, they are normally information-intense with messages being repeated over and over in thigh frequency" advertising fashion, using a diversity of channel formats from radio spots and jingles to field worker demonstrations. An important feature of the campaign is to ensure that it proceeds hand in glove with the availability of field inputs associated with the technological product or process being advocated. Without this essential component, not only will the credibility of an on-going campaign be damaged, but in all likelihood attitudes to regular rural communication services will be affected as well. OVERVIEW OF CAMPAIGNS USED IN THE THIRD-WORLD Campaigns have been used in virtually every facet of rural development. All of the better reported projects have used radio as the primary mass medium. Among the more striking non-agricultural examples occurring during the late 60's and 70's have been the nutrition campaigns in Nicaragua, Tunisia, the Philippines and Tanzania, breast feeding in Trinidad and Tobago, family planning in Colombia, Honduras, Iran, Pakistan and Taiwan, and health in Tanzania (American Public Health Association, 1982). Currently, probably the most frequent application of this DSC delivery strategy is carried out by UNICEF in creating awareness of, and motivation to participate in, its Global Child Immunization Programmes. Certainly among the best documented campaign examples were those launched in Tanzania during the 70's, namely, the 1973 health campaign, Man is Health, which ran

for a 12 week period, and the 1975 nutrition campaign, Food Is Life, which extended over an 18 week period (for an extensive description and analysis of these campaigns see Coldevin, 1979; and Hall and Dodds, 1978). Both campaigns, conducted on a national level, were built around organized, village-based study groups. About 70 000 such groups, with 15 people in each, were targeted in the first campaign and 75 000 in the second. Basic elements included a weekly half-hour radio broadcast, an accompanying text book with a specific chapter reinforcing each radio lesson, and trained group leaders supplied with study guide manuals. Radio was also used in a variety of ways to encourage enrolment. Songs written especially for the campaigns were promoted (one written for the health campaign quickly climbed to the top ten in the national hit parade), and catchy commercials were aired frequently. Several speeches were carried by the Prime Minister calling for full participation. Additional promotion materials included posters, press releases, and T-shirts and dresses bearing the campaign logos. The target for the first campaign was one million participants, and 1.5 million for the second. Both campaigns exceeded these targets with some 2 million initially showing up for the sessions. As a result, a number of problems arose which were not initially foreseen. Chief among these were the supplies of both study texts and group leader manuals; and because of the burgeoning numbers, some of the group leaders which had to be quickly pressed into service were inadequately trained. Some critics have also questioned the length of each campaign as being too short to expect many behavioural changes, with the length of time between campaigns, i.e., two years, dissipating the effects of one before the next began. And while positive results were recorded during the first campaign, in terms of knowledge of causes and prevention of common diseases and improvement in some health practices, no Before-after' impact evaluation studies were conducted in the second. The more compelling legacies of these campaigns thus rested in the guidelines they provided for orchestrating action on a national level to improve the quality of rural life, and lessons for doing it better. A number of successful campaigns have also been undertaken in agriculture. Adhikarya and Posamentier (1987) for example, documented a rat control campaign in Bangladesh during 1983 which raised the adoption of rat control practices among targeted wheat farmers from 10 to 32%, resulting in an average harvest gain of 54 kg/hectare in treated fields. Perhaps the best known campaign, however, was that associated with the "Masagana 99" project in the Philippines during 1973 which catapulted the country toward adopting high yielding rice cultivation. "Masagana" translates as bountiful harvest with "99" referring to the project objective of achieving 99 sacks (50 kilos per sack) of unmilled rice per hectare. The project was built around three main elements: 1) availability of high yielding seeds, fertilisers, and a simplified 16 step cultivation process; 2) credit assistance; and 3) a multi-channel mass information campaign extending over three months. The channel mix included radio broadcasting, a variety of print (bulletins, newspaper stories and posters),

and intensively trained farm technologists in the 16 step methodology of rice production. Radio was used in three ways during the media intensive portion of the campaign to provide: a) motivation (jingles and spot messages were broadcast up to 20 times per day); b) information (daily 30 minute farm programme); and c) instruction (short courses were offered through the existing Farmers' University of the Air; registrants received printed materials to use with the broadcasts). In addition, television was used to kick off the campaign and to report on its progress. After completion of the campaign, the daily farm programmes were intended to provide follow-up reinforcement. By 1973, as a result of particularly poor harvests in the two prior years, the Philippines had to import a substantial part of its rice supplies to meet national requirements. Following the campaign in 1974, rice yields had increased by 28%, and by 1976 a 40% rise was registered over 1973 levels. By 1977 national requirements were more than met and the country began exporting its excess harvest. The project was later to be criticised, principally because of farmers' low repayment of loans (Rosario-Braid, 1983). Overall, however, "Masagana 99" was declared a considerable success (Sison, 1985), one in which the multi-media campaign played a significant role. A final example which should be mentioned in this section is a recent FAO supported campaign carried out in Sierra Leone during 1984 (Coldevin, 1986). Following a baseline survey which assessed information levels, perceived information needs, and media access among a sampling of the intended farmer target audience, an information campaign was built around the urgent priority to expand rice production through increased cultivation of swamp farms. The two month campaign, which was carried out by the Agricultural Communication Unit, involved a mix of dedicated radio broadcasts and village based slide-tape presentations, supplemented by posters and pamphlets. Extension workers fielded questions during the group media presentations. Post-campaign results showed that, on average, farmers involved in the exercise had increased their knowledge levels by almost 60% over baseline scores. The highest gains were noted among solely dryland, or non-rice farmers whose after-campaign scores were three times higher (307%) than baseline levels. There was also a significant, positive shift in their declared intention to develop a swamp rice operation. An additional interesting finding was that, overall, farmers who tuned in regularly to the campaign radio broadcasts exhibited almost twice the amount of information gained when compared with sporadic listeners. Perhaps most important, the project aptly demonstrated the ability of a regularly functioning, agricultural media unit to carry out an effective multi-channel communication campaign based upon expressed information needs of the target audience. A METHODOLOGY FOR CAMPAIGN DESIGN In addition to the success rates associated with technology transfer, a positive contribution of previous projects has been in the continual refinement of a methodology

for planning, implementing and evaluating development support communication. The "learning by doing" approach has currently evolved into a comprehensive DSC Process Model developed by FAO during 1987 which, while being flexible enough to accommodate most types of Rural communication activities, is particularly appropriate for multi-media campaigns. Broken down into its essential elements, the systematic approach comprises four stages as follows: 1. Needs assessment / information gathering Determine key development priorities through field surveys, community consensus, interviews with field specialists and subject matter specialists; assess media channels available to potential target groups; ascertain whether technology transfer inputs are readily available. 2. Decision making / strategy development Prioritise needs, select most important and establish development or project objectives to be addressed; identify target groups, carry out baseline knowledge, attitudes, practices (KAP) survey, conduct focus group sessions, set specific communication campaign objectives, determine multi-media mix and message design strategies. 3. Implementation Draw up action plan, produce and field test samples of media materials, revise and finalise materials, train field staff in content and use of materials, distribute materials, and monitor campaign as it unfolds. 4. Evaluation Carry out small scale field evaluations at strategic points during campaign to suggest where "in-course" changes may be warranted; conduct full scale post-campaign impact evaluation survey and use as feed-forward for future campaigns. The components of the model were initially tested in Sierra Leone and formed the basis for the series of campaigns in Lesotho. Its applicability is intended to range across a variety of rural development themes within agriculture, fisheries and forestry as well as several FAO executed projects for UNFPA which involve information/communication for population activities. An important point to be stressed in the model is that it begins with a field generated, "bottom-up" needs analysis with potential target beneficiaries; setting specific development or project goals is thus made on the basis of direct input from those who will be directly involved. The implicit understanding here is that communication support

is most effective when it is included as part of early project planning, rather than being drawn into the operation as an Add feature at some point during the implementation phase. Formulating specific goals on the basis of information about people's real needs, and building in receiver oriented communication as a project unfolds, are proven ingredients in technology transfer success stories. In this participative process, rural people become not only recipients, but partners in development. The most difficult, and at the same time one of the most important of all activities in the communication support process, is the target audience analysis (KAP or knowledgeattitudespractices indices; literacy levels; access to, use of, and preferred communication channels) since this serves both production and training objectives. At the outset it sets the baseline for establishing "success indicators" and later validation of the project's achievements. It also provides valuable guidelines for initial production and pre-testing of materials in terms of print and visual literacy levels; the choice of medium or media combination which is likely to produce the best results; and the identification of weak levels of knowledge, negative attitudes, and inappropriate practices. Briefing or training sessions for field workers can also be focussed on real information needs and specific characteristics of the intended target audiences, rather than formulating workshop goals and contents based upon the best judgements of an urban planning team. As the campaign unfolds, monitoring and small scale field evaluations can accurately point to where emphasis should be redirected, or where content units need reinforcement. Finally, postcampaign impact evaluations can focus on both quantitative and qualitative results for comparison with before-campaign or baseline data, and as such, function as accurate "feedforward" for sustaining the effects of a given campaign, or planning for carrying out new ones. The campaign methodology advocated by FAO also includes both a "Management Plan" and a "Staff Training Plan" . Reference will be made to these components in describing the Lesotho campaigns, but our main focus will be on the DSC Process Model as it was applied over the 18 months of the case study. (Appendix I includes a more detailed summary of the Process Model as background reference for DSC practitioners.) SETTING THE FRAMEWORK FOR COMMUNICATION CAMPAIGNS IN LESOTHO THE NATIONAL SETTING Because of its geographical position and mountainous features, the Kingdom of Lesotho has attracted a number of colourful descriptors. It is not unusual, for example, to hear of it referred to as "The Switzerland of Africa", or "The Mountain Kingdom". Certainly for the first time visitor arriving during the winter months, well-travelled Africa hand that he

