Farmers’ organisations and agricultural technology: institutions that give farmers a voice paper drafted by: Karim Hussein

Download 133.97 Kb.

Page	2/3
Date	02.02.2017
Size	133.97 Kb.
	#15460

1 2 3

The case studies revealed the diversity of situations and contexts within which agricultural service providers and farmers’ organisations operate, and the conditions that permit them to form effective linkages. More detailed reports can be accessed in the near future via the ODI web-site:

ODI: www.oneworld.org/odi/rpeg
Summaries of six detailed case studies of stronger and weaker linkages can be found at:
World Bank: http://wbln0018.worldbank.org/essd/essd.nsf/producer/casestudies

Box 3 summarises the cases studied as part of this research, giving an indication of the wide diversity in types of organisation and depth of linkages that exists in West and Central Africa. (link to Box 3).

Box 3: The dynamics of collaboration between research and farmers' organisations

Burkina Faso	Three case studies • Two cases in which the dynamics of linkages strongly enhance research with, however, a fundamental difference between the two situations: in one case, Diébougou (Burkina Faso), producers are organised in groups, co-ordination being carried out by a third organisation (the Diocese of Diébougou); in the second case, researchers have a formal, structured farmers’ organisation as a partner: the FUGN: Fédération des Groupements Naam (FUGN). • The third case shows the dynamics of a group forming part of a structured organisation, the FUGN, to which research responds positively when technical constraints are identified.
Guinea	Two case studies • A situation presenting strong, structured farmers' organisation dynamics on at a regional level, structured around several levels of farmers’ groups (Fédération des Paysans in Fouta Djallon). •A situation where linkages with research are strongly shaped by the institutional environment, with a farmers' organisation structured around one sector, grappling with technical recommendations not well adapted to farmers’ livelihood needs (Fédération Nationale des Planteurs de Café de Guinée –FNPCG).
Cameroon	Three case studies •/# Situations where technical requests from producers are made by organisations whose core motivation is to solve common marketing problems. Agricultural research institutions are situated in a difficult institutional and financial context, hard-pushed to rise above simple individual initiatives of researchers. These can be described as informal, ad hoc linkages.
Ghana	Six case studies # Five cases correspond to conventional research processes connected with extension services; the producer groups involved can be described either as contact groups, or as non-collective linkages (individuals and families …); research is working with producers individually as a function of its own research questions and research protocols that arise from these. • Another case concerns an initiative of the privatised Ghana Cotton Company, which piloted the formation of producer groups to take charge of certain economic functions before and after cotton production. The regional agricultural research institute (SARI) and extension service are not involved with this group, but research and extension support is provided by the Company.
The Gambia	Two case studies # A situation where research has collaborated in a conventional way with extension and mobilises a very small number of "contact" farmers to test agricultural technologies thought to solve farmer-identified problems/constraints; no organisational dynamics exist beyond these actions (State-inspired Village Development Committees exist, but are not yet strong partners for agricultural service providers). # Collaboration between a farmers’ organisation (ad hoc village development group) in the process of formation and an international NGO – ActionaAid The Gambia. # Another case is presented showing an emerging national farmers’ organisation based around sesame production, without, as yet, any direct linkage with national agricultural research and extension.

Key: # no research/FO linkages; • FO/research linkages

5. RESEARCH RESULTS
Introduction
Strong national federated farmers’ organisations have emerged in, for example, Senegal, Guinea and Burkina Faso These have succeeded to some degree in challenging state service providers to respond to farmer priorities and demands. They have also managed to establish contractual partnerships with public sector service providers and, in some cases, raise sufficient resources to purchase their services. Farmers’ organisations (FO's) have been less successful, particularly in articulating with public service providers, in Ghana. Ghanaian extension and agricultural research services have shied away from developing close partnerships with FO's due to their perceived political partiality and lack of technical capacity. Ghanaian extension services have been decentralised and are now subject to coordination by the new District Assemblies, and fora have been created for the coordination of regional extension and research activities - in which farmer representatives participate alongside research and extension workers (RELCs). However, these mechanisms have been criticised as being dominated by research and extension representatives and ineffective in making public service providers more demand led and downwardly accountable. Further, it is unclear whether decentralisation has the effect of making authorities and services more upwardly or downwardly accountable.
The results from the case studies are presented below under the following headings

 type and size of collective structure involved in technology generation process;

 initiators of collaboration with agricultural research and extension;

 type of linkage;

 sources of funding;

 ways in which public agricultural service providers respond to farmers.