or she might be, the initial impression of snow-capped mountains in a tropical continent is awe-inspiring; and even after some time the feeling persists that, aside from the racial makeup of its people and indigenous language, one could as easily be high in the Andes in South America. Lesotho is also affectionately known as "The Roof of Africa" or "The Kingdom in the Sky" because of its spectacular height above sea level. Indeed, it has the distinction of being not only the highest country in Africa, but in the whole world for its lowest point is higher than the lowest point of any other country. Its entire land mass is over 1 388 metres above sea level. Lesotho was established as a nation by King Moshoeshoe the Great in 1857, largely as a result of his leading a large portion of the Basutho people away from numerically superior, warring Southern African tribes into the environmentally inhospitable, but more easily protected territory. Approximately 20 years later, as a result of increasing pressure from white South African settlers, overtures made to Queen Victoria were favourably received such that the British Crown Colony of Basutoland was created in 1868. Masenu became the capital in 1869, one year after the British assumed responsibility for the administration and protection of the country. The Kingdom of Lesotho was created when the country came to independence in 1966, initially functioning under the aegis of a Westminster style parliamentary constitution. Currently, the country is governed by a national assembly under the leadership of a Military Council. The land left to the descendants of the followers of Moshoeshoe I consists largely of a range of mountains, the "Malutis", which occupy over two-thirds of the country. The foothills descend to a narrow plateau along the western border of the country and comprise most of the 13% of land suitable for cultivation. Only a small portion of a, however, is good farming land and severe erosion over the years has reduced the amount of productive soil even further. All land in Lesotho has continued to remain the property of the nation, held in trust by the Head of State - currently King Moshoeshoe II - and only the right to use it is granted to individuals. Typically, a male head of household would have entitlement to a given number of plots for life, after which it is passed down to his heirs. Being allocated a piece of land was formerly considered a right but with growing population pressures, coupled with erosion estimated to be depleting up to 2% of arable land each year, there is simply not enough to go around. Indeed, the proportion of rural households without land steadily increased from 1~2.7% in 1970 to 25.4% in 1986 (Ministry of Agriculture, 1987). This doubling of Endlessness has taken place in the context of a country where almost 85% of its citizenry is rural based, where current annual population increases are registered at 2.8%, and where the estimated 1990 population of 1.8 million people will double in 24 years (Haub & Kent, 1990). THE AGRICULTURAL INFORMATION SERVICE (AIS)

The AIS began as operations during the mid-1960's and like many of its sister agencies in Africa initially functioned as a public relations service for the Ministry, with media distribution primarily confined to press releases, the public radio service, and some mobile film showings. From rather modest beginnings, it currently offers a wide range of information services. The staff component of about 40 people operates under the direction of the Chief Information Officer in eight sections comprising radio broadcasting, audio-vi-qua, aids, press and publications, graphics, library, stores, technical/maintenance, and accounts and administration. The variety of visual and print materials produced by the service encompasses posters, slide presentations, photographs, handouts, flyers, flip-charts, and a quarterly magazine. Small format video has also been recently added to the roster of media capability. By far the largest activity of AIS, however, is in radio production. Operating under the banner of "Re Bitsa Lehoai" or Calling All Farmers", eleven programmes per week are broadcast for a total of 210 minutes of air time. The regular schedule includes a Monday through Saturday 15minute,earlymorning broadcast(5.45-6.00a.m.), and an evening session beginning at 6.15 p.m. - which varies between 15 and 30 minutes - from Monday through Saturday, except for Thursday. Field interviews with progressive farmers and subject matter specialists are intermixed with traditional music, weather and market reports, and lively dramatic sequences on topics of seasonal interest. The AIS is in an excellent position to exploit the use of broadcasting and a variety of print media. For a start, the country has a unified language, Sesotho, which, aside from English being used in parallel in the capital city of Maseru, is common to all Basutho, the indigenous people of Lesotho. As well, the literacy rate of those reading Sesotho is comparatively high among the adult population with estimates ranging between 65 and 70%. Lesotho's relatively small size and cultural homogeneity also greatly facilitates the transmission of messages for a mass audience. AIS material is broadcast through "Radio Lesotho" which covers the lowland regions of the country well but has severe Shadows" in the mountain areas. Still, overall, a relatively high proportion of the rural population own radio sets. A recent survey (Lesotho Distance Teaching Centre, 1987) showed a nation-wide radio ownership proportion of over 62%, with the greatest concentration occurring in the arable lowlands (69%) and the lowest in the mountains (51%). Eighty percent of those with radios reported that they were in working order; and of those without sets of their own, or with sets not working, about half said they listened at a friend's or relative's house. The general radio audience is thus in the neighbourhood of 75% nationally, and almost 80% in the lowlands where the bulk of the population resides. It should be emphasised that radio is the only mass medium in Lesotho since no national television production and transmission facilities as yet exist. Television viewing fare is readily available in Maseru and larger lowland centres, however, from two South African channels but to date has made no inroads at the village level.

A large portion of AlS's efforts are directed toward aiding the Ministry's Extension Service. Administratively, the country is divided into ten districts, each having a District Agriculture Officer (DAO), a District Extension Officer (DEO), several Subject Matter Specialists (SMSs), and approximately ten Extension Workers (EAs). The SMSs are each a specialist in a particular area (e.g., crops, livestock, conservation and forestry) and, while based at district headquarters, serve as technical backstopping to extension agents in the field. Other field based personnel benefiting from AIS materials are nutrition agents who are also technically assisted from their District Headquarters. As well, AIS is frequently called upon to produce audio-visual support materials for workshops organized in six Farmer Training Centres distributed throughout the country. Following the FAO projects, the Service is also now in a position to effectively carry out multimedia campaigns and to progressively add video to as range of media-mix combinations. The roster of activities and capabilities is thus extensive and indicative of a growing reliance of the Ministry on AIS to provide timely information directly to the jamming community, and to support farmer training exercises at both the village and training centre level. FAO ASSISTANCE IN DESIGNING, IMPLEMENTING, MONITORING, AND EVALUATING MULTI-CHANNEL COMMUNICATION CAMPAIGNS Prior to FAO involvement, it was apparent that although the AIS was performing an increasingly valuable function, most of as staff were formally untrained in media production for a multi-channel communication strategy. Many were recruited directly from the ranks of Certificate or Diploma graduates of the Lesotho Agricultural College and some were seconded from other sections of the Ministry,. In order to prepare the Service for undertaking campaigns, the first FAO project kicked off with a six week combined workshop in radio/audio-cassette and slide production methods conducted by two FAO consultants. This was followed by the first exercise in communication campaigns, under the guidance of an FAO field communication consultant. The followup project included an FAO campaign production management consultancy, video production workshops, and guidance in designing and evaluating the second campaign exercise. A detailed description of how the campaigns evolved, and affected their target audiences, follows.

CAMPAIGN EXERCISE 1: INCREASING MAIZE PRODUCTION,REDUCING POST-HARVEST LOSSES SETTING THE OBJECTIVES AND TARGET AREA Two districts had been selected by the Ministry for initial campaign concentration, one in the "lowlands" of the Northern Region of the country (Butha Buthe), and the other in the Mountainous interior (Thaba Tseka). In both districts it was decided that the District Agricultural Officers (DOAs) and Subject Matter Specialists (SMSs) should carry out the needs assessments and prioritise the key development objectives to be supported by communication campaigns. The initial meetings with the AIS planning team at the pilot District Headquarters were thus spent in firming up, and setting into a communication context, the decisions taken. Coincidentally, the themes selected in both districts revolved around maize production, in the case of Butha Buthe to increase maize yields through adoption of high yielding seed varieties and recommended cultivation practices, and for the mountain district to increase the supply of an early maturing, high yielding, single strain highland maize variety found only in that area (seed multiplication). Reducing post-harvest losses through the construction of stone and cement silos would be a common aim for both districts. The focus on maize production coincided well with the development priorities of the Ministry of Agriculture. Maize is the staple food in Lesotho but the nation has been unable to produce even half of its domestic annual requirements. In 1986, for example, only 43% of national consumption was locally grown leaving 57% to be imported from other countries. With this perspective in view, the broad goal of the campaign was to contribute toward the national development priority of achieving self-sufficiency in maize production. Specific communication objectives evolving from the goal would be 1) to significantly increase knowledge levels where warranted, and 2) to meet farmers' expressed information needs with respect to recommended seed varieties and methods of maize production, and reducing post-harvest losses. Content emphasis for both objectives would be set forth following the results of a baseline survey. The campaign was set for the 1987-1988 cropping season which runs roughly from September through April. With the FAO Field Communication Consultant's arrival in Lesotho during the first week in July, this meant that the planning and preparation period prior to kicking off the first campaign presentations in mid-September would be restricted to about eight to ten weeks. CONDUCTING THE BASELINE SURVEY The immediate priority of the planning team was to determine the specific information units to be concentrated upon, which would form the basis for assessing target audience information levels through the baseline survey. The AIS team responsible for producing

media materials again met with the crop specialists in the target districts. Further discussions were held with maize specialists in Maseru, and relevant research literature on the topic was examined. Out of this content research, nine specific maize production operations were delineated:

Land Preparation Choosing Certified, High Yielding Seeds Planting Methods Use of Fertilizers (Basic & Top Dressing) Weeding Methods Disease Control Pest Control Knowing When to Harvest Reducing Post-Harvest Losses