Types of farmers’ organisation

The case studies revealed four main types of farmers’ organisation:

- farmers' organisations with several levels of organisation (at least three), from base groups (village or district level) to Federation level; this can include one or several intermediate levels of representation (in the case of the two Federations in Guinea and the Fédération des Unions des Groupements Naam in Burkina Faso);

- FO’s that assemble representatives from a number of village groups in and area or district (the case of Nyameng Kunda Apex Organisation in The Gambia);

- farmers’ organisations comprising more or less numerous structures operating solely at village level (the three cases in Cameroon)

- forms of organisation similar to base groups at village level, with no clearly defined structure (small localised producer groups, contact groups) nor collectively defined aims (case of contact groups, the aim of which is defined by extension structures). The numerical size of these groups varies considerably (from three producers in an example in The Gambia to 58 groups in Ghana in the case of Asuoyeboa co-operative, then contact groups of about a dozen members formed by extension structures in a seed production programme). The common denominator among these forms of organisation continues to be atomisation, absence of knowledge-sharing frameworks between local grassroots groups, a limited range of activities in functions defined by development intervention structures and, consequently, a very low capacity for collective action.

InitiatorsOrigins of collaboration with agricultural research and extension

In four cases out of the sixteen, requests came from a farmers' organisation, or in approximately a quarter of the organisations in our sample. In other cases that involved farmers’ organisations, linkages with research lead to another actor being involved, playing the role of making contacts and expressing technical needs. That actor could be a project (Relance-café (RC²) in Guinea, Développement Paysannal et Gestion de Terroir (DPGT) in Cameroon, Projet de Diversification des Exportations Agricoles (PDEA) in Cameroon, Lowland Agricultural Development Project (LADEP) in The Gambia) or a private company (Ghana Cotton Company). In the case of Nyameng Kunda Apex in The Gambia, the farmers’ organisation is in contact with NGO’s, but at present linkages with research are non-existent. In other cases, diverse actors intervene in the linkages and these tend to call upon informal groups and contact groups: private firms (Ghana in two cases), religious organisations (Diébougou, Burkina Faso) or extension services (Ghana in two cases).

Type of linkage between farmers’ organisations and research and extension

The most significant and successful institutional linkages tend to be formalised and established through direct bilateral contractual linkages (FUGN^³-INERA in Burkina Faso, FPFD^⁴-IRAG in Guinea, FUGN-IBE in Burkina Faso) or involve a third partner which is frequently a development project (RC² in Guinea in the case of FNPCG ^⁵, DPGT in Cameroon in the case of APROSTOC or PDEA in the other cases).

In other cases, these linkages are less direct: via the Church - the Diocèse in Diébougou; through a development project, PDEA^⁶, in the case of Tignéré Co-operative in Cameroon. The linkages are actually very indirect in the case of the research, development and extension project LADEP in The Gambia, because in this case the contract is signed between research and the project “in the name of the farmers” who are at this stage of the project far too few in numbers for such a process to have much impact on livelihoods.
In all the other cases studied there is no formalised linkage between research and farmers' organisations due to the weakness of the institutions concerned: severe weakness of organisational dynamics in Ghana; an approach to providing support to farmers that favours the development of "loose" structures of the "contact group" type in Ghana and The Gambia; and a difficult institutional context for national agricultural research in Cameroon, which finds itself weak and unable to respond to farmers’ organisations that are in the process of strengthening and structuring their movement.

Main sources of funding

Sources of funding were diverse in each context:

- most frequently, NGO’s or development projects finance collaboration between research and farmers' organisations: a private foundation and development project in Burkina Faso in the case of the Diocèse of Diébougou; an internationally funded development project (PDEA^⁷) in the three cases in Cameroon; development projects in Guinea (RC²) and in Cameroon (DPGT^⁸);
- one case, where the farmers' organisation has achieved some real degree of autonomy in commanding agricultural services, and is able to finance agricultural research activities from external funds allocated directly to the organisation by donors (Fédération des Paysans of Fouta Djallon);
- two cases where collaboration with research is financed partially by projects or NGO’s as well as through the direct contribution of producers via their organisation (FUGN in Ouahigouya, Burkina Faso).
Ways in which agricultural research institutions respond to farmers
There are two principal types of collaboration between research and organised producers:
- an institutional type, where research institutions explicitly take into account the requests of farmers' organisations in programming and implementing activities (Guinea and Burkina Faso);
- an individual type, more or less formalised, which is very dependent on idiosyncratic variables such as the personality and motivation of the researchers and the leaders of farmers’ organisations involved (this is particularly the case in Cameroon).
In the other case studies, it is difficult to speak of modalities of collaboration between agricultural research and farmers' organisations because FO's are in some cases virtually non-existent at village level, and therefore in a weak position at the national level (Ghana), or in the process of emerging (The Gambia). Further, in these cases institutional approaches to working in rural areas tend to remain very conventional and “top-down”.
In the majority of cases, demands for research (when the initiative comes from producers) often relate to relatively precise technical questions (case of drying fruit in Burkina Faso; wild rice with sorghum production in Cameroon; new cowpea varieties in Burkina Faso).
In certain situations, a technical inquiry is combined with a clear economic concern: in Burkina Faso, for women wanting to increase their income through producing better quality dried fruit; in North Cameroon, where groups want to increase their income by selling onions throughout the year; in Fouta Djallon, Guinea, where the farmers' organisations make requests to research that are focused on increasing the profitability of agricultural production; and finally, in forest Guinea, where coffee producers demonstrate concern for the "cost-effectiveness" of the technical model proposed to them by agricultural service providers (a model that is not relevant to their own livelihood strategies).
However, in Guinea (Fouta Djallon) a significant overlap between technical and organisational issues is noted: production is not developed within the organisation unless a connected and coherent bundle of actions can be undertaken that operate at each stage of the production chain (credit, input supply, technical information and marketing). In this case we can see an extension of actions undertaken at the institutional and policy levels into actions that defend producer interests, such as preserving access to national markets when this can be supplied by local production, all while maintaining a concern for competitiveness in relation to external markets (FPFD).
Section 6 presents the lessons for policy: how can external development actors support the farmers’ own organisations to become effective development partners? (link to section 6)