With the content units in view, a baseline questionnaire was developed which concentrated on knowledge levels - practices - and felt Information needs. The rationale for this line of questioning was to determine where areas of knowledge were weak, which practices should be changed, and perhaps most important, to provide a framework for communication inputs based directly upon the target audience's expressed information needs. Since up to 70% of Lesotho farms are run by women in the absence of their husbands seeking employment in the mines of South Africa, we were also interested in determining if they made individual decisions such as seed selection, fertiliser applications, and hiring outside plowing and planting operators. A concluding section of the questionnaire assessed media access, frequency of exposure to agricultural radio broadcasts, predominant listening times, and farmers' perceptions of the most useful of all available sources of information. (Appendix II includes a copy of the Questionnaire.) By the end of the third week in July, the questionnaire was ready to be taken to the field. Initially, we had planned to survey the interior mountain district first before moving down to the lowland area. Unfortunately, the timing coincided with a severe snow storm which blocked the mountain roads for virtually a whole week. Because of schedule pressures, we thus decided to concentrate our baseline survey efforts on the northern district of Butha Buthe. The primary target area within the district consisted of ten villages spread out over a length of about ten miles along a secondary road. Four of these villages were randomly selected for head of household interviews. Our strategy was to interview about twenty people in each village chosen on the basis of 1) indication that they would be planting maize during the forthcoming season, and 2) their wish to take part in listening to and viewing audio-visual presentations which would come to their village over a seven month period, as well as tune in to a weekly radio broadcast dedicated to their area. Questions were given in Sesotho with responses simultaneously recorded in English. Altogether, 71

farmers were included in the baseline survey (65% female, 35% male) which was undertaken over a three day period. The interviews were conducted by four staff members from the Planning Department of the Ministry of Agriculture as well as the Campaign Director and his assistant. The results of the survey were tabulated during the fifth and sixth weeks and grouped according to each of the sections of the planned campaign. Thus, for each maize production operation, the results indicated which information points needed particular reinforcement, where recommended practices were weak, and what specific information points were requested by respondents. Interestingly, a strong correlation was noted between areas where knowledge levels were low and specific requests for information. Content guidelines units were then developed for media producers as to where emphasis should be placed in each of the information units to achieve maximum effectiveness in the campaign. Of further specific interest to the campaign planners was the size of the general radio listening audience, which the survey revealed to be about 90% of the sample. About 65% tuned in to agricultural broadcasts; and among the listeners, 72% said they tuned in to only the evening broadcasts, with 19% listening to both morning and evening programmes and 9% to morning programmes only. Clearly, the evening slot would be the most favoured for campaign broadcasts. Agricultural radio was also named as the most important of all available sources of information. DESIGNING THE CAMPAIGN STRATEGY With the baseline survey complete, the sixth week of the FAO Field Communication Consultant's mission was spent in planning the content of the campaign in detail and fixing the presentation schedules. Initial planning suggested that the campaign should unfold in a timely manner with presentations coinciding with decision points in the seasonal calendar. Thus the first presentation during mid-September, for example, should concentrate on land preparation and the choice of recommended, certified, high yielding seeds. This would be followed in mid-October with proper use of fertilisers, in midNovember by weeding methods, disease and pest control, and finally in mid-March by harvesting techniques and methods to reduce post-harvest losses. As well, it was decided that the campaign would revolve around two delivery approaches, what we termed a multi-media Intensive strategy and an audiocassette listening group strategy. The multimedia intensive approach would centre on ten villages in the primary target areas in both Butha Buthe, the lowland district and Thaba Tseka, the mountain district. Presentation teams would move out in Land Cruiser vans from AIS headquarters in Maseru on a twoweek-out, two-week-return basis. One village would be covered each working day during the two-week-out period; listening/viewing groups of between fifteen-twenty farmers would be organized per village. Additional media support would include posters changed every four weeks to support each presentation, handouts to participants covering the

essential points of each session, and radio broadcasts dedicated to each of the districts over the duration of the campaign. At least one evening broadcast per week per district would be aired on Radio Lesotho. The audio-cassette listening group strategy was intended to cover the remainder of the districts in villages serviced by extension agents and provide a campaign multiplier effect. During the time the exercise was undertaken, there were about ten extension workers per pilot district. The eight or nine extension agents in each district not involved in the full campaign would be supplied with radio/audio-cassette players, the rationale being that listening groups of about 15 to 20 farmers would be set up in clusters of eight villages per extension agent. The presentation format would follow the AIS Introduction Playback - Discussion - Demonstration format suggested for the multi-media intensive portion of the campaign. Similarly, posters and handouts would support the sessions and radio would target both areas once per week. New topics would be introduced every other two weeks. All materials would be produced and/or assembled for distribution at AIS headquarters. The final week of the seven week baseline survey and planning phase was given over to providing a field communication orientation for the extension agents and crop specialists who would be involved in the campaign. Two and one-half day workshops were organized in each of the two pilot districts. The content ranged from an overview of the role of communication in rural development to a detailed explanation of all facets of the campaign, including a discussion of the results of the baseline survey. In addition, one afternoon was devoted to a village based demonstration of how to set up and conduct an audio-cassette listening group session. While at one of these sessions, the true value of the practical exercise was dramatically revealed. The content of the audio-cassette demonstration centred on seed bed preparation and correct methods of ploughing. At the end of the play-back one of the listeners in the group jumped up and ran off in what appeared to be an agitated state. Rather than being offended, however, he returned minutes later carrying a plough and enthusiastically asked for more specific instructions on correct settings! (See Photo #1) During the closing day of the workshop, the extension agents were taken through a detailed explanation of methods of keeping attendance at the listening group sessions, and asking for comments from participating farmers on sequences of high or low interest, understanding of the main points of the presentation, and whether or not they intended to card, out the recommended practices. These "monitoring" information sheets would then be fed back to the AIS production team on a monthly basis to allow feedback on the effectiveness of production strategies used and where changes might be warranted.

Photo 1: Ploughing demonstration following cassette listening group exercise. PRODUCTION OF MATERIALS AND CAMPAIGN DELIVERY Even though the AIS production team had a vent, short lead time of only one month to prepare the first group media session, the campaign kicked off as planned in midSeptember. Four presentations were scheduled to cover the first half of the campaign, namely, the September to December portion, with the one remaining presentation on harvesting to be delivered later during April. In order of appearance, they were: 1. Land Preparation; 2. Seed Selection, Disease Control, Planting Methods, and Basic Fertilizer Application; 3. Weeding Methods and Cutworm Control; 4. Top Dressing Application and Stalkborer Control; 5. Harvesting and Reducing Post-Harvest Losses. Due to gaps in the availability of appropriate visuals, however, only the first two presentations included a slide-tape presentation. The remaining three presentations were primarily conducted with audio-cassettes and support print materials. All were reinforced by a dedicated radio broadcast each week with 15 minutes allotted to Butha Buthe and 15 minutes to Thaba Tseka on the Thursday evening programme.

Photo 2: AlS-organized cassette-listening group. All audio-cassettes were designed along the following format:

Voice-Piece Introduction to Topic by Subject Matter Specialists (SMSs); Interviews with Farmers by AIS Radio Producers or District Extension Officers; Drama Sequence (Produced in AIS Maseru Studio).

The primary purpose of the audio-cassette programme was to introduce the presentation topic and provide recommendations (SMS voice-piece), discuss the 'pros and cons' of the recommendations with farmers, and then to show through a drama sequence how the recommendations fit into the existing village farm system (Photo #2). Each cassette would then be followed by a discussion, and where practical, a field demonstration by the extension agent (Photo #3). The multi-media intensive portion of the campaign was carried out by two AIS teams using mobile vans to deliver the village based group media presentations. A typical session would involve the van moving into a village at a time previously agreed upon with both the area and village chiefs. With traditional music blaring from its two loud speakers, the presence of the van could be heard throughout the village, even though it might be spread out over a half-kilometre or more. A "gathering time" would then follow in which the intended target group would begin to arrive in the village square, or what is termed a "pitso" in Lesotho. Often, this would involve several of the members dancing to the music and in general having a good time. Overall, at least one hour and sometimes up to two would be taken up with assembling the group. Once gathered, a welcome address would be given by the village or area chief. Again, this might go on for some time, but generally at least one-half hour was planned for. The order of presentation then normally included the following sequence:

Photo 3: Field demonstration by extension agent.


Introduction to Presentation by AIS Team; Audio-Cassette Playback; Discussion of Material by SMS and/or Extension Agent; Slide-Tape Presentation in Evening; Discussion led by SMS and/or Extension Agent.

Problems were experienced in keeping to the original schedule almost from the start, however, because of highly unusual heavy rains which blanketed the lowlands for two months. And in the interior the situation was particularly severe in Thaba Tseka which experienced heavy snowfalls, resulting in the death of several draught animals and small livestock. In the face of these constraints some presentations had to be cancelled; and most had to be pushed ahead to correspond to the shift in the agricultural calendar. In spite of the delay, the original target of ten villages was adhered to in Butha Buthe and expanded to thirteen in Thaba Tseka. Correspondingly, the extension agents in both districts not involved in the intensive area were to set up and conduct organized listening groups on an eight village per agent basis. Reports compiled by the AIS suggest that because of transport problems and battery supplies for the cassette players, an average of five villages per agent would be a more accurate estimate of the number actually covered. FIELD EVALUATION PROCEDURES Two impact evaluations were undertaken. The first, or mid-term exercise in December 1987 provided an excellent opportunity to not only gather quantitative data on knowledge gains and changes in practices early in the campaign, but also to gain a broad range of impressions from front line extension workers at the field level. It was carried out in the

same four villages as the baseline data collection, and attempted to reinterview as many of the original respondents as possible, provided that they had attended the presentations. All interviews during this round were undertaken by the Campaign Manager (see Photo #4), and two newly appointed production assistants. For the Manager, the exercise was invaluable in providing first hand impressions of the effectiveness of the campaign to that point. And for the production assistants, the process allowed them to sharpen their interviewing skills with regard to asking focussed questions and probing for additional information, techniques they could transfer to radio production. The additional benefit inherent in using media producers to undertake surveys was the direct experience in getting to know their farming community radio audience. While admitting to the possibility of a certain bias entering into a given interview with a member of the target group, the positive benefits of using production staff to conduct field evaluations would seem to far outweigh any negative consequences. Certainly, in the case of Lesotho there was general concern on the part of materials producers to faithfully record the comments of farmers, even if they reflected unkindly on the media contents per se or the way in which the campaign was conducted. Altogether, three days were spent in the field to reinterview 37 respondents representing 52% of the baseline population; 35% of these were male, and 65% female, a ratio which matched perfectly that generated in the original survey.

Photo 4: Post maize-campaign interview with participating farmer. Immediately following the mid-term field survey, a two day evaluation workshop was held in Maseru which assembled the extension workers from both pilot districts. Eighteen extension personnel were able to attend, with the ratio split evenly between the DEO and eight extension agents from each district. As well, two AIS officers participated as observers. The FAO Field Communication Consultant was aided in the conduct of the workshop by the AIS Campaign Manager, and by a DSC Officer from FAO Headquarters

who was in Maseru on a technical backstopping mission. The DSC Officer's contribution was particularly beneficial since it involved a number of applications of video. The first morning kicked off with an overview of the mid-term campaign results and viewing examples of presentations in the media intensive area which had been videoTaped by the DSC officer the previous week. In the afternoon, participants were spin into two groups by district and asked to discuss several evaluation issues including equipment durability and battery supplies, communication strategies and media combinations, timing of village presentations and number of visits per month, and the effects of unforeseen problems such as weather, supplies of technological inputs, and MOA ploughing and planting operations. The goal of these discussions was to provide a focus on what worked well, what worked badly, and how the remainder of the current and future campaigns might be improved. Participants were also asked to comment on the monitoring methods which were outlined at the start of the campaign. The focus here was on the size of the listening groups, number of villages covered per extension worker, interest in and understanding of the content of the presentations, whether the timing of the presentations fn into the agricultural calendar, and how much of the learning that was taking place was being put into practice. At the end of the period the DEO from each group summarised the main points arising from the discussion and subsequent recommendations. Both presentations were video-taped. The morning of the second day started with a video playback of the previous days evaluation reports as a lead-in to a discussion on issues related to future campaigns, especially within the context of field communication support for extension workers. Discussion groups were again organized by district with summary reports delivered by DEOs back to the full workshop. These reports were also video-taped, in this case for presentation to the Director of Field Services. His reply to the concerns raised, in turn, was recorded for future reference. Overall, the video methodology employed sewed to sharpen the focus of the group reports and there is little doubt that it added greatly to the lively interaction experienced during the sessions. Its potential for similar workshops of this nature should definitely be underscored. The post-campaign impact survey was conducted during June 1988, or approximately one month after harvesting had been completed. In this case we were interested in assessing reactions to the second had of the campaign, namely, knowledge levels and practices with regard to reducing post-harvest losses. As well, a section of the questionnaire was devoted to assessing whether the intensive media campaign respondents had been listening to radio broadcasts dedicated to their area, whether they would like to see more slide-tape programmes in their village, and if so, the range of topics they would like to have information on. The latter question was intended as feed-forward for other potential campaigns and regular radio broadcasts.

Again because of problems encountered in the presentation schedule, only two villages out of the original four in the baseline survey had been exposed to the final campaign materials. Our impact survey was thus confined to a maximum total of 35 respondents, out of whom 24 (30% male, 70% female) had actually attended the "post-harvest losses" presentation. Two days, or one day per village, were spent in reinterviewing the relevant respondents. RESULTS Figure 1 presents the overall comparative picture of knowledge levels for each maize production operation before, and after, the intensive multi-media campaign presentations. Figure 2 in turn shows the mid-term and post-campaign levels compared with the precampaign knowledge base. The knowledge levels are based on a maximum score of 42 for the mid-term survey and a maximum score of 11 for the post-campaign survey. On a percentage basis the mid-term scores (which combine i and Preparation through Disease Control) increased from a baseline level of 21% to 39%; and knowledge of how to reduce post-harvest losses increased from a pre-campaign level of 25% to a post-campaign figure of 47%. Overall, these figures translate into a relative gain of 83% for the midterm survey and 85% for the post-campaign survey.

Figure 1: Pre and post-campaign knowledge levels by maize production operation

Figure 2: Comparison of pre-campaign maize production knowledge base with mid-term and post-campaign levels. Closer inspection of Figure 1 shows that solid gains were made in knowledge of - and Preparation Techniques, Use of Fertilizers, Disease and Pest Control, and Reducing PostHarvest Losses. Also impressive was the learning acquired with regard to recommended Weeding Methods which all respondents demonstrated after attending the campaign presentation, an observation also mentioned in extension agent reports. Another interesting finding was noted in comparing those who listened regularly to the radio broadcasts dedicated to the maize campaign and those who did not. In the mid-term survey, for example, 76% of the respondents were radio listeners. Their information level was raised from 21% in the baseline survey to 41% in the mid-term evaluation for a relative gain of 98%. Non-listeners on the other hand went from a baseline level of 22% to 32% at midterm for a relative gain of 42%. The more than doubling of relative information gains made by the listening group forcibly demonstrates the influence of radio to reinforce reaming from group media presentations and to rightfully take its place as a powerful component in a campaign media mix. An attempt was made to gauge the level of practice changes, if any, made during the short time-frame of the campaign. By and large, we noted a very large increase in the use of ploughing for seed bed preparation (from 15 respondents in the baseline survey to 29 at mid-term) and in the application of top-dressing fertiliser (from a baseline of 15 to 26 at midterm). Perhaps the most impressive of all the campaign initiatives, however, was in the promotion of stone and cement silos to reduce post-harvest losses. In the baseline survey 12, or 50%, of farmers said they would like to build a silo; this had increased to 23, or 95%, in the post-campaign survey. And out of the 23 expressing interest, 21 said

they planned to build a silo as soon as circumstances permitted. As tangible evidence of this expression, one farmer had already built a silo during the campaign period capable of storing 4 200 kilograms (60 x 70 kg. bags) of maize for a total cash outlay of 100 Maluti, or about US$45 at the time. The structure stands as a model for other villagers to copy (Photo #5). It even attracted the attention of the Minister of Agriculture who travelled to the village for a close-up inspection of the silo. The campaign was not, however, without a variety of constraints. Some of these were due to natural causes; others resulted from scheduling conflicts and delays in inputs from the Ministry, or supplies from cooperatives. During the early portion, as noted earlier, heavy downpours of rain delayed both village visits and planting of maize. And when the campaign was fully underway, on more than one occasion the team would arrive in a village only to discover that the village chief had thought that the visit was scheduled for another day! At times extension workers would be assigned to duties in villages outside the campaign area; and some male heads of households who were chosen as part of the original listening groups left the area to work in the mines of South Africa. This situation was particularly difficult for the evaluation team who wanted to compare before and after campaign results with the same people. The more serious of all constraints occurred in one of the four villages chosen for the baseline and impact surveys. The context involved the preparation of land for maize seeding, most of which is hired out to private tractor owners or undertaken by the tractor operations section of the Ministry of Agriculture. In this case, the village had opted for Ministry ploughing.

Photo 5: Stone and cement silo promoted during maize campaign.

After experiencing numerous delays in the arrival of the tractor, the end result was that the maize planting period was exceeded and farmers were forced to opt for shorter season crops, such as beans. When the AIS team showed up to conduct the mid-term evaluation they were met with less than hospitable villagers who assumed that, since the team was from the Ministry of Agriculture, they were part and parcel of the reason for their being unable to plant maize. No amount of reasoning would persuade them otherwise and they refused to participate further. They were thus reluctantly dropped from the group of campaign target villages. This incident served to confirm, as emphasised in the first stage of our communication process model, the importance of technology inputs and services arriving in a timely manner. For the most part, however, the anecdotal comments and impressions garnered from the AIS campaign team and extension agents were highly positive. In spite of the numerous problems encountered in the initial three month phase, the post-campaign evaluation team visited the target area when record maize yields had been gathered and when the majority of villagers were contemplating not only sufficient food for the coming year, but income generated from selling portions of the harvest as well. Demonstrably, farmers were only too pleased to show us their harvest piled high in rondavels or covered with plastic sheets next to their homes (Photo #6). Similar reports were forthcoming from the mountain district. Much of this success must be shared with plentiful rain, and good weather during harvesting, but certainly the AIS team could be pleased with their first efforts in mounting a multi-channel communication campaign. In the wake of the maize campaign, discussions were held with the District Agricultural Officer concerning possible topics for further concentration. Based upon suggestions given by farmers during the post-campaign survey, and the fact that a full 97% of them expressed a desire to see more village based presentations, H was decided to redo the media intensive maize campaign in Butha Buthe district, but in a new area. The ten villages included in the previous area would revert to cassette-listening groups organized by the local extension agents. And in Thaba Tseka, where the emphasis on seed multiplication had been successfully moved along, the theme for campaign continuation changed to livestock rearing and range management, topics of high priority for this part of the counts.