6. POLICY CONCLUSIONS
Introduction
Here, a number of lessons and alternative policies and institutions that support strong FO-research-extension linkages for technology development and dissemination are highlighted. Given the importance of FO’s in achieving concrete livelihood outcomes for their members, addressing these issues will most likely translate into improvements in livelihoods.
Institutional Context encouraging Linkages between the Public Sector, the Private Sector and Civil Society
In all the countries studied there were important political, economic and institutional changes occurring linked to the disengagement of the state, economic liberalisation and decentralisation: At the same time, in many contexts farmers’ organisations are gaining more autonomy and increasing their economic and technical capacities. The combination of these processes has had the effect of encouraging a re-think of the division of responsibilities between public sector research and extension bodies, farmers’ organisations and civil society organisations such as international NGOs. The latter actors have taken on a bigger role in the financing and provision of services, while the public sector bodies have retreated to performing a smaller range of functions (quality control, provision of technical expertise….) - but they typically suffer from severe funding constraints limiting even these roles. FO’s and other civil society organisations have taken on critical responsibilities once seen to be reserved for States – for example, provision of extension and research advice, community development support, direct provision of agricultural inputs etc. In this context linkages between public and private sector and civil society have become essential to ensure farmers have access to agricultural services
The Important Role of Farmers’ Organisations for Technology Development
Fostering strong relationships between agricultural research institutions, extension bodies and farmers’ organisations seems to be an important means by which appropriate and participatory technology development can be encouraged and assisted in rural areas. Strong relationships tend to involve contractual arrangements for the provision of services, representation on decision making bodies of research and extension, and FO access to funds to pay for these services. This is the case both for the development of appropriate technologies and their dissemination among farmers.
Characteristics of Farmers’ Organisations that make Successful Partnerships
This study revealed that the FO’s that were most successful in expressing and satisfying their needs in the areas of technology generation and dissemination had one or many of the following characteristics:
 possessing several organisational levels (at least three) from base groups (villages or districts) to Federation level; this can include one or several intermediate levels of representation (in the case of the two Federations in Guinea and the Fédération des Unions des Groupements Naam in Burkina Faso)

 based on free membership around common interests

 access to diverse sources of funding. It is recognised that in order to gain the power to demand specific services suited to their members needs’, farmers’ organisations need to have access to resources that enable them to commission and finance agricultural research and extension. In order for FO’s to be able to do this they either need to build up their own income (through membership fees, economic activities which are sustainable and yield clear material benefits to members, and relationships with government or international donors) or gain access to research funds, via such mechanisms as competitive research grants or jointly managed research and extension funds.

 based around successful and remunerative economic activities (sesame production in The Gambia; fruit and vegetable production, storage and marketing in Cameroon)

 benefiting from the animation, capacity-building (training, business management etc) and input/marketing support of external organisations

 based on traditional modes of organisation, respecting agreed social rules on interaction and authority (FUGN, Burkina Faso) or based on legally recognised rules and responsibilities for associations (e.g. 1990 law of association in Cameroon and subsequent legislation)