Photo 6: Sample of maize harvest after the campaign While the two original pilot districts were planning their second year of operation (198889), a third district was added to the roster for FAO assistance to further improve AlS's capacity to undertake field based communication campaigns. In preparation, an FAO consultant with expertise in campaign production management spent three months with the AIS during the June through August planning period. Additional field playback equipment was purchased (Public Address sound system, radio/cassette recorders) as well as a Toyota Land Cruiser. Video would be added later to the AIS range of media production with training workshops organized during the September through November period, not early enough to be included in the new pilot district, but certainly to be considered in later campaigns. Finally, the same FAO Field Communication Consultant involved in designing and evaluating the first campaign exercise moved directly to assisting the AIS team with the background target audience KAP survey necessary to coherently plan the production, delivery, monitoring and evaluation of the campaign in the new pilot area.

CAMPAIGN EXERCISE 2: INCREASING SORGHUM PRODUCTION, REDUCING POST-HARVEST LOSSES SETTING THE OBJECTIVES Given that the object of FAO assistance in the second TOP was to consolidate AlS's Communication Campaign Strategies, we decided to replicate as far as possible those elements that had worked well in the first campaign exercise, and to try to improve upon areas of weakness. The over-riding factor, in essence, was to refine the Development Support Communication Process Model in a new setting, and 'consolidate' a practical approach to carrying out multi-channel communication campaigns. The new pilot district selected, Mohale's Hoek, is in the southern region of the country and in general is characterised as an arid area. Several internationally sponsored irrigation schemes are on-going as well as "water harvesting" projects. As in the previous pilot districts, the theme of the campaign in Mohale's Hoek was determined by the DAO in collaboration with the DEO and various Subject Matter Specialists. The topic of high priority decided upon, in line wan the dry nature of the region, was to increase sorghum production, a drought resistant crop. Correspondingly, an area in the district with high potential for expanded sorghum cropping was selected for the multi-media intensive portion of the campaign. The specific objectives of the campaign were to 1) significantly increase knowledge levels where warranted, and 2) to meet farmers' expressed information needs with respect to recommended seed varieties and methods of sorghum production, and reducing postharvest losses. Preliminary information supplied by the SMS also suggested that sorghum was primarily used for making soft porridge and 'joala', a local beer. If this were borne out by the target audience baseline survey, additional objectives of the campaign would be to promote a variety of nutritional dishes which could be made from sorghum, and to change attitudes toward its perceived, more limited, 'traditional' uses. STRATEGY DEVELOPMENT As opposed to the previous campaigns which were designed to run for a full cropping cycle, because of the timing of the FAO project which was due to come to an end in December, H was decided to run the entire set of campaign materials over a three and one-half month period. With a start-up date of mid-August, this would mean a completion date at the end of November with the impact survey to follow-up in December. Essentially, the same design and materials delivery strategy was to be used as in the previous exercises. And since the production of sorghum is closely related to maize, we were able to quickly adapt both the baseline survey methodology questionnaire used in

the earlier campaign. Again the same content modules were decided upon, with the exception of knowing when to harvest. This section was eliminated from the baseline survey, but others added (e.g., perceived advantages, disadvantages and uses of sorghum as compared with other grain crops, and safety measures when using pesticides) in order to provide a better information context for media production. The survey team in this case consisted of the campaign supervisor and four production assistants who would be involved in preparing campaign materials (Photo #7) . The exercise thus familiarised them with their target farming audience in the southern part of the country.

Photo 7: Baseline survey team for sorghum campaign. The media intensive target area within the district was a group of ten villages; four of these were selected for the baseline survey, three at random and the fourth because of the location of the Area Chief. The intention was to sample twenty-five heads of household in each. Our basic criteria for selecting a particular farmer was that he or she was planning on sowing sorghum during the forthcoming season, and was willing to take part in listening to and viewing audio-visual presentations over a three month period, as well as tune in to weekly radio broadcasts on sorghum dedicated to their area. Altogether 99 respondents were sampled in the four villages. One of the weaknesses of the former maize campaign evaluation procedure was in not including a "non-campaign" group with which to compare the before-and-after results of the target group's exposure to the multi-media materials and field demonstrations. This type of sample is normally called a 'control group' in the evaluation literature and ideally would be composed of farmers having the same ecological conditions and farming patterns as the campaign group; equality in pre-campaign levels of knowledge, attitudes, and practices would also be desirable. In responding to the same pre and post campaign questionnaires as the target group, the control group is designed to control for, or

neutralise, all factors which may be operational during the testing period so that the effects of the campaign per se can be directly examined. In practice, a "pure" control group is difficult to come by, especially where radio broadcasting is used as part of the media mix. And even among non-listening respondents, the secondary effects from talking to neighbours who do tends to contaminate the purity of the control sample. With the foregoing caveats in view, we administered the same campaign group questionnaire to an additional sixty-two farmers in two villages in an area adjacent to where the presentations would take place. It is worth noting that the villages had not been visited by an extension agent for well over a year before the survey, nor were they part of any officer's current roster. Our initial rationale, therefore, was that the "control" group in this sense would have access to only radio broadcasts during the campaign period; our post-campaign analysis would hence involve comparing the effects of radio only versus the multi-channel presentations. Radio in this case would mean a dedicated broadcast for the area, once per week on Thursday evening. The analysis of the baseline survey and the drafting of guidelines for media production was completed during the last week in June, which, given the timetable mentioned earlier, meant a relatively short preparation period of 6 weeks prior to launching the first group media presentation. The two-week-out, two-week-in procedure for the mobile van presentations - or what we termed the "first wave" - which operated with success during the previous exercises, was planned to be used again. An important variation was that, given the low knowledge levels on different ways of preparing sorghum as a household food, the week before starting the media presentations was to be used for village based cooking demonstrations by a nutritionist. During these demonstrations the high nutritional value of sorghum would be explained and women would be provided with hand-outs listing the recipes of the various dishes prepared. Prior to the launch date, the AIS team held a field communication workshop for the six extension workers in the district, five of whom would be involved in the "second wave,' of the campaign, that is to say, organising cassette listening groups on an eight village per extension agent ratio with one listening session per week. Each cassette, following the earlier format, would have a combined length of twenty to thirty minutes. Cassette playback sessions would be followed by a discussion of the issues raised, and where practical, a field demonstration by the extension agent. As well, the monitoring forms developed during the previous Butha Buthe and Thaba Tseka campaigns would again be used in Mohale's Hoek to provide feedback as to the effectiveness of the production strategies employed.

THE CAMPAIGN IN ACTION The campaign began as anticipated on August 15th, with the first presentation devoted to cooking demonstrations of sorghum and explanations of as nutritional value. Only one week was slotted for this activity, and rather than cramming all ten villages in the target area into a five day period, in-depth presentations were given in four villages with people from surrounding villages invited to attend. Leaflets outlining the various recipes were given out after the demonstrations. The multi-media intensive portion of the campaign began directly after the cooking demonstrations and more or less followed the schedule outlined in the planning stages. As a result of the slightly delayed start, the final presentation on prevention of postharvest losses coincided with the impact evaluation mission during early December, and interviews with farmers included in the four village baseline survey were literally conducted one step behind the AIS presentation team! Similar to the earlier campaigns which also had a short lead time between the baseline survey analysis and the first presentation, all group media sessions did not have the full complement of audio-cassettes, slide-tapes, posters and handouts. Indeed, like the maize campaign in Butha Buthe, only the first two sorghum production modules were media complete; the latter two were made up of audio-cassettes only with posters and handouts. All, however, had radio broadcast support (10 minutes dedicated to the area each Thursday evening), and excellent cooperation from the campaign area extension agent. Again, problems cropped up in scheduling conflicts, and in some cases poor turn-outs, because of insufficient advertising on the part of village organisers. In one instance, the death of a Chief's wife forced the cancellation of a presentation. With the tight touring sequence in place, the cancellation of a particular visit meant that a given village would have to wait for the next campaign module presentation a month down the road. Serious constraints were evident as well in what was originally planned as the "second wave" of the campaign and the organisation of cassette listening groups by the extension workers not involved in the media intensive villages. In the first instance, the radio/cassette players arrived late and were not distributed until after the campaign was under way. As a result, all extension agents who were to be involved in the second wave were assigned other duties and consequently had little time to devote exclusively to the campaign. Where possible, however, some did hold listening sessions but they were largely uncoordinated and certainly not in step with the schedule originally envisaged. This was further complicated by a haphazard distribution of audio-cassettes by the District Office and sufficient batted sets to enable at least eight playback sessions over a two week period. Consequently, very few monitoring reports were received from the field. To alleviate this problem in the future, AIS has proposed to place one staff member

in each of the three campaign districts to take charge of all matters related to local production and distribution of materials at the field level. A number of natural problems, impossible to predict in advance, were also experienced by farmers involved in the campaign. The most serious of these was a massive outbreak of cutworms which necessitated re-seeding of sorghum fields, sometimes as many as two or three times. In the end, one quarter of the campaign area farmers included in the baseline sample were forced to move from seeding sorghum to quick yielding varieties of maize, beans and potatoes. And among those who did manage to re-seed successfully, many were forced to revert to locally grown seeds after having started with a recommended, certified variety. Correspondingly, basic fertiliser applications were also much lower in the second and third round of planting. These deviations were well beyond the control of the campaign organisers and perhaps more than anything else reemphasised Murphy's Law that ``Anything that can go wrong, will"! Farmers of course know this maxim only too well, and the example graphically suggested to campaign organisers the need to exercise patience in the face of natural diversities. POST-CAMPAIGN IMPACT SURVEY Against the formerly described backdrop, H became apparent that the main focus for assessing the effectiveness of the campaign would have to be on as informational Impact since the only place we could expect any changes in practices would be in the use of top dressing fertilisers and attitudes toward building silos. With this perspective in view, the evaluation team took to the field, as mentioned earlier, during the last week of the campaign. In order to give as much advance time as possible for completion of the village presentations, the team - consisting of five AIS media producers - decided to start with the resampling of the non-campaign, control group. Out of the original 62 farmers, we reinterviewed 44 over a two day period (Photo #8). Interestingly, we found that 26 out of this number had not listened to the sorghum campaign broadcasts dedicated to Mohale's Hoek during the previous three and one-half months, while 18 had. As well, no extension worker had visited either village in the period intervening between the baseline and second survey. It was thus decided to designate the 26 non-listeners as the control or noncampaign group, and the remaining 18 as a radio listening group to assess the effects of radio alone on levels of information gained during the campaign.

Photo 8: Post-Campaign Survey (Control Group Village). Three days were required to complete the reinterviewing in the four villages initially sampled in the media intensive campaign area. Out of the original 99, we were able to resample 57 respondents who had attended the presentations. The retention rate of 58% for Mohale's Hoek compares with figures of 52% for the mid-term impact in Butha Buthe, and 69% for the post-campaign survey. Thus, on average, based on the Lesotho experience one can look for 60% participant retention rates over the duration of a campaign. RESULTS Figure 3 presents the before-and-after information levels by individual sorghum production operation for the full campaign group. As can be readily noted, a clear pattern is discernable with impressive gains between pre and post campaign knowledge levels. At least a doubling in knowledge levels for all production operations was noted except for knowledge of Disease Control (smut and oust). Even with these gains, some areas require further attention since the end results are relatively low; knowledge of certified, high yielding sorghum seed varieties, and pest and disease control are specific examples where either the audio-visual presentations might be revised, or run again for increased effect. Figure 4 shows the clear trend in knowledge acquisition levels between pre-campaign scores and actual gains made individually among the full campaign, radio only, and control group, the latter having no exposure to campaign materials during the period. The knowledge levels are based upon a maximum total score of 65 for both the baseline and post-campaign surveys. Figure 5, in turn, is perhaps the more interesting of all the graphs since H shows 1) virtually no difference in average baseline knowledge levels among all

groups (18.5% for control group, 18.8% for the radio only group, and 18.2% for the full campaign group), and 2) a relative gain of 128% for the full campaign group, 71% for the radio group, and 21% for the control group. These results bring into sharp relief the power of the combined multi-channel strategy and the wisdom of, wherever possible, using a mutually reinforcing media-mix backed up with interpersonal support at the village level. At the same time, the effects attributed to radio alone in the absence of any extension agent assistance forcibly demonstrate the strength of this ubiquitous, rural mass medium in carrying Us weight in any multi-media combination designed to boost levels of awareness and specific information gains. As well, the "spin-off" or secondary effects of radio can be inferred from the information gains, although small, made by the control group. Since both the radio and control group respondents resided in the same villages, H can logically be assumed that the gains made by the latter group were through interpersonal conversations with those listening to radio. Again, this is only an assumption since a "pure" control group was not available. The singular value of radio demonstrated in both the Lesotho campaigns supports similar trends noted in other ThirdWorld studies. Recent reports from India, for example, suggest that a new variety of socalled Radio rice" is widely used in many parts of the country!

Figure 3: Pre and post-campaign knowledge levels by sorghum production operation full campaign group

Figure 4: Pre and post-campaign knowledge levels by individual groups

Figure 5: Comparison of pre-campaign, post-campaign and relative gains in knowledge levels by groups sampled. Another interesting area presented in this campaign for the first time was a section on safety methods when using pesticides. Practices such as wearing protective clothing and face masks, spraying down wind, washing immediately if pesticide comes in contact with skin, and proper cleaning-up procedures were explained. Interestingly, all three groups showed significant information gains in this section of the questionnaire: the full campaign control group went from a pre-campaign low of 5% to a post-campaign score of 56%, the radio group from an initial base of 14% to a post-campaign score of 50%, and the control group from 10% to 25%. Indeed, the relative gain made by the full

campaign group makes this section by far the most successful of all the units included in the four module presentations. Certainly, the AIS team can be satisfied with their initial efforts in promoting good safety practices in this potentially dangerous stage of pest control. The overall results conclusively demonstrate that a successful campaign was waged in terms of information delivery but, as we noted earlier, a number of natural calamities combined to thwart changes in practices per se. In a short campaign of three and one-half months even with normal growing conditions one should not expect to see a lot of changes, but in this case we actually had a retrograde movement in some instances. Mention has already been made of the cutworm outbreak which forced at least 25% of the campaign group to abandon sorghum production altogether for the season after already seeding two and sometimes three times. Others, who had started out with recommended high yielding seed varieties, were forced to revert to locally grown seeds because of the expenses involved. Similar responses were evident with respect to the application of basic fertilisers, individual supplies of which were already used in previous plantings. Indeed, the only "timely" change in practices we found was in the application of top dressing fertiliser wherein among the 42 farmers who had stayed with planting sorghum, from a base of 4 (10%) who said they would use it in the pre-campaign survey, 15 or 38% planned to use H after the campaign. And as an additional post-campaign benefit, most farmers (94%) said they would like to build a silo and four said they planned to do so. For the most part, however, the report card on translating the large knowledge gains into practices remains to be completed and at least one more "normal" season is required before the ultimate value of the campaign can be properly assessed.

LESSONS LEARNED AS FEED-FORWARD FOR NEW CAMPAIGNS By and large, the general conclusion supported by the results sections is that the campaigns worked relatively well in the face of unusual weather conditions and other unanticipated obstacles. Most assuredly, they left little doubt that as a development communication strategy, intense multi-channel campaigns over a short period of time are capable of inducing significant surges in levels of awareness and specific knowledge gains. Less certain is their capacity to galvanize knowledge gains into recommended practice changes, but the outcomes from the maize campaign point to optimism in this regard. And as pilot exercises in this new approach by the AIS, they offer several guidelines for improving the weaknesses detected and strengthening future projects. The most obvious constraint inherent in all the campaigns conducted was the short leadin time for materials preparation and detailed planning. Indeed, the hiatus between the conducting and analysis of the baseline target audience surveys and the actual launch of the first presentations in all three campaigns was less than two months. The end product as we noted was that only the first two presentations were media complete, that is to say, they included the full complement of radio broadcasts, audio-cassettes, slide-tape presentations, posters and hand-outs. Slide-tape screenings were missing from the second half of each campaign since there was simply not enough time to produce them. Associated with the lack of sufficient time for production was an almost total absence of materials pre-testing which we consider to be an integral part of the DSC Process Model. Indeed, it can be well hypothesised that the "lows" in knowledge levels in some of the maize and sorghum cultivation operations could have been improved through pre-testing the understanding of media presentation content and appropriateness of technical production factors such as pacing, length of presentations, and attention holding power of the approaches used. Normally, in chronological order of increasing effectiveness of pretesting materials with various groups, the scale runs as follows:

Individual Producers or Other Production Teams Subject Matter Experts Extension Workers Individual Members of Target Audience (also called one-on-one evaluation) Small Groups of Target Audience (10 to 20 people) Larger Group of Target Audience (about 30 recommended; also referred to as Field Trial)

As the foregoing classification clearly shows, the further removed from the target audience, the less certain that a producer can be of the appropriateness of the materials developed. In the case of all campaigns, only the first two categories were used, with some input from the extension workers during the field communication workshops. The general rule of thumb in development communication, however, is that no matter how

standardised reactions are to a given set of materials by producers, subject matter experts and field workers, the proof of their effectiveness lies in reactions by the intended target group. In practice, this translates into testing a cross section of the materials with either individual members or small groups of the target audience. The importance of this activity lies in its potential for detection of errors in production design, and the opportunity to correct them before going into full scale operation. The field trial then becomes a test of the campaign in action and often is a validation of how thoroughly the smaller scale pre-testing was carried out. All things considered, we would suggest a minimum of six months for materials pre-testing and preparation - after the baseline target audience KAP survey has been conducted and analysed - for future campaigns of this order. Another pre-delivery suggestion to improve the conduct of future projects would be to thoroughly brief the extension staff involved on all aspects of the campaign content per se so as to standardise message delivery and responses 10 questions put by farmers. This would pre-empt the possibility of competing - or incorrect - information being disseminated and better prepare the interpersonal component for solid reinforcement of the media-mix. Again, because of time constraints, the pre-campaign workshops which were conducted for extension agents in our Lesotho examples concentrated primarily on organisational aspects of setting up cassette-listening groups, with little reference to actual content details. As for the ten village, two-week-out, two-week-in delivery strategy used in the media intensive target area, more flexibility would seem to be warranted. Notable mention has been made earlier of campaign presentations having to be cancelled because of weather conditions, scheduling mix-ups, poor advance notice, deaths of prominent people, and competing events during the designated timing for a particular presentation. Unfortunately, the rigid one village per day schedule over a ten day period did not allow repeat visits. Discussions with the AIS presentation team lead to suggesting about a 20% flexibility ratio, that is to say, allowing twelve days to cover 10 villages, with the two extra days available for revisiting villages in the event of cancellations. Future campaigns should as well incorporate the most flexible, and powerful of all group media, namely, video. As H currently stands, small format video production equipment has been provided for each of the three campaign pilot districts, in addition to AIS headquarters, and an FAO training programme was carried out over a three month period. In addition, playback facilities have been set-up in three farmer training centres. While there is no question that these will be useful for a number of training exercises, moving video playback opportunities directly to the village level as part of group media sessions would greatly enhance the effectiveness, and popularity, of campaign presentations.