Small, disparate and unorganised groups of farmers created to serve a specific concern of international projects and extension services (e.g. contact groups to pass on extension messages or to carry out on-farm trials), and which do not benefit from national legislation recognising the role of farmers’ organisations in the economy, were generally much less sustainable without outside resources and much less capable of effectively expressing the needs and demands of their members. People come together in these groups willingly however as they are seen as a way of accessing external resources – whether that be agricultural equipment, technical knowledge or inputs (cf Ghana and the Gambia cases).
Capacity Building: Strengthening Farmers’ Organisations
The existence of strong organisations, backed by their members and federated to some degree (regional or national level) so as to give them more weight with public bodies, is critical if agricultural services are to become demand led and downwardly accountable. Hence strengthening the capacities of farmers’ organisations is a pre-requisite for balanced and productive partnerships between research and farmers’ organisations. Particular attention needs to be paid to the following points.
First, institutional support for farmers’ organisations (information, training, use of participatory methodologies, equipment and finance¼.) is required so that they will have the physical, financial and technical capacities to ensure that the requests of their members rise from the grassroots to the top of the organisation, and that they will possess the ability to formalise these requests and disseminate the results obtained. This support could strengthen internal communication and the links between farmers’ representatives and the grassroots, thus improving the representativity, legitimacy, and hence effectiveness of farmers’ organisations. Donors should be prepared to consider proposals aiming to facilitate the access of farmers’ organisations to funds reserved for capacity building and making competitive research funds accessible to them.
Second, financing mechanisms should be established which allow farmers’ organisations to commission research programmes. Such funding could not come solely from farmers/members of farmers’ organisations. It could include, for example, State resources made available to farmers’ organisations and used by them as a function of their needs, or through competitive research funds.
Third, the establishment of frameworks or fora for collaboration and co-ordination (at the local, regional and national levels) should strengthen the capacities of farmers’ organisations to make propositions and to negotiate with, agricultural service providers in the public an private sector - as long as representation is sufficient.
Finally, it is evident that initiatives to strengthen farmers’ organisations must be based on a secure socio-political and legal context, where there is guaranteed freedom of association and legislation explicitly recognising the economic and social roles of FO’s..
Public Agricultural Research Services
In a context where partnerships with a range of actors have become a practical (and financial) imperative, national agricultural research institutions have to create conditions that encourage dialogue with other actors as they are in a pivotal position. The ability to do this depends on:
 the regionalisation of agricultural research institutes so as to improve its orientation towards operational research;

 the development of systems approaches to agricultural research (e.g. FSR);

 strengthening capacities for socio-economic analysis;

 participation in a collaborative definition of regional development priorities;

 implementation of participatory methodologies and approaches which results in the establishment of a real and continuous dialogue with farmers (e.g. using PRA, PAR, Delta etc);

 00000000the creation of conditions and incentives (career and remuneration packages) which encourage researchers to collaborate with farmers’ organisations (e.g. CAMES)

 the development of national action plans for promoting research-extension-farmers’ organisation partnerships.

.

Public Agricultural Extension Services

Extension services have to be involved in this process more than they have been involved in agricultural research in the past, so that the agricultural research linkage with development objectives becomes serious and effective. These linkages need to be defined in a flexible way according to specific contexts, but taking into account:
 the reorganisation of agricultural support services that is currently taking place in most countries in the region;

 the technical advisory and support role for farmers that has already been taken up by some farmers’ organisations.

Establishing Effective Fora for Co-ordination and Co-operation
Co-ordination and collaboration bodies that link representatives of agricultural research, extension and farmers’ organisations (e.g. regional Research-Extension-Liaison Committees in Ghana) at the regional and national level seem to be indispensable for promoting closer research-extension-farmer collaboration. However, these bodies have often not functioned so well as a channel for farmers to express their needs and requests in practice.
In order to improve the ways in which these fora function, they require specific material support to enable them to cover the costs of holding meetings etc. Donors can provide funding for such measures. For example, the World Bank has historically supported these structures through its national level agricultural service support projects (ASP – e.g. in The Gambia) – although these tend to be projects funded for a defined period. Once the funding ceases, the actors find it difficult to cover the costs of regular meetings. Hence, the sustainability of fora for collaboration must be sought through the establishment of appropriate mechanisms for national/endogenous funding as project funding tends to be time limited.
Jointly Managed Funds for Research and Extension
Regional agricultural research and extension funds should be created, governed by a council of representatives from civil society, FO’s and public research and extension bodies. These can be used to support agricultural research on topics relevant to farmers and assist civil society and farmers’ organisations in drafting requests for agricultural research. They could be established as competitive research funds (following the example of the Hill Agriculture Research Project in Nepal, or the World Bank’s numerous competitive funds in Africa and Asia), but in this case farmers’ organisations may need technical assistance in preparing successful research proposals.
The Role of NGO’s
International NGO’s (e.g. Catholic Relief Services and ActionAid in The Gambia) and civil society organisations (e.g. the Diocèse de Diébougou in Burkina Faso) have played, and continue to play, an important role in the strengthening of farmers’ organisations. However, while their role as intermediaries is useful and sometimes indispensable, it is important to avoid their intervention acting as an obstacle to the establishment of direct relations between organised producers and other economic and institutional stakeholders. It is also necessary to address the problem of the sustainability of farmers’ organisations after NGO’s cease to provide financial support.