A short reference should be made as well to the radio and audio-cassette format used during the campaign. Basically, the set pattern consisted of the voice-piece introduction by the SMS, followed by farmer interviews, and concluding with a dramatic sequence. By far the most popular of the segments was the drama sequence. While acknowledging the initial success of this format, it would seem advisable in the future to introduce and test other strategies to maintain a compelling mix of information, education and entertainment. Experimenting with village led versus urban expert presenters would be one useful approach; listeners also said they would like to hear more traditional music segments. These suggestions might be particularly appropriate for increasing the popularity of the morning broadcasts which at present command only a small portion of the potential listening audience. A final recommendation arising out of the campaign exercises, but which applies equally to the day-to-day functioning of AIS, would be the establishment of a communication research unit as an integral component within the service. This unit, which would minimally consist of a director and at least one assistant, would carry out, and/or commission with direct supervision, all research and evaluation to support AIS production activities. This would include as a matter of course baseline and impact surveys such as those described in this report, radio audience monitoring, and analysis of extension feedback from the field. As well, this unit would assist media production teams in the kinds of pre-testing exercises described previously, as well as conduct more rigorous experimentation of the effects of different production techniques and presentation strategies. As a case in point, the effectiveness of the extension agents' "second wave" listening group strategy of the campaign was not assessed here but could well have come under the purview of a permanent evaluation unit. Evaluation has been deservedly termed the key to Improvement; a communication research unit familiar with all aspects of the range of AIS production capability would be a positive step in helping media producers do what they do better. In summary, the pioneering efforts of AIS in undertaking the most complex and at the same time the most effective of all short term development communication delivery strategies are commendable. Sustaining development, however, should be uppermost on the agenda of any organisation dedicated to providing information, motivation and training for the agricultural sector. The immediate on-going challenge will thus be to maintain the considerable knowledge gains generated during the campaigns and to provide reinforcement where needed, so that further down the road one can look for changes toward recommended practices, and ultimately, improved rural living standards. REFERENCES Adhikarya, R. and Posamentier, H. (1987). Motivating Farmers for Action: How a Strategic Multi-Media Campaign Can Help. Frankfurt: GTZ.

Agency for International Development (1984). Development Communications, Policy Determination Paper # 10. Washington, AID. American Public Health Association (1982). Using Radio for Primary Health Care. Washington: American Public Health Association. Coldevin, Gary (1979). Broadcasting development and research in Tanzania. Journal of Educational Television, V, 3, pp. 70-76. Coldevin, Gary (1986). Evaluation in rural development communications - A case study from West Africa. Media In Education and Development, 19, 3, pp. 112-118. Coldevin, Gary (1987). Perspectives on Communication for Rural Development. Rome: FAO. Fraser, Colin (1987a). Pioneering a New Approach to Communication In Rural Areas: The Peruvian Experience With Video for Training at the Grassroots Level. Rome: FAO. Fraser, Colin (1987b). A Rural Communication System for Development In Mexico's Tropical Lowlands. Rome: FAO. Hall, Budd L. and Dodds, Tony (1977). Voices for Development: The Tanzania National Radio Study Campaigns, in Spain, T.L., Jamison, D.T. and McAnany, E. (Eds.). Radio for Education and Development: Case Studies. Washington: World Bank, pp. 260299. Haub, Carl and Kent, Marg (1990). 1990 World Population Data Sheet. Washington, D.C.: Population Reference Bureau. Lesotho Distance Teaching Centre (1987). Survey of the Potential Media In Lesotho. Maseru: LDTC. Ministry of Agriculture (1987). Lesotho Agricultural Situation Report: 1976/77 1985/86. Maseru: Agricultural Planning Department. Rosario-Braid, Florangel (1983). Communication Strategies for Productivity Improvement. Tokyo: Asia Productivity Organization. Sison, Obdulia F. (1985). Factors Associated with the Successful Transfer of Rice Technology In the Philippines Masagana 99 Programme. Rome: FAO.

APPENDIX I MANAGEMENT PLAN DEVELOPMENT SUPPORT COMMUNICATION PROCESS MODEL Steps FRONT END ANALYSIS 1.Needs Assessment Key Points Establishing major sectoral development needs through a variety of methods such as field surveys, participatory community consensus, consultation with field specialists, and analysis of reports. Prioritize needs, select most important, and identity key development or project objectives to be addressed; Determine H communication support is needed; Analyse whether gap between existing and desired situation is resource-based (supplies and materials), or communication-based (information, motivation, training) or both. Assess existing communication resources available, media access and preferred channels of target group(s); Determine if technology transfer inputs are readily accessible. Refer to existing documentation; Conduct baseline KAP (Knowledge, Attitudes, Practices) survey; Focus group interviews may also be useful. Select only tasks that are amenable to STAFF TRAINING PLAN

2. Development/ Project Objectives

3 Situation Analysis

SUPPORT 4 Target COMMUNICATION Audience Analysis PROCESS

5. Specific

DSC Objectives

solution through communication. Specify objectives in terms of target audience(s), type of change expected, under what conditions the activities will take place, and what criteria will be used to measure success.

6. Preparation Break down content into modules or of Prototype units, and select channel delivery Materials strategy (multi-media channels and interpersonal reinforcement; Group or mass audience - or both). 7 Pre-Testing of Materials Pre-test portions of materials as they are being developed with sample of target audience for attention getting power and comprehensibility; Revise materials where required and re-test. Pay careful attention to factors uncovered during pre-testing of materials.

8. Final Production of Multi-Media Materials 9. Delivery & Monitoring

Check for delivery system constraints such as viewing and listening conditions, and dependability of equipment used. Monitor how well programme content is received and where practical in-course" changes could be made to improve the system. Check appropriateness of channels selected and mutual reinforcement. Monitor feedback system between target audience(s), field agents, and media producers. Measure impact of DSC strategy

10.

Summative or through KAP summative evaluation Impact procedures. Use results as feed forward Evaluation for future production decisions & channel strategies. 11. Review & Replanning Plan for continuity, adjustment, and adaptation to changing audiences, project needs, and opportunities

APPENDIX II MAIZE PRODUCTION INFORMATION CAMPAIGN BASELINE SURVEY Interviewer: Date: I. IDENTIFICATION Name of farmer: Village: II. GENERAL BACKGROUND INFORMATION 1. Sex Male ( ) Female ( ) 2. Age Less than 20 ( ) 20 - 29 ( ) 30 -39 ( ) 40 - 49 ( ) 50 - 59 ( ) 60 plus ( )

3. Are you the head of this household? Yes ( ) No ( ) 4. If no above, ask, where is the head household? ( ) Not applicable ( ) Working in the Republic of South Africa ( ) Working elsewhere out of the village ( ) Other: 5. If the respondent not head of household, ask, what is your relationship to the head of household? ( ) Not applicable ( ) Wife ( ) Other family member 6. Do you carry out the day-to-day agricultural work on the farm? Yes ( ) No ( ) 7. Do you make the decisions concerning inputs for crop growing such as soil preparation, seed selection, and fertilizers? ( ) Yes ( ) No ( ) Yes, but jointly with head of household ( ) Other: 8. What area of farming do you mostly specialise in? ( ) Crop farming ( ) Livestock raising ( ) Both crop farming and livestock raising 9. What is your preferred crop?

( ) Maize ( ) Sorghum ( ) Beans ( ) Potatoes ( ) Peas ( ) Wheat ( ) Other: 10. Do you plan to grow maize this season? ( ) Yes ( ) No 11. How many fields do you farm? ( ) One ( ) Three ( ) Five ( ) Two ( ) Four ( ) Six or more 12. How many fields do you intend to plant with maize this season? ( ) One ( ) Three ( ) Five ( ) Two ( ) Four ( ) Six or more 13. Do you plan to plant other crops in your maize fields (i.e., mixing other crops with maize)? ( ) No ( ) Yes- what other crops? ( ) Peas ( ) Beans ( ) Other: 14. Educational level? ( ) No formal education ( ) Some form level (High School) ( ) Some standard level (primary) ( ) Complete form level ( ) Complete standard level ( ) LAC certificate, diploma or university degree 15. Other education ( ) No ( ) FTCs ( ) NUL (Science) ( ) LAC ( ) Credit Union

( ) NTTC (Teaching) ( ) Other: III. INFOMRATION LEVELS AND INFOMRATION NEEDS ASSESSMENT A. SOIL PREPARATION 1. What do you think are the main things to do in preparing your fields for seeding maize? ( ) Don't know ( ) Plough in late autumn or winter to destroy weeds and expose insects to freezing temperatures ( ) Work-in Kraal manure (if available) before planting ( ) Harrow fields prior to sowing ( ) Level soil prior to sowing ( ) Other: 2. Do you plough your land in winter? ( ) No ( ) Yes - How? ( ) Tractor ploughing ( ) Oxen ploughing 3. Do you harrow or level your land before planting maize? ( ) Yes ( ) No 4. Is there any specific information that you would like about preparing your soil for planting? ( ) No, already have sufficient information ( ) When to plough for maximum benefits against weeds and insects ( ) Modern methods of land preparation ( ) Land levelling techniques ( ) How to test for soil fertility

( ) Whether to plough before or after rainy season ( ) Other: B. SEED SELECTION 1. What do you think are the highest yielding maize seeds recommended for your area? ( ) Don't know ( ) PNR 473 ( ) TX 14 ( ) CG 4141 ( ) Silver King ( ) A 305 W ( ) Only local seeds mentioned ( ) Other: 2. What do you think are the advantages of certified (commercial) maize versus local or home grown varieties? ( ) Don't know ( ) Commercial is higher yielding ( ) Commercial is weed free ( ) Commercial is disease free ( ) Commercial is drought resistant ( ) Other: 3. Which type of maize do you plan to use this season, certified (commercial), local, or home grown? ( ) Don't know

( ) Certified - which type: ( ) Locally bought ( )Home grown? 4. For those not using certified seeds, ask the reason for not using it? ( ) Not applicable ( ) Too expensive ( ) Local type better ( ) Not available -- would they use it if available? ( ) Yes ( ) No ( ) Other: 5. Is there any specific information that you would like about high yielding seed selection? ( ) No, have sufficient information ( ) Best seeds for your area ( ) Where to purchase seeds ( ) Prices of certified seeds ( ) Kinds of certified seeds available ( ) Other: C. PLANTING METHODS 1. Do you plant your maize with tractor drawn planters, oxen drawn planters or by hand? ( ) Tractor ( ) Oxen ( ) By hand 2. If by hand, ask do you broadcast the seeds or plant them in rows? ( ) Not applicable ( ) Broadcast ( ) In rows

3. If in rows, ask, how far apart should the plants be spaced, or ask how many plants should there be per metre or yard? ( ) Not applicable ( ) Don't know ( ) 30 cm apart or ( ) 3 plants per metre or yard 4. If plants in rows, ask, how far apart should each row be? ( ) Not applicable ( ) 1.5 metres ( ) 2 metres ( ) 1/2 metre ( ) 1 metre ( ) Don't know/ no response 5. Is there any specific information that you would like to have on methods of planting maize? ( ) No, have sufficient information ( ) When to begin planting ( ) Spacing of seeds in row ( ) Other: D. USING FERTILIZERS 1. Do you plan to use any basic or starter fertilizers this season? ( ) Yes- what types will you use? ( ) No- why not? 2. Do you know the recommended starter fertilizer for maize in your area? ( ) Don't know ( ) 2:3:2 (22) + Zn ( ) Other ( ) 2:3:0 (21) 3. What about top dressing? Will you be using this as well?

( ) Yes- what type(s) will you use? ( ) No- why not? 4. Do you know the recommended top dressing fertilizers for your area? ( ) Don't know ( ) LAN (28) ( ) Other: ( ) UREA (46) 5. When do you think is the best time to apply top dressing fertilizer? ( ) Don't know ( ) Any time after the maize plants appear ( ) After 6 weeks or when the plant is 6 inches high ( ) About 3 months after the plants appear ( ) Other: 6. Is there any specific information that you would like to have on using fertilizers in your maize fields? ( ) No, have sufficient information ( ) Best types for area ( ) Amounts to apply ( ) When to apply them ( ) Benefits of top dressing ( ) Other: E. WEEDING 1. Are weeds a problem in your fields? ( ) Yes ( ) No

2. If yes, how do you control them? ( ) Not applicable ( ) By hand ( ) Mechanically (Tractor or oxen-drawn?) ( ) Tractor ( ) Oxen-drawn ( ) Chemical herbicides- which type(s)? 3. Do you use a cultivator for ridging and weeding? ( ) No ( ) Yes (Tractor or oxen-drawn?) ( ) Tractor ( ) Oxen-drawn 4. Do you hoe between your maize plants? ( ) Yes ( ) No 5. When do you think is the best time to begin weeding in your maize fields? ( ) As soon as plants start to grow ( ) When plants are about three weeks old ( ) When plants are about 6 weeks to two months old ( ) Other: 6. Is there any specific information that you would like to have on weeding in your maize fields? ( ) No, have sufficient information ( ) Recommended intervals for weeding ( ) Use of herbicides ( ) Other: F. DISEASE CONTROL 1. What are the main diseases which attack maize plants? ( ) Don't know

( ) Rust ( ) Smut ( ) Other: 2. If smut mentioned, as, how is it controlled? ( ) Don't know ( ) Using certified or treated seeds ( ) Crop rotation ( ) Fungicides- which types? 3. Is there any specific information that you would like to have on diseases which attack maize plants? ( ) No, have sufficient information ( ) Types of fungicides to use ( ) How to recognise smut ( ) Other: G. PEST CONTROL 1. What are the main insect pests which attack maize plants? ( ) Don't know ( ) Cutworms ( ) Stalkborers ( ) American bollworms ( ) Other: 2. Do you know how to control stalkborers? ( ) Don't know

( ) Deep ploughing during winter ( ) Sevin spray ( ) Curateir soil insecticide ( ) Dipterex grains applied to funnel of leaves ( ) Kombat grains applied to funnel of leaves ( ) Other: 3. Do you know how to control cutworms? ( ) Don't know ( ) Kombat mixed in bait ( ) Deep ploughing during winter ( ) Sevin spray applied to base of plant ( ) Dipterex mixed in bran or mealie meal for bait 4. Do you know how to control bollworms? ( ) Don't know ( ) Sevin spray ( ) Cymbush or Ambush spray ( ) Other: 5. Do you have any problems with insects in your maize fields? ( ) No ( ) Yes - which types?( ) Stalkborers ( ) Cutworm ( ) Bollworm ( ) Other: 6. Is there any specific information that you would like to have about insect pest control? ( ) No, have sufficient information

( ) Types of insecticide to use ( ) How to apply insecticides properly ( ) Other: H. HARVESTING 1. Do you cut and stook your maize before harvesting? ( ) Yes ( ) No 2. If you stook your maize, how do you know when to harvest the cobs (or take in the cobs)? ( ) Not applicable ( ) When kernels are hard and dry ( ) Other: 3. How do you thresh your maize crops? ( ) By hand ( ) Using animals ( ) Using machines 4. Is there any specific information that you would like to have ion harvesting your maize? ( ) No, have sufficient information ( ) Most efficient harvesting methods ( ) Other: I. POST-HARVEST LOSSES 1. In general, what do you think are the main causes of maize losses during storage? ( ) Don't know ( ) Grain is stored with high moisture content (grain is not dry enough) which causes mould ( ) Insects (weevils, mites, beetles) ( ) Rats ( ) Lack of containers ( ) Other: 2. Where do you now store your maize? ( ) Not storing; don't have enough to store ( ) In the house ( ) Other:

3. In what kind of containers do you store your maize? ( ) Not applicable ( ) Jute bags ( ) Baskets (sesiu) ( ) Plastic bags ( ) Cement/ brick silos ( ) Clay pots ( ) Tins ( ) Other 4. If not presently using a silo, ask, do you plan or would you like to build a cement or brick silo for maize storage? ( ) Don't know ( ) Yes, would like to ( ) No ( ) Yes, plan to do so 5. What do you think are the advantages of a cement or brick silo over other storage methods? ( ) Don't know ( ) Protect against rats ( ) Cooler temperatures for storing ( ) Protect against insects ( ) Other: 6. Do you use insecticides in your stored maize to protect against weevils and other insect pests? ( ) No ( ) Yes- what type(s)? 7. Is there any specific information that you would like to have on protection against post-harvest losses? ( ) No, have sufficient information ( ) Information on building cement silos ( ) Information on insecticides for stored maize ( ) Other: J. GENERAL SUMMATION QUESTIONS Please tell us what you consider to be the main problems in increasing the maize yield from your fields. (Anything else? Probe until no more responses forthcoming)

( ) Availability of high yielding seeds ( ) Cost of seeds ( ) Availability of fertilizers ( ) Cost of fertilizers ( ) Control of pests ( ) Control of diseases ( ) Limited availability of labour ( ) Weed control ( ) Erosion ( ) No rain- drought conditions ( ) No funds to purchase inputs ( ) Lack of machinery for seed bed preparation ( ) Other IV. INFORMATION SOURCES 1. Do you have a radio in your house? ( ) Yes ( ) No 2. If yes, ask, is it working? ( ) Yes ( ) No 3. If radio not working, ask, why not? ( ) Not applicable ( ) No batteries or ( ) Radio broken ( ) Batteries too expensive to buy ( ) Other:

4. If no radio in house, or radio broken, ask, do you listen to radio in someone else's house? ( ) Not applicable ( ) Yes ( ) No 5. Do you listen to "Re Bitsa Lihoai" on Radio Lesotho? ( ) Yes ( ) No 6. If yes, ask, how often do you listen to "Re Bitsa Lihoai"? ( ) Not applicable ( ) Every day, monday- saturday ( ) Nearly every day ( ) Two or three times a week ( ) Occasionally only 7. What time of the day do you usually listen to "Re Bitsa Lihoai"? ( ) Not applicable ( ) Mornings (5.45 a.m.) ( ) Both mornings and evenings ( ) Evenings (6.15 p.m.) 8. Do you know the name of your agricultural extension agent? ( ) Yes ( ) No 9. How often do you talk with your agricultural extension agent? ( ) Not at all ( ) Once a week ( ) Every two weeks ( ) Once a month ( ) Every three months ( ) Every six months ( ) Once a year 10. Aside from radio and your extension agent (delete as appropriate), where else do you get information on farming? ( ) No where ( ) Contact or lead farmer ( ) Family members ( ) School/ teacher ( ) Pamphlets ( ) Posters ( ) Cooperatives ( ) Agricultural shows/ field days

( ) Demonstrations ( ) Neighbours ( ) Other 11. Out of all the information sources that you have access to, which one source do you think is the most useful? ( ) None/ don't know ( ) Radio Lesotho ( ) Lead farmer ( ) Family members ( ) School/ teacher ( ) Extension agent ( ) Pamphlets ( ) Posters ( ) Cooperatives ( ) Agricultural shows/ field days ( ) Demonstrations ( ) Neighbours ( ) Other: