putting process into practice: operationalising ... · pra participatory rural appraisal rra rapid...

Agricultural Research& Extension Network

Network Paper No. 94

July 1999

ISBN 0 85003 425 6

The Agricultural Research and Extension Network is sponsored by the UK Department for International Development (DFID)The opinions expressed in this paper do not necessarily reflect those of DFID.

We are happy for this material to be reproduced on a not-for-profit basis. The Network Coordinator would appreciate receiving detailsof any use of this material in training, research or programme design, implementation or evaluation.

Network Coordinator: Cathryn Turton Assistant Editor: Helen Suich Administrator: Alana Coyle

PUTTING PROCESS INTO PRACTICE:OPERATIONALISING PARTICIPATORY EXTENSION

J. Hagmann with E. Chuma, K. Murwira and M. Connolly

AbstractThis paper aims to stimulate discussion on the operationalisation of learning process approaches to communitydevelopment and rural extension. It attempts to systematise a participatory extension approach into processphases and steps, which allow extension agents to understand the process dynamics, while preventing a blueprintimplementation. The systematisation, in combination with an intensive training learning process over one totwo years, is seen as the foundation for the development of field staff. The cornerstones of this approach aresocial mobilisation which includes local organisational development, action planning, experiential learningthrough trying out new ideas and options and evaluation of the action by the people involved in the process.Innovation is seen as a product of social negotiation and the spreading of innovation as a product of goodeffective social organisation and communication at community level. Therefore the extension intervention isgeared toward strengthening mechanisms for joint learning and sharing of experiences and communicationamong farmers and between farmers and outsiders. The immediate impact is a more efficient development andspreading of technologies, but secondary, non-agricultural impacts such as improved self-governance, areequally important.

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank the Department of Technical and Extension Services (AGRITEX) in the Ministry of Lands and Agriculture (MoLA) inZimbabwe, particularly Mr. Ernest Danda, who cooperated, facilitated and supported the initial testing and field development of ParticipatoryExtension Approaches (PEAs) from 1991–98 in Masvingo Province. Without the constructive comments on the manuscript of Evison Moyo,Kudzi Marovanidze and Sören Dreyer the paper would have missed important aspects. Their contribution and the contribution of the GermanDevelopment Cooperation (GTZ) through the Integrated Rural Development Programme (IRDEP) and of the Intermediate TechnologyDevelopment Group Zimbabwe (ITZ) is gratefully acknowledged.

A long version of this paper with all details can be ordered in the form of the booklet ‘Learning together through participatory extension;a guide to an approach developed in Zimbabwe’ from:Universum Verlag, D-65175 Wiesbaden, GERMANY Email: [email protected], Fax: 49 611 9030556, Order No. A-021-E.A video and a trainer’s manual on ‘Learning together through participatory extension’ can be ordered from Media for Development Trust,PO Box 6755, Harare, ZIMBABWE Tel: 263 4 733364/5 Fax: 263 4 729 066 Email: [email protected]ürgen Hagmann is an independent process consultant. He can be contacted at: Talstrasse 129, D-79194 Gundelfingen, GERMANYEmail: [email protected] Chuma is a research fellow at the Institute of Environmental Studies of the University of Zimbabwe. He can be contacted at:UZ/IES, P.O. Box MP 164, Harare, ZIMBABWE Email: [email protected] Murwira is a community development specialist working for Intermediate Technology Development Group (ITDG) inZimbabwe. He can be contacted at: ITDG Zimbabwe, P.O. Box 1744, Harare, ZIMBABWE Email: [email protected] Connolly is a GTZ advisor on organisational development and performance improvement in agricultural extension with theIRDEP/AGRITEX Programme in Zimbabwe. He can be contacted at: AGRITEX, P.O. Box 639 Causeway, Harare, ZIMBABWEEmail: [email protected]

iii

Putting process into practice: Operationalising participatory extension

CONTENTSPage

Abstract i

Acknowledgements i

Acronyms iv

1 INTRODUCTION 1

2 WHAT ARE PARTICIPATORY EXTENSION APPROACHES? 1Is PEA the same as PRA and other ‘participatory’ methodologies?

3 THE EVOLUTION OF PEA 3The transfer of technology modelTowards accepting development as a learning process

4 PEA PROCESS IN PRACTICE 6Phase I: Social mobilisationPhase II: Community-level action planningPhase III: Implementation and farmer experimentationPhase IV: Monitoring and evaluationAn operational framework for PEAHow to link PEA with research?

5 EXPERIENCES IN IMPLEMENTATION 13Problems and how to overcome themImplications of PEA for extension workersCriteria for successful PEA implementation

6 HOW TO BUILD THE CAPACITY TO IMPLEMENT PEA? 17

7 CONCLUSION 18

ENDNOTES 18

REFERENCES 18

Agricultural Research and Extension Network Paper 94

iv

Boxes, tables and figuresBox 1 Some key results of PEA in Zimbabwe 2Box 2 Blueprints are inappropriate 3Box 3 Innovator farmers are sometimes afraid of the ‘laggards’ 3Box 4 Spreading of soil and water technologies in Chivi Ward 21, Zimbabwe 4Box 5 Building trust in practice 7Box 6 The institutional survey in Chivi 7Box 7 Feedback within the community 8Box 8 Training for transformation 8Box 9 Being realistic: Lessons from Chivi 10Box 10 New things are learned through travelling 10Box 11 Strengthening local institutions 11Box 12 Defining indicators of success locally 11Box 13 Iterative PEA training process for operational extension staff 17

Table 1 Comparison of ‘transfer of technology’ and ‘participatory extension’ 5Table 2 Operational framework of PEA 14Table 3 Some problems and recommendations in PEA implementation 16

Figure 1 Learning together through Participatory Extension Approaches 6Figure 2 Linking research and technology dissemination with a participatory

development process 13

AcronymsAEW agricultural extension workerAGRITEX Department of Agricultural, Technical and Extension ServicesCLP and D community level planning and developmentFSR/E farming systems research and extensionGTZ German Development CooperationIRDEP Integrated Rural Development ProgrammeITZ Intermediate Technology Development Group, ZimbabweMoLA Ministry of Lands and AgriculturePEA participatory extension approachPRA participatory rural appraisalRRA rapid rural appraisalTFT training for transformationToA time plan of actionTPoT transfer of technology modelVCW village community workerVET Department of Veterinary ServicesVIDCO Village Development CommitteeZFU Zimbabwe Farmers Union

PUTTING PROCESS INTO PRACTICE:OPERATIONALISING PARTICIPATORY EXTENSION

J. Hagmann with E. Chuma, K. Murwira and M. Connolly

1 INTRODUCTIONUntil recently, development in rural Africa consistedmainly of farmers and communities being told what todo, often by institutions which had not taken the timeto understand their real needs. The results tended tobe poor, because rural people did not have any senseof ownership of the ideas imposed on them. However,change now sweeping through the developmentmovement is encouraging rural communities to becomethe prime movers themselves in efforts to improve theireconomic and social well-being.

Government and non-governmental institutions areincreasingly recognising the need to move away frominstructions and blueprint solutions, towards moreparticipatory approaches which support communitiesin their capacity to set and fulfil their owndevelopment goals. At the heart of this change is therecognition that rural people themselves are theowners and shapers of their own development. Thesechanges bring with them major challenges, not onlyfor the communities themselves, but also for theinstitutions which advise and support them.

For agricultural extension agents, this meansfundamental changes in the way they work. Ratherthan simply being agents for technologies imposedfrom outside, they need instead to become catalysts,helping communities achieve goals they have definedfor themselves. This means learning to interact closelywith social groups and communities, becoming betterlisteners and facilitators, and developing a responsive,two-way communication process between thecommunity and rural service institutions.

Participatory tools and methods which enable theimplementation of these ideas have becomemainstream during the last decade. In practice,however, these tools are often still used in an ad hocmanner, often isolated from the generalimplementation context. In agricultural extension, thismeans that a PRA is often carried out resulting innice diagrams and calendars, but the results are oftennot sufficiently linked to the implementation process,nor are the attitudes internalised with theimplementation agents. The following statement of aZambian extension worker sounds cynical, but reflectsreality in many cases: ‘the first two days in the weekwe do participatory extension and the rest of the weekordinary extension ’ . NGOs often report greatsuccesses achieved through participation, but whenasked how these successes were achieved, the

answer is: ‘... we use PRA’. The implementation processis rarely described systematically and is therefore nottransparent. This causes problems when scaling upthrough larger organisations (Hagmann et al., 1998).

The task of training several thousands of extensionagents in participatory approaches is a challengewhich requires a clear process description andunderstanding. If field-level development agents areto be able to implement participatory approachessuccessfully, they require practical skills and methods.However, even more important is an in-depthconceptual understanding of learning processes,enabling them to adapt the methodology accordingto local needs. A systematisation and a harmonisationof different approaches is therefore the foundationfor successful capacity building and operationalisationof participatory approaches.

This paper contributes to the discussion onparticipatory extension by providing an example ofan attempt to systematise and describe a participatoryextension approach (PEA) in practical language, fromthe perspective of an external implementer/facilitatorof the process. It intends to stimulate discussion withregard to the way the process is described, as well asto the contents of the process itself. The challenge ofsuch a systematisation lies in the fact that animplementation framework which is too rigid mightbe taken as a blueprint, whereas a rather vaguecompilation of tools might end up in an ineffectivepiecemeal approach. The approach described herehas emerged from a process of community-basedinnovation development – it was developed inZimbabwe together with farmers, extension workersand researchers (Hagmann et al., 1997; Moyo, 1996;ITZ, 1997)1.

2 WHAT ARE PARTICIPATORYEXTENSION APPROACHES?

In our understanding, PEA is a way of improving theeffectiveness of rural extension efforts by governmentagencies, NGOs and other organisations engaged inrural development. They have been successfullyapplied in Zimbabwe (Box 1) and many othercountries in both South and North. If they areinstitutionalised in extension organisations, they canhelp to improve organisational performance at theinterface between the service providers (theextensionists) and the clients (the farmers).


2

Characteristics of PEA• Integration of community mobilisation for planning

and action with rural development, agriculturalextension and research.

• Based on equal partnerships between farmers,researchers and extension agents who can all learnfrom each other and contribute their knowledgeand skills.

• Strengthening of rural people’s problem-solving,planning and management abilities.

• Promotion of farmers’ capacity to adapt anddevelop new and appropriate technologies/innovations (usually agricultural technologies andpractices, but also social institutions, health, waterand sanitation, and other rural developmentdomains).

• Encourage farmers to learn throughexperimentation, building on their own knowledgeand practices and blending them with new ideas.This takes place in a cycle of action and reflectionwhich is called ‘action learning’.

• They recognise that communities are nothomogenous but consist of various social groupswith conflicts and differences in interests, powerand capabilities. The goal is to achieve equitableand sustainable development through thenegotiation of interests among these groups andby providing space for the poor and marginalisedin collective decision-making.The role of the extension agent is to facilitate this

process. Researchers also have a role – they assistfarmers and extension agents in joint experimentationand learning processes and contribute their technicalknowledge to find solutions to the problems identifiedby farmers: ‘Participatory extension is like a school oftrying, where you try out ideas and share yourexperience with others.’ (Description of PEA by afarmer from Zaka District, Zimbabwe).

Is PEA the same as PRA and other‘participatory’ methodologies?There are numerous concepts, approaches, methodsand tools which are labelled ‘participatory’. Often thisleads to considerable confusion. To clarify what ismeant by PEA, a distinction between ‘approach’,‘concept’, ‘method’ and ‘tool’ is required.

Approaches are linked to certain values. Thismeans that approaches describe how certain issuesare dealt with and what ‘perspectives’ and ‘values’prevail. Some examples include participatoryapproaches, gender approaches, systems approaches,holistic approaches, learning process approaches, etc.To operationalise these, one requires certainconcepts. Concepts provide the framework withinwhich certain goals are achieved. Two examples ofbroad concepts are rural extension and integratedrural development, both geared towards improvementof rural livelihoods. These concepts can beimplemented with different approaches and

perspectives, e.g. participatory extension, top-downextension, gender-sensitive extension, farming systemsextension, etc. Concepts are broad and can thereforebe applied generally. However, concepts need to betranslated to specific areas and situations. The‘translation’ of concepts into an adapted, morepractical and situation-specific framework is called astrategy. Strategies may differ depending on thesituation. They are all implemented through the useof methodologies and tools. In extension, a briefselection of these methodologies and tools wouldinclude adult learning, group extension methods,farmer field schools, farmer-to-farmer extension,master farmer training, extension programmeplanning, diagnostic survey, demonstrations, PRA andrapid rural appraisal (RRA).

What then is PEA? PEA as developed andunderstood in Zimbabwe is an extension approachand concept which involves a transformation in theway extension agents interact with farmers.Community-based extension and joint learning iscentral to PEA. It integrates elements of participatorytechnology development (PTD) and socialdevelopment approaches such as action learning andTraining for Transformation which is based on PaoloFreire’s pedagogy of liberation (Hope and Timmel,1984). The PEA learning cycle and operationalframework (see Figure 1 and Table 2) suggests aholistic and flexible strategy, with steps in which avariety of extension methodologies and tools(including PRA tools) are flexibly integrated into eachstep. For example, farmer-to-farmer extension orfarmer field schools can be part of the PEA framework.In isolation these methodologies might only addressa few farmers and may even be used in a top-down

Box 1 Some key results of PEA in Zimbabwe

• Community-owned self-help projects increased in number andquality through bottom-up planning, implementation, monitoringand evaluation even without provision of any external resources.

• Community organisation and representation improved: farmersand communities have developed more confidence to expressthemselves. The approaches were able actively to involve andmobilise the poor and marginalised people in the developmentprocess. The outreach of extension increased, as well as themembership of farmers’ organisations.

• More than 20 innovative land husbandry technologies weredeveloped with farmers in less than four years. As thesetechnologies were developed by farmers with diverse levels ofskills and resources, they match the heterogeneity of ruralpeople.

• Rapid spread of technologies from farmer to farmer: in someareas up to 80 per cent of the households practised thesetechnologies after three years.

• Farmers’ needs and active demands have propelled change inagricultural extension. In the pilot areas, farmers activelydetermine the form of the extension programme together withthe extension worker.

• The performance of extension workers and their job satisfactionhas improved considerably. According to extension workers,this is due to harmonious relationships and shared responsibilitieswith farmers.


3

manner. Within the community-based PEA frameworkhowever, these methodologies can be more effective,as many more farmers are included. In other words,PEA is far more than a participatory methodology.

PEA is not the same as PRA! PRA offers manyuseful tools for participatory analysis and interactionwith rural people. The PRA ‘toolbox’ is extremelyvaluable in practice, but is not an extension approachin itself. PRA is a toolbox whereas PEA is the vehicle.The toolbox is most useful if transported in thevehicle.

3 THE EVOLUTION OF PEA

The transfer of technology modelIn Zimbabwe and in many other countries, the‘transfer of technology’ (ToT) model has been theprevalent practice for developing and spreadinginnovations. It is based on the assumption that atransfer of technology and knowledge from scientiststo farmers will trigger development. Applied toagriculture, this model assumes that farmers’ problemscan be solved by people and institutions who have‘modern’ knowledge. Farmers have often beenconsidered as the main constraint to development –as mis-managers of their resources – rather than thepotential initiators of a solution. The role of theextension agent is to assist farmers in putting theready-made technology into practice, despite the factthat they may not be appropriate (Box 2).

In terms of institutional arrangements andrelationships, the ToT model creates a rigid hierarchywhich discourages feedback of information. Researcherswork independently of farmers and extension workers,resulting in a poor understanding of farmers and theopportunities and constraints they face. The ToTapproach is fragmented, both institutionally and in termsof disciplines. Research concentrates on technology andresearchers and extensionists are seen as technicalagents. Social competence is not required as complexsocio-organisational issues (e.g. land-use regulations,power structures, conflict resolution mechanisms) areneglected or reduced to a technical level. The extensionworkers’ role is to demonstrate new technologies toinnovative ‘contact’ (or ‘master’) farmers.

The underlying assumption of this approach is thatonce innovative farmers have adopted the newtechnologies, other ‘laggards’ (or ‘follower’) farmerswill copy them, and the technology will spread tothe majority of farmers. In practice, this assumptionoften proves invalid. In many cases, the ‘laggards’are jealous of the more advanced farmers who arethen victimised, rather than copied (Box 3).Knowledge may also be considered a strong basis ofpower. Information as well as innovations maytherefore not necessarily be shared outside the elitist‘club’ of close relatives and friends.

The results of this approach to innovationdevelopment and diffusion are well known and neednot be described in detail. Poor adoption rates oftechnologies, poor performance of researchers’technologies under farmers’ management, neglect ofthe major stumbling blocks for successfuldevelopment – social, cultural, organisational andsocio-political power issues at community level – andthe neglect of local people’s vast knowledge. Givenits failure, there is an obvious need to re-think thissystem to develop more effective approaches.

Towards accepting development as alearning processEfforts to improve the impact of research andextension have been ongoing since the 1970s. Allhave worked for greater involvement of farmers inthe process. The meaning of farmer participation inrural development, however, still has some way toevolve.

On-farm research was one of the first efforts toimprove the ToT approach. Trials were establishedto verify ready-made techniques on farmers’ fieldsand to demonstrate technologies to farmers. Farmersprovided their land to carry out the researchers’ trials,and this was seen as farmer involvement. Thetechnologies were still developed by the researchersand adoption rates did not increase.

The farming system perspective was an attemptto explain farmers’ continued non-adoption oftechnologies. Farm-level constraints to adoption wereidentified and consequently input supply wasimproved – often fertiliser was provided free of charge

Box 2 Blueprints are inappropriate

Extension has normally promoted blanket recommendations for mostagricultural technologies. However, the farmers’ environment ishighly diverse with patches of high and low fertility, different soiltypes, microclimate and other variables which influence theperformance of technologies. The optimal management of suchspatial diversity can only be achieved if farmers themselves areknowledgeable about appropriate technologies and capable ofadapting to their conditions. Transferring blueprints does not helpin managing environmental and social complexity, but farmer tofarmer advice and learning by doing can be successful in enhancingtheir capability for adaptive management.

Box 3 Innovator farmers are sometimes afraidof the ‘laggards’

In one area we worked with an innovative and good farmer.One day we discovered that he had padlocked a well on hisfarm. We thought that he locked his well so that nobody elsecould fetch water on his homestead, but out of curiosity weasked him. He explained that he locked his well because hewas a good farmer. After some probing he explained that otherfarmers were shunning him because he is successful in usingnew technologies and that he now feels threatened that theywill poison his well. Nobody except him uses the newtechnologies.

Research officer


4

to give farmers a taste of the benefits. Still there waslittle adoption of the technology packages, as theapproach failed to address the diversity of farmers’socio-economic and institutional environments. Oftenit was difficult to buy the fertiliser nearby or the moneyhad to be used for other purposes, such as schoolfees.

Participatory approaches emerged in the late1980s as a response to continued failure. It wasrealised that most technologies developed byresearchers alone were inappropriate for smallholderfarmers. Farmer participatory research became theapproach to adapt technologies to farmers’ conditionsand, by the 1990s, to develop technologies togetherwith farmers. Farmers were by then seen as partnersin research and extension, and the key players in theinnovation process.

The major shift in orientation occurred when theenhancement of farmers’ capacity to develop anddiffuse new technologies and techniques themselves(farmer to farmer) became accepted as the foundationof agricultural development. The human resourcedevelopment of farmers and their social units(communities) then became the main target. It alsochanged the roles of the insiders and the support ofthe outsiders substantially.

Such approaches might not always lead tocomplete success. What is more important, however,is the fact that the process is owned by thecommunities themselves. If the process leads to failure,the community will still have the energy and theinitiative to re-try or modify innovations to suit theirspecific conditions. They will no longer wait for anoutsider to develop an alternative (Box 4).

Some lessons learnt. Successful experiences withparticipatory extension approaches as seen inZimbabwe have highlighted a number of lessonsabout effective innovation development andextension in community development:

Outsiders are unable to determine the ‘bestpractices’ for rural people. Farmers are the onlypeople who can make effective decisions about howto manage their farms within the many environmentaland social constraints they face. Even within a singlefield, conditions can be highly diverse in terms ofsoil types, slope, moisture content, etc. Whilst in large-scale, capital intensive farming these conditions canbe evened out (for example by using fertiliser, orlevelling a slope or an anthill), the smallholder farmerdoes not have the resources to do this. Instead he/she has to make maximum use of the diversity –forexample by using depressions in the field for waterharvesting or spreading fertile anthill material. Suchpatchy potential can not be exploited followingblanket recommendations from outsiders.

There is also a multitude of social and culturalfactors affecting how a farmer will choose to farm.For example, scientists and development agentsmeasure land use potential by its physical andchemical properties. For farmers, traditional rights ofaccess, spiritual attributes (e.g. the land as the homeof the ancestors) or social implications of using landcan have just as much influence on his or her farmingdecisions. It is an illusion that outsiders can everunderstand the totality of factors which make localstakeholders behave as they do. Therefore,technology or innovations and knowledge in generalcan not be transferred wholesale from one area,organisation or culture to another. For successfultechnology development, farmers need to experimentwith techniques and ideas, and adapt, evaluate anddetermine the practices most appropriate for theirown situation. Their capacity to do this by themselvesneeds to be strengthened.

Building of farmers’ management and problemsolving capacity requires joint learning throughpractical fieldwork. Teaching of ‘external’knowledge and technologies is insufficient if theknowledge is not directly applied and tried out byfarmers themselves. Capacity can be gained bylearning through experience, for example by farmerstrying out and experimenting with old and new ideasand techniques themselves. Learning new ways ofsolving problems has to start with farmers’ needs andpriorities. This way, learning becomes an iterativeprocess of action and reflection. Action learning(learning by doing, seeing, discovering andexperimenting) encourages reflection and canincrease farmers’ analytical capacities. It can thereforeincrease their capacity for effective problem solvingand for developing their own technical and socialsolutions. The action learning process is built on the

Box 4 Spreading of soil and water technologiesin Chivi Ward 21, Zimbabwe

This approach was very successful in the development andspreading of soil and water conservation technologies in MasvingoProvince, Masvingo. Some technologies, for example the modifiedfanja-juu (a soil and water conservation technology) in ZakaDistrict, spread very quickly from farmer to farmer within only afew years. Together with researchers and extensionists, farmersdeveloped more than 20 new technologies in Gutu, Zaka andChivi Districts and became the main experts in extension. Thesetechnologies rapidly spread among farmers. The confidence andpride which developed out of this process encouraged wholecommunities to continue and take more control over their destiny.

TECHNIQUE No. of farmers adopting technology

94/95

>500

>800

n.d.

n.d.

n.d.

n.d.

n.d.

93/94

>100

289

4

3

>450

>128

96

92/93

28

20

0

2

~50

78

0

Cropped fields

Tied ridges/Furrows

Infiltration pits

Fanja-juu

Mulching

Intercropping

Spreading of termitaria

Tillage implements


5

existing knowledge of the farmers. Outside knowledgecomes in as an additional option where needed.Ideally, the process leads to an innovative synthesisof both inside and outside knowledge. People canthen identify themselves with the innovation as it isbased on their own input and they have developed,tested and approved it to fit their specific situation.They will also be able to adapt it further in the futureif their situation changes.

The spreading of innovations depends on theinteraction between rural people and their socialorganisation. Innovations are essential for achievingchanges in rural livelihoods. The incentive or pressurefor change is a function of interwoven social,economical, cultural, political and ecological factors.Social and technical innovations are closely interlinkedand cannot be dealt with in isolation. Neither technicalnor social innovation on its own would make asubstantial impact. One example of this is grazingschemes – unless the whole village agrees to certainrules and regulations and monitors them, the newgrazing regime will not work. The experience showedthat the spread of technical solutions also dependson social issues such leadership and cooperation in acommunity. Therefore, successful extension has toconsider the social organisation and enhance farmers’organising capacities to facilitate the sharing ofknowledge and skills among farmers and betweenresearchers, extensionists and farmers.

The role of the extension worker needs tochange from teacher to facilitator. In a conventionalextension system, extension workers see themselvesas teachers. PEA, on the other hand, requires a majorshift in roles from teacher to facilitator. Facilitationmeans providing the methodology for the process,facilitating communication and information flow, andproviding the technical backup and options. Theextension worker supports the process withoutmaking unilateral decisions or dominating farmers.This implies that the extension worker is no longer

the main carrier of knowledge, but coordinates andorganises knowledge acquisition from several sources.Another role of the extension worker is to train thecommunity’s own facilitators, so that after a time,facilitation is taken over by trained community leadersand the input of the extension worker is reduced tosupport functions. This process can be timeconsuming, but once it develops its own momentumthe time requirement by the extension worker isreduced and effectiveness is increased.

In addition to process facilitation, the extensionworker documents farmer knowledge and experienceand produces simple guidelines and fact sheets withand for farmers. These are very important for moreeffectively spreading innovations and increasing theperformance of agricultural extension through farmerexperimentation and farmer-to-farmer extension. He/she assists farmers in their search for solutions byproviding background knowledge and options andencouraging farmers to experiment with the optionsand ideas as described above.

The research agenda needs to be fuelled byfarmers’ needs. Through the process describedabove, farmers and extension workers develop aresearch agenda together. The role of the agriculturalresearcher is to take up the questions identified byfarmers and extensionists and work from there. Withthe exception of some basic research, most studiescan be carried out on-farm in an interactive way inorder to find appropriate solutions to farmers’problems. Researchers can also host farmers on ‘lookand learn’ tours which serve the dual purpose ofdemonstrating new technical options and obtaininginput and ideas from the farmers. As it would bevirtually impossible for researchers to facilitate thewhole social mobilisation process, extension workershave a vital complementary role. Extension facilitatesthe general process and research can then supportthe experimentation and implementation process. Thesame applies to other resource persons who are not

Table 1 Comparison of ‘transfer of technology’ and ‘participatory extension’

PARTICIPATORY EXTENSION

empower farmers

farmers facilitated by outsiders

principlesmethodsbasket of choices

according to choice

use methodsapply principleschoose from basket and experiment

wider choices for farmersfarmers’ enhanced adaptability

farmer to farmer

facilitatorsearcher for and provider of choice

Source: adapted from Chambers, 1993

Main objective

Analysis of needs and priorities

Transferred by outsiders to farmers

The ‘menu’

Farmers behaviour

Outsiders’ desired outcomes emphasise

Main mode of extension

Roles of extension agent

TRANSFER OF TECHNOLOGY

transfer of technology

outsiders

preceptsmessagespackage of practices

fixed

hear messagesact on preceptsadopt, adapt or reject package

widespread adoption of package

extension worker to farmer

teachertrainer


6

in permanent contact with the communities(e.g. health workers, veterinary staff, forestry advisors,etc.) who are called in when their knowledge andadvice is required by farmers.

The key elements described here contrast with thebasic principles underlying the technology-transfermodel. Shifting the focus from teaching to learning,from hierarchical, top-down to participatory bottom-up approaches, from centralised to decentraliseddecision-making will put institutions under pressurefor change as well. Thus governmental and non-governmental organisations are important actors inthe learning process.

Table 1 provides a summary of some maindifferences between the two approaches.

4 PEA PROCESS IN PRACTICEHow can the key factors for enhancing rural peoples’problem solving capacities described above betranslated into the day-to-day work of the extensionagent? How can existing extension work be improvedthrough incorporation of these new elements? Thesystematisation of experiences has resulted in fourmajor phases in the PEA process:Phase I Social mobilisation: Facilitating the

communities’ own analysis of theirsituation.

Phase II Community-level action planning.

Phase III Implementation and farmerexperimentation.

Phase IV Monitoring the process through sharingexperiences, ideas and self-evaluation.

In each of the phases of the PEA process, severalsteps of interaction with the villagers are required toachieve the desired output. Figure 1 illustrates thesteps taken in this process.

The different process phases and steps will bedescribed in more detail in terms of contents andactivities. It is purposely kept in a simple language asan example of how to describe the implementationprocess to field level staff.

Phase I: Social mobilisationIf development activities are ever to be ‘owned’ by acommunity, two key conditions need to be in place:• real motivation and enthusiasm within the

community; and• effective community organisation(s) which can

support the process and take it forward.Without these, there is little chance that

development activities will be sustained withoutcontinuous external support.

To motivate people for learning and action, keyconcerns must be identified and addressed byparticipants. Extension workers facilitate this analysisand prioritisation. This process harnesses natural

Figure 1

The PEA cycle with the four main phases. The self-evaluation at the end of the first cycle in the process leads to the next cycle which startsagain with social mobilisation (e.g. new problems, shortcomings and issues which were identified in the process review and self-evaluation)and then deals with new activities arising out of the new problem situation. PEA is a continuous process of learning which does not endafter two or three cycles.

SEE FILE CALLEDHAG_FIGURE1


7

energy and communities become motivated to committhemselves – which is a pre-condition for overcomingfeelings of helplessness, powerlessness and apathy.The joint identification of needs, problems of differentgroups in the community (e.g. men/women, young/old, rich/poor) and their common vision ofdevelopment forms the start of a PEA process.

It is important to understand that the communityis not homogenous and that it consists of severalinstitutions with different roles and responsibilities –which may have their own deficiencies. Identifyinginstitutions which can take a lead in catalysing thedevelopment process within the community, andbuilding the capacity of these institutions to developaction plans which respond to community prioritieswill be key to this process.

Entering the community and building trustThe first step for a new extension agent is to arrangean informal meeting with as many of the local leadersas possible. This should also apply to extensionworkers who have been working in the area for along time already. The new approach and the stepsinvolved (see the experiences described in Box 5)are explained and mutual roles are clarified.

The first meeting is an opportunity for the extensionworker to find out about local institutions, and to seekpartners and responsible representatives with whomto work. As every community is different, the extensionworker needs to understand how a communityfunctions before trying to introduce a process oftransformation. Thus, after an informal meeting theextension worker should spend some days in the villagelearning about perceptions of the local institutions andabout people’s problems and needs. This allows him/her to develop a feel for the relationships within thecommunity and to build trust (Box 5).

Identifying and supporting effective organisationsIt is clear that any action developed by local peopleshould be organised and taken forward by their owninstitutions – either existing or newly formedorganisations. However, experience has shown thatnew committees set up in a development processare often blocked by other community institutionswho feel disadvantaged, and that they are rarelysustainable. Community organisation itself is a processof learning by doing, and an innovation within acommunity which increases self-organisationalcapacities.

Most communities have locally-constitutedinstitutions and organisations (e.g. developmentcouncils, church groups, or farmers’ clubs). Thesesocial units will be organised according to locally-negotiated rules and regulations. Understandingwhich institutions exist in a community and how theywork is an important part of the initial stages of PEA.However, it is important that the extension workerhelps people analyse their own institutions themselvesand give them responsibility for coordinating action.

This can be done through facilitation of an‘institutional survey’ in which community membersthemselves:• identify the institutions operating within the

community, whether formal, informal, modern ortraditional;

• discuss and understand the role of theseorganisations in the community; their functions,strengths and weaknesses;

• identify the relationships between institutions, theconflicts and alliances and networks whichdetermine how things work;

• identify human and material resources which couldbe used in the development process.Different groups of people need to be interviewed

informally – the leaders of the institutions, membersand non-members of groups. It is important tounderstand how people feel about government andnon-government institutions in the area. People onlydisclose information regarding their attitudes totraditional and elected leaders if there is trust. Indirect

Box 6 The institutional survey in Chivi

The institutional survey was carried out through interviews withthree sets of people:Institutional leaders were involved at the very early stages to helpthem reflect on their own institutions.Ordinary members of the institutions were interviewed to bring outthe issues as they saw them, especially where leadership wasconcerned.Non-members are also important to understand why they had notbecome members.Through this process, the farmers’ groups and garden clubs werechosen to take forward the actions for a number of reasons:• their focus was food-related, and food security was the key

concern of the community;• their activities did not conflict with traditional practices;• the leadership was truly democratic and representative;• women actively participated in decision-making.

Box 5 Building trust in practice

The case of an extension worker who changed the approach aftersome years of working in the area:

When I started with PEA I had worked in the area already forfive years. There were many conflicts between the differentleaders and this often caused problems when I wanted toimplement my programmes. Some leaders always rejected mysuggestions no matter how good they were and then most of theother people did not participate either. So, when I held the firstPEA meeting, I explained to the leaders that I want to try out adifferent approach now, which involves everyone in thecommunity and that from now on they would make the decisionson what needs to be done. Initially they were suspicious when Iexplained that my role had changed from teacher to facilitator.After the initial suspicion in/about? this meeting, the leadersspoke very openly about what they thought should be done, andI was surprised how many new issues were raised which I didnot know about, although I was sure I knew everything in myarea. It was not easy during this meeting to challenge my formerway of doing things, but it was surprising how positively peoplereacted to my suggestions. For a while they continued to ask meto make the decisions, to provide them with the solutions and tosolve their conflicts, but with time they respected me even morethan before because they realised I was now working with them.


8

questions such as, ‘what do you think other peoplethink of your leaders?’ allow for discretion.Perceptions of institutional functions, roles, strengthsand weaknesses often differ greatly between leadersand the community (Box 6).

Feedback to the communityWhilst the findings of the institutional survey are veryimportant for the extension worker, they are evenmore relevant for the villagers themselves as theyprovide an opportunity to raise awareness and reflectabout community organisations. The results are fedback to the leaders and to community representativesduring an informal feedback meeting in ananonymous, visualised manner. This may be the firsttime leaders have received open feedback from theircommunities. Extension workers remain neutral andsimply present their research findings. In tensesituations he/she can use less conflicting role playsfor presentation. For example, he/she could ask somecommunity members to play a certain situation anddistribute roles and characters. This short drama isthen presented and discussed in a community meetingin an impersonal way. Everyone will know who thecharacters are but insults or attacks will be avoided.This feedback is the starting point of a process ofinstitutional/leadership development and creatingaccountability. The leaders are forced to accept theviews of community members in a non-personalisedway. At the end of the meeting, an initial selection ofpossible partner institutions is made, and discussionsregarding how final selection should be made (afterintensive needs analysis) occur (Box 7).

Up till now it has been mainly leaders and somecommunity representatives who have attendedmeetings. A more general awareness within thecommunity is required to enhance the process.

Raising awareness in the whole communityAs a follow-up to the feedback meeting, extensionworkers help local leaders organise a workshop towhich the whole community is invited. Poorhouseholds are pointedly invited, as experienceshows that they have often been neglected in thepast. The objectives of the workshop are:• to motivate people to become involved in an

action learning process to improve their livelihoods;• to stimulate reflection on a number of issues, such

as how people see ‘development’, how they solvetheir problems and organise themselves forachieving their goals;

• to create space for the less powerful and poorergroups to express their needs.If a community is to participate effectively, they

have to conceptualise their own issues and developtheir own ways of dealing with them. However, forthis to happen there is often a need to first strengthenpeople’s analytical and planning skills, and people’sability to cooperate with each other. For these reasons,‘training for transformation’ (TFT) (Hope and Timmel,1984) is a key methodology for this workshop. TFTis practical training for community development basedon the ‘pedagogy of liberation’ which is a philosophyfor empowerment through strengthening peoples’awareness. It was founded by Paolo Freire in Brazil,and focuses on leadership and cooperation andcreates an atmosphere conducive for community-based learning processes. The structure of the fivesteps in the workshop solves problems throughanalysis and self-organisation for action and reflection.The main sessions comprise: exploring views ondevelopment (the vision), analysis of root causes ofproblems in the community, self organisation andleadership, improving leadership, openness, criticismand sharing.

The final session of the awareness workshop looksat finding practical solutions through experimentation.Therefore, people build their own knowledge throughidentifying and experimenting with a range of solutions,and through sharing their experiences with others. Theguiding statement of training for transformation, Nobodyknows nothing and nobody knows everything, is a keyprinciple in this collective process.

By discussing leadership and self-organisation,visions and goals, and by providing tools for analysis,a longer process of analysis and learning is initiated.This contributes to the building of a common platformfor negotiating development issues. The ideas, theawareness and the tools for problem solvingdeveloped in the workshop will be invaluable as theprocess of PEA continues. Training for transformationwhich was introduced into the villages through suchcommunity workshops stimulated major changesamong farmers and extension workers (Box 8).

Box 7 Feedback within the community

Some of us were really changed by what we learned. In the pastwe saw ourselves as leaders who could not be questioned. Whatwe said was what we expected to be done. But of course it wasfollowed badly and people were not happy … that is why thingswere not moving. Now in our garden groups and farmers’ clubs,people are working together in a new way.

Mr Madakupfuwa, Chivi

Box 8 Training for transformation

All the surveys carried out in Chivi, Zaka and Gutu Districts revealedthat the community needed analytical and planning skills. Theinstitutional survey had also shown that local institutions needed tobe strengthened and supported to make them vehicles for change.People within the community also identified a lack of cooperationas one of their most serious constraints. To try to resolve some ofthese problems, a series of TFT workshops were held. Village leaders,community members, agricultural extension workers and communityworkers were all involved, enabling them to reflect on their extensionmethodologies and their working relationships with the community.

Training for transformation helped me to see where I had gonewrong with the farmers – I was not starting from the basis thatthese are adults who know their own fields and their lives. I tookmyself as someone who knew everything about farming and myjob was to teach them what needed to be done. Yet year afteryear we faced hunger and food shortages.

Extension worker


9

After the awareness workshop, people are giventime to discuss the issues relevant to their community.Depending on their requirements this can take someweeks. During this time, extension workers followup on needs and problem analysis with individualsin the community.

Identifying community needsBefore any actual work can be started, extensionworkers need to work with the community to identify,in detail, what their needs are and how they can beaddressed. However, within many communities thereare differences in wealth, status, and even perceptionsof one another and their problems. Understandingof these differences is important to ensure that thepoor are not further marginalised.

This can be done through a needs assessment to:• identify the real needs of resource-poor and other

people;• identify what the community considers to be

poverty and how this manifests itself;• understand the perceptions of different categories

of people and their priority needs.Understanding differences in wealth. A wealth

ranking should be the basis for a detailed needsassessment, as the priority needs for rich and poorhouseholds differ substantially. If only the needs ofthe rich are considered, most others will not identifywith the goals, and will withdraw from thedevelopment process. This can easily happen if ‘thecommunity’ is seen as a homogenous group ofpeople. The initial wealth ranking also serves as areference for the monitoring and evaluation of theproject at a later stage.

Understanding needs. The next step in theprocess is to hold intensive discussions with individualfamilies from different wealth ranks to understandtheir needs. This helps to ensure that members fromall different categories are involved, with specialemphasis on resource-poor individuals. In contrastto many conventional planning approaches, thepoorest and most marginalised members of thecommunity are given a chance to express themselvesand benefit from development. A representativesample of, say, 10 per cent of the total number ofhouseholds can be chosen for a door-to-door survey.

Phase II: Community-level actionplanningOnce individual household needs have beenexplored, a community-level meeting is needed to:• feed back to the rest of the community the issues

and needs identified in the survey;• enable the community to prioritise needs;• analyse with the whole community the underlying

causes of the problems identified and to suggestpossible solutions;

• identify possible local institutions to help takeforward some of the solutions;

• draw up a schedule for the work to be done inaddressing the identified needs;

• agree on criteria and indicators which enable thecommunity to see whether their work towards theidentified needs is really leading to an improvedsituation.As collective decision-making and ownership of

projects is essential for them to succeed, workshopssuch as this help create this sense of collectivepurpose.

Prioritising problems and needsOnce the outcome of the needs assessment surveyis presented to the community, the issues raised arediscussed in small groups according to gender, ageor institutional membership (e.g. farmers’ clubs). Thisallows marginalised community members to alsoexpress and rank their priorities. Small group resultsare fed back to the plenary where a consensus isnegotiated. Consensus does not mean that only oneproblem or need can be addressed, but that there isa common agreement that each group can addresstheir problems and needs with equal priority withinthe community vision so that all others have accessto their experiences. Often problems identified hereneed to be analysed more deeply. The ‘root cause’analysis demonstrated in the awareness workshop isapplied again, and problem trees help to visualisethe causes and effects and to clarify in more detailwhat the real underlying problems are.

Searching for solutionsOnce the root causes of the priority problems arebetter known, it is easier for workshop participantsto identify possible solutions. They are also asked todiscuss possible constraints they would face withthese solutions. If the community identifies solutionswhich require additional or new resources that arenot available or accessible, these solutions have tobe discarded. This procedure helps people to developideas based on available resources and skills and toavoid depending on assistance from external donors(Box 9).

Fresh solutions to problems need to be generatedby blending suggestions from local people with ideasfrom outside. This breaks the cycle of ‘more of thesame’ solutions. Often an active encouragement to‘break the usual pattern’ is required in order toenhance creative thinking. Decisions on how solutionscan be tested, and who will coordinate activities andtake responsibility also need to be negotiated by thecommitted groups in a community.

The search for solutions should first focus onpeople’s own knowledge. There is often muchtraditional knowledge that has been ‘forgotten’, e.g.


10

traditional pesticides, health care, etc. If rediscovered,some of this knowledge could still be applicable.However, the search is not limited to existing localknowledge, but extends to knowledge that farmershave of practices elsewhere, or which extensionworkers know of that has been developed elsewhere– Knowledge is like fire; you get it from your neighbour.

Exposure or ‘look and learn’ tours to innovativefarms, neighbouring communities or research stationscan be planned to find more ideas. These allow farmersto see first hand how others have dealt successfullywith problems they are facing. Such trips have to beplanned by the community. They need to chooserepresentatives to go, based on their ability to reportback. Agreements on the procedure of a report tothe whole community has to be reached so thateverybody benefits from the tour and not only theones who travelled (Box 10).

Mandating local institutionsOnce some possible solutions have been selected,the community needs to take actions forward throughlocal institutions. These institutions must be mandatedto coordinate activities and to take responsibility.Without this important step, the responsibility forprogress will remain with everybody, anybody andnobody, meaning that the extension worker will beleft to make decisions and become the ‘driver’ and‘owner’ of the process, rather than the communityitself. There needs to be a consensus about whichinstitution to choose for this responsibility, orinstitutions may block each other. This choice shouldbe based on the institutional survey undertakenearlier. For example, if water shortages are one of themain problems, the institutional survey may haveshown that farmers’ clubs bring in ideas and newtechnologies for crop production. Thus, farmers’ clubsmay be put forward as the institution to takeresponsibility for implementation of the possiblesolutions, questioning whether it is strong enough,and what to do if it is not strong enough. If peoplefeel that the suggested institution is weak, optionson how to strengthen it need to be discussed – forinstance, improving leadership through bettercommunication, clarifying goals, implementation ofcriteria and/or requirements for leaders to follow, and

choosing leaders accordingly if possible. A strong,motivating institution or organisation should involveall members in decision making and represent theirinterests well, dealing openly with conflicts if theyoccur (Box 11).

Accountability and commitment – the foundationfor sustainable action in the development process –is ensured by encouraging group leaders and/orchairpersons to take responsibility for the necessaryaction in the group meeting.

Action planningAfter clarifying possible solutions and institutionalresponsibilities, concrete actions need to be planned.This often takes place after the report back from the‘look and learn’ tours. A good method of feedback isa field day (for the whole community) where all theideas gained from the ‘look and learn’ tour areexplained and demonstrated, if possible. The mostpromising options are chosen and agreed upon, andhow and who should trial and implement them isdecided. A time plan of action (TPoA) is developedby the community.

At this stage, the community should be able toclearly define the nature of support expected fromextension workers. This should be clarified so thatboth sides are clear about their role in the joint learningcycle.

It is important to start on a small scale and not totry to tackle too many problems at the one time. Smallsteps and phases are needed in implementation sothat the community be motivated by success andencourage further action.

Introducing competitions for the best ideas. Toencourage farmers to become inventive in findingsolutions to their problems, competitions for the bestideas are a highly regarded incentive in farmingcommunities. Ideally these competitions are two-fold,

Box 9 Being realistic: Lessons from Chivi

One of the biggest problems identified by the community in Chiviwas poor rainfall. In the search for solutions, some ideas weresuggested which needed new or additional resources. These solutionswere deemed expensive, and very few people could afford them.In some instances, conventional solutions like dams and contourridging were discarded as the community did not have the necessarytools to carry out the work.

What do we do about these problems? … If we say this is whatcan be done about it, who will do it? It will be us who will haveto do it, so we needed to ask, can we do it? What are theproblems that we will face? We were not just dreaming, wewanted to say this is what can be done.

Mr K Mavhuna, Chivi

Box 10 New things are learned throughtravelling (Chisva chiri murutsoka)

In order to find solutions to inadequate water, poor soil and lackof tools in Chivi, the community decided to visit othercommunities. Some farmers had never been outside Chivi, andthey wanted to see what methods other people had devised tocope with the recent severe droughts. The groups selected peoplefor each trip carefully to ensure equity in terms of gender, literacy,previous visits and a cross-section of leaders and non-leaders,and the visits exposed farmers to water conservation techniques.They were particularly impressed by the water conservation,water harvesting and moisture retention techniques practised byother farmers.

Following the visits, the report back sessions facilitated by thecommunity, allowed community discussion of potential solutionsrather than extension workers describing and trying to ‘sell’different techniques. Once some of the techniques had beendescribed, those which were best suited to their environment orcould be adapted, and which ones were affordable were decidedby consensus. On-site trials of these technologies then began –starting with the garden groups, though individual farmers werealso keen to experiment with them.

Extension worker


11

within villages and between neighbouring villages –those with the best ideas win the within villagecompetition, while the community with the mostinnovators wins the inter-village competition.Individual innovators thus become more acceptedby the community and ideas will be shared and spreadmuch faster. Prizes can be sourced from contributionsof villagers or from sponsors.

Criteria and indicators to measure the success.The indicators and criteria of the activities successmust be decided upon – How to know whether acertain innovation is performing well? What isconsidered a successful implementation? This isimportant for monitoring and evaluating activities andprocesses. Ultimately, it is the community who mustfeel that there is progress and they must be able toassess it, debate it and find out why it works out orwhy it fails (Box 12).

Phase III: Implementation and farmerexperimentationWhilst the potential solutions identified by thecommunity can be a standardised technology (e.g. aBlair toilet), in most cases, potential solutions are notso clear – particularly where the implementation ismainly linked to the organisation of material andlabour. New ideas have to be tried, adapted andimproved to suit local conditions – e.g. alternativetoilets which do not require expensive material suchas cement, the use of natural pesticides instead ofexpensive chemicals, low-cost methods for animalhealth care, alternatives to labour-intensiveconservation measures, or a social innovation, suchas the testing of new by-laws for resource utilisation.

Learning through experimentation with new ideasThe implementation phase of PEA is also called farmerexperimentation to underline the learning processinvolved. Farmers in Zimbabwe called this processKuturaya or ‘let’s try’ . Some farmers also called it the‘school of trying’ and others called it ‘try and share’ .

It is the role of the extension agent to encouragefarmers to experiment with ideas and techniquesemanating from their own knowledge or from outsidesources. This helps to re-value local knowledge, itscombination with new techniques and a synthesis of

the two, it encourages dialogue between the differentknowledge systems. Experience has shown that theknowledge and understanding gained through theexperimentation process strengthens farmers’confidence in their capacity and knowledge. Thisincreases their ability to choose the best options andto develop and adapt solutions appropriate to theirspecific ecological, economic and socio-culturalcircumstances.

During the implementation and experimentationprocess new questions and problems, not seen atthe beginning, are likely to arise and become thecommunity’s ‘action research agenda’. Ideally, iftechnical problems are involved, research agentsshould join in the process of joint learning, whichmay require some specific on-farm trials on certainissues which focus on more quantitative results tosupport the findings. If technical processes are notfully understood, farmers’ ideas are taken to theresearch station for further research under controlledconditions. The research station can then act as a‘think-tank of options’ for exposing farmers to manydifferent ideas and potential technologies.

The trying out phase normally starts at the onsetof the rainy season. For non-agricultural activitiesit can also be during the dry season. Farmerschoose the options and ideas they think are mostresponsive to their individual problems and trythem out. They are also actively encouraged tocome up with their own ideas. Conducting simplecomparisons between conventional practices andnew techniques can be a powerful tool for learning.For example, in the case of water harvestingtechniques or pest management, a simple paireddesign – where the new technique is placed alongside the conventional one in the same field – hasproven to be a very practical and simple way ofcomparing the performance of the two by farmers.If researchers or extension workers want to jointhe farmer in this type of experimentation, theycan put in ‘check plots’ in pairs to measure yieldand growth parameters in detail.

Box 11 Strengthening local institutions

In some of the farmer and garden clubs, low membership was saidto be a result of poor leadership. Complaints that leaders did notfeed back information they received in meetings with others, andthat they even used their position for personal advantages weremade. TFT workshops exposed people to different leadership stylesand showed how positive criticism and openness can be. Longdebates within groups analysed self-organisation while avoidingpersonal criticism. Conflicts arose and some groups elected newrepresentatives according to their new criteria, others suggestedleadership courses for their leaders. This process of institutionalstrengthening resulted in a ten-fold increase in the numberof members and many of the clubs have become strong,representative bodies.

Box 12 Defining indicators of success locally

In Chivi, the community set down indicators and mechanisms formonitoring progress. Following discussions with community leaders,a sample of six garden groups and six farmers’ clubs were selectedto discuss the issue separately with facilitators. At each meeting,groups defined their objectives as a group and decided on indicatorsfor each objective. The results from these 12 discussions weresynthesised by the extension worker and presented to a largercommunity leadership meeting, where participants ranked theseobjectives in order of importance. Participants then identifiedindicators which could be used to measure the progress of eachof the stated objectives. For example, one objective wascooperation, and the suggested indicators were the formation ofmore groups, helping each other with draught power, organisingshows and fairs, etc.Having set the objectives and indicators, the community thendiscussed how to monitor themselves and their work. Each club andgroup secretary was given the task of keeping a monthly recordof all activities within their group, paying particular attention tothese indicators.


12

The simple paired design enables farmers toobserve, compare and analyse by themselves. It helpsthem to understand factors which contribute todifferences, which in turn enables them to improveon these factors in future. Farmers often try traditionalpractices which have been ignored for a long time,with sometimes positive results, where the traditionalpractices perform better than the modern practices.Often an integration of the two is needed.

Farmers share their experiences informally amongsteach other. If the ‘spirit of experimentation’ issuccessfully created, this triggers a collective learningprocess. The extension worker keeps track of all newdevelopments in the area and encourages farmers toshare any new ideas. Learning through practicalexperience and experimentation, as well as informationsharing, are critical to the success of participatoryextension and necessary to encourage morewidespread trying and testing of ideas and innovativepractices.

Phase IV: Monitoring and evaluationThe fourth phase in the process of enhancing ruralpeople’s problem solving capacity consists of jointlearning, by sharing ideas and experiences and byreflecting on the successes and failures of the actionand the experiments carried out (self-evaluation). Theinformal sharing of experiences among certainneighbours described above is not sufficient to makethe information available to everyone in thecommunity. Therefore two more formal steps haveto be built into the process:• a ‘mid-season evaluation’ of agricultural

innovations; and• an evaluation of the process, leading to the

planning for the coming season.

Mid-season evaluation of the experiments and newtechniquesIn the middle of the agricultural season before cropsmature, farmers, with the help of extension staff,organise an evaluation of the field performance ofthe different ideas and techniques they have triedout. Before the general field visits, the judging of the‘competition for the best ideas’ is carried out by acommittee from the neighbouring community. Theinnovativeness of the idea should be an importantcriteria, as are the number of trials per farmer, trialmanagement, quality of presentation, etc.

In the mid-season evaluation, all farmers in thecommunity are invited to visit the fields to see theexperiments and ‘trials’ – each farmer runninginteresting experiments presents his/her fields, ideasand findings to the group for discussion. Theobjectives are to:

• share knowledge among farmers;• build confidence through presentations; and

• encourage more farmer to farmer extension.For researchers and extensionists, farmers’

evaluations are very important as they revealknowledge and criteria, often not spoken about inextension meetings. In smaller communities this‘evaluation’ can take one day, in bigger onessometimes two days. If there is not enough time, onlythe best farmers in the competition are visited in thefield.

After everyone has had a chance to look at thedifferent techniques and present their experiments,farmers decide which techniques merit furtherresearch and/or promotion, using participatoryranking or scoring techniques. The technologies whichfarmers suggest need further research can be putforward for more formal on-farm trials, or fed back tothe research station the following season, while thoseclassified as ready for promotion can then bepromoted to neighbouring areas. This can be donejointly by farmers, researchers and extension staff.

Process review, self-evaluation and planningIdeally one or two months before the start of thefollowing season, a feedback/review and planningworkshop should be organised by the community.The timing depends mainly on the nature of the issuesto be addressed. This workshop is to review theprocess, evaluating planned activities and theindicators for success suggested during the planningphase. This includes criteria like leadership,strengthening self-organisational capacities, as well ascommunity participation – including the poor – inthe development process. Issues agreed upon in thecommunity awareness workshop are reviewed andevaluated.

The community discusses intensively how far theyhave gone on their road to progress. Failures arenormal, but it is most important to discuss why certainactivities have failed and others have succeeded.Successes and failures are assessed and analysed inview of the strengths and weaknesses for futureaction. This analysis normally leads to the next cyclewhich starts again with issues of social mobilisation –based on the outcome of the self evaluation, thevillagers review their goals and objectives and developan action plan for next season.

It must again be emphasised that these steps arenot set in stone as the whole process can be lengthyand be very intensive. In some cases one might decideto skip a step because there were extensivediscussions earlier in the process, the process reviewmight show deficiencies in the problem analysis, whichmeans that certain issues must be re-addressed inorder to make a major step forward in the next cycle.Timing also needs to be flexible in order toaccommodate the requirements of the different issuesto be dealt with.


13

An operational framework forPEAThe description of the steps within theprocess helps to make the flow of theprocess transparent and to understand theactivities involved. This description is veryeffective with field staff, and is supported bya training video and a trainers manual intraining programmes.

For concrete implementation of theprocess, however, a more structuredoperational framework needs to bedeveloped, in collaboration with theimplementing staff, in order to increase theconceptual understanding of the PEAprocess. The procedure of developing theoperational framework led to a betterunderstanding of the function ofparticipatory tools as the focus and theobjective were in the foreground. Table 2shows an example of the objectives and thesalient questions, while the remaining twocolumns would be filled in step by stepduring training.

The core issues are questions which theexternal facilitator or extension agent needsto raise in the community’s self analysis. Theyserve as guiding questions in the facilitationprocess.

How to link PEA with research?The mid-season evaluation and process review serveto screen useful techniques and practices. Techniquesand ideas which are performing well will be furtherdisseminated within the community, in other areasand other communities – they enter the choice ofoptions through the dissemination feedback loop.Techniques which are not convincing, or problemswhich could not be solved, are classified as issueswhich require further research. The questions arisingin the screening process determine the role of researchin the PEA process (Figure 2).

As mentioned before, research can providetechnological options and serve as a back-up to thefarmers’ own experimentation process. Through thePEA process, farmers’ problem analysis in terms oftechnological issues will reveal more clearly the needfor research than conventional extension. Based onscreening of farmers’ experiments and insights,farmers, extension workers and researchers are ableto draw up research questions together. Research canthen be carried out on-farm, together with farmersselected by the community, or on the research stationunder more controlled conditions where necessary.As the research agenda addresses farmers’ problems,results should feed back directly into farmers’ learningprocesses, as knowledge or as technical options. Thisfeedback loop ensures that research is relevant andcontributes to farmers’ problem solving. For

researchers, this process offers the benefit of linkingtheir work effectively with farmers, without having toinitiate separate community development processes.

5 EXPERIENCES IN IMPLEMENTATION

Problems and how to overcome themWhen a pilot group of extension workers was trainedand began PEA implementation without donorsupport, a number of practical problems were faced.Many of the problems encountered were thechallenges which PEA is geared to address. Problemssuch as dominance of certain individuals in thecommunity, the absence of many poor farmers atmeetings and donor syndrome are some of theunderlying problems causing inefficiency in thepresent extension approach. As PEA tries toencourage active participation of all communitymembers, these hidden issues are revealed. The pilotgroup members had many ideas and positiveexperiences on how to overcome these problems.Table 3 shows a selection of the problems and theirrecommendations on how to overcome them. Mostof the major problems were related to socialmobilisation, communication, leadership andcooperation. Training for transformation tools have agreat role to play in solving these problems.

SEE FILE CALLEDHAG_FIGURE2

Table 2 Operational framework for PEA

PARTICIPATORY EXTENSION

PROCESS STEPS

1 Entering thecommunity

2 Identifying localorganisations

3 Feedback to thecommunity

4 Raising awareness

5 Identifying problemsand needs

6 Prioritisation ofproblems and needs

7 Searching for solutions

OBJECTIVES

To familiarise facilitators with communityTo explore how the community functionsTo make yourself known and acceptedTo prepare ground for trust

To find out how the community is organisedTo identify structures/partners for future activities

To create transparency and build confidence/trustTo initiate a platform for dialogue within the community andbetween partners

To enable the community to have a common understanding ofthe existing situationTo instil confidence in their own capacities to bring about change

To identify and mobilise people’s own interests and commonobjectivesTo identify needs and problems which are within and out of theirreach

To identify the priority needs of different social groupsTo identify crucial obstacles for goal achievementTo create a platform for negotiating common needs

To widen the range of possible solutionsTo look for alternative solutions/optionsTo identify solutions for optimal resource use (e.g. rich/poor)To identify solutions that ensure optimal level of interaction

CORE ISSUES, SALIENT QUESTIONS

Whom to contact first?Who are they (the community members)? How do they see their situation?Who are their (opinion) leaders?What are their livelihood and coping strategies?Are there important cultural issues or barriers to communication

What are the roles, tasks and responsibilities for local organisations/institutionsWho is doing what?What is the potential for networking and cooperation?What are their strengths and weaknesses?Where do they derive their mandates from?How do they solve their problems and conflicts?

Are there differences in perception between the leaders and the community?Clarifying mutual roles and expectationsHow are the findings being interpreted by different people in the community?Shed light on hidden realities

What are the visions for the future?What are the obstacles to bringing about change?What is the potential of change for the better?How does gender imbalance affect decision making?

Are participants talking of needs or wants?What are the root-causes of participants problems?How do needs differ according to different stakeholders? Whose problems count?Whose problems are they?What are the opportunities? What are the participants ‘hidden agendas’?Who benefits from the problems?

Whose needs are they?Are there any commonly felt needs?What are the different needs felt by different groups?Which needs are most pressing (e.g. in terms of time)? What is the best way of dealingwith a variety of different needs?How can all relevant stakeholders be heard? (-> differentiation)

What solutions are offered by others elsewhere?What solutions are locally available? Who can assist in finding solutions?What solutions are within reach of local communities?What are the effects of potential solutions on the others (e.g. rich/poor)? Whichassumptions are the solutions based on? Can the solutions solve the problems effectively?How can the usual pattern be broken?How should these options be made available (e.g. report back from visits, etc.)?Who should look for alternative options?

TOOLSWITH WHOM

8M

anda

ting

loca

lor

gani

satio

ns a

ndin

stitu

tions

9El

abor

atin

g ac

tion

plan

10 T

ryin

g ou

t new

idea

s

11 M

onito

ring

12Pr

oces

s re

view

and

plan

ning

for

next

lear

ning

cyc

le

To a

void

dup

licat

ion

of w

ork

of lo

cal o

rgan

isat

ions

To p

repa

re th

e co

mm

unity

for

effe

ctiv

e im

plem

enta

tion

of fu

ture

acti

viti

esTo

ena

ble

loca

l org

anis

atio

ns to

rec

ogni

se a

nd p

lay

a ro

leTo

em

pow

er l

ocal

org

anis

atio

ns a

nd i

nstit

utio

ns t

hrou

gh t

heco

mm

unity

’s m

anda

teTo

ens

ure

resp

onsi

bilit

y an

d ac

coun

tabi

lity

To p

rovi

de g

uida

nce

thro

ugh

the

phas

e of

impl

emen

tatio

nTo

ser

ve a

s a

man

agem

ent

tool

To c

reat

e tr

ansp

aren

cy a

nd re

spon

sibi

lity

amon

g ac

tors

invo

lved

To d

eter

min

e th

e su

ppor

t and

nat

ure

of re

sour

ces

requ

ired

To e

nhan

ce c

reat

ivit

y, t

he k

now

ledg

e ba

se a

nd c

apac

ity

toin

nova

te th

roug

h ex

peri

men

tatio

nTo

gen

erat

e ne

w o

ptio

ns/s

olut

ions

To e

ncou

rage

peo

ple

to l

earn

abo

ut t

echn

olog

ies

thro

ugh

expe

rim

enta

tion

To u

se a

nd li

nk th

e kn

owle

dge

of a

ll ac

tors

in d

evel

opin

g so

lutio

nsth

roug

h a

synt

hesi

s of

trad

ition

al a

nd ‘m

oder

n’ k

now

ledg

e

To s

hare

idea

s an

d pr

ovid

e fe

edba

ckTo

ass

ess

the

succ

ess

of a

ctiv

ities

To fi

ne tu

ne o

r ad

just

act

ion

plan

s ac

cord

ing

to c

ircum

stan

ces

To re

view

ass

umpt

ions

To r

evie

w a

nd e

valu

ate

the

who

le a

ctio

n le

arni

ng p

roce

ssTo

lear

n th

e st

reng

ths

and

wea

knes

ses

of th

e ex

peri

ence

To id

entif

y er

rors

and

ens

ure

that

they

are

cor

rect

ed in

futu

reTo

ana

lyse

the

less

ons

lear

ntTo

iden

tify

new

are

as w

hich

req

uire

act

ion

To a

ddre

ss n

ew p

robl

ems

whi

ch e

mer

ge o

ut o

f the

firs

t lea

rnin

gcy

cle

Whi

ch o

rgan

isat

ions

are

mos

t sui

tabl

e an

d ca

pabl

e of

impl

emen

ting

solu

tions

?W

hat a

re th

e ro

les

and

expe

ctat

ions

of d

iffer

ent l

ocal

org

anis

atio

ns a

nd in

stitu

tions

?W

hich

org

anis

atio

ns o

r ins

titut

ions

sho

uld

be e

ncou

rage

d an

d su

ppor

ted?

Whi

ch o

rgan

isat

ions

nee

d to

be

stre

ngth

ened

?H

ow c

an lo

cal o

rgan

isat

ions

be

stre

ngth

ened

to fu

lfil t

heir

man

date

?W

hat i

s th

e cu

rren

t and

pot

entia

l per

form

ance

of l

ocal

org

anis

atio

ns?

Whi

ch o

rgan

isat

ions

sho

uld

be li

nked

?W

hat k

ind

of n

etw

orki

ng b

etw

een

orga

nisa

tions

is r

equi

red?

Who

opp

oses

to th

e m

anda

te?

Who

doe

s w

hat w

hen,

and

at w

hat l

evel

?H

ow d

o w

e kn

ow th

at it

wor

ks (i

ndic

ator

s)?

Whi

ch o

utco

me

do w

e ai

m a

t?W

ho w

ill s

uppo

rt th

e pl

an, w

ho n

ot?

How

is th

e bu

dget

allo

cate

d?W

ho p

rovi

des

whi

ch re

sour

ces?

Whe

n is

feed

back

req

uire

d, o

n w

hat a

spec

ts o

f the

pro

cess

?W

hom

do

we

have

to in

form

and

invo

lve?

How

to r

educ

e th

e fe

ar o

f inn

ovat

ion/

of fa

ilure

?W

hat a

re th

e ri

sks

invo

lved

in th

e ex

peri

men

ts?

Wha

t are

the

cost

s in

volv

ed?

Wha

t is t

he b

est w

ay to

enc

oura

ge e

xper

imen

tatio

n on

idea

s app

ropr

iate

to p

artic

ipan

ts’

leve

l of

res

ourc

es a

nd s

kills

?W

ho a

re th

e ex

peri

men

ts r

elev

ant t

o, a

nd p

ract

icab

le fo

r?D

o th

e ex

peri

men

ts a

ddre

ss im

port

ant p

robl

ems,

if y

es, w

hose

pro

blem

s?W

hat s

uppo

rt is

requ

ired

from

out

side

rs?

Wha

t is

the

bes

t w

ay o

f or

gani

sing

com

petit

ions

for

the

bes

t id

eas

and

shar

ing

know

ledg

e?

Is th

e im

plem

enta

tion

goin

g ac

cord

ing

to p

lan?

Shou

ld th

e im

plem

enta

tion

plan

be

adju

sted

?W

ho is

invo

lved

, who

dro

pped

out

or

is o

bjec

ting

the

plan

s?A

re t

he a

lloca

ted

reso

urce

s su

ffici

ent?

Are

oth

er s

uppo

rt m

easu

res

requ

ired

to fu

lfil t

he ta

sks?

Who

sho

uld

be in

volv

ed in

the

proc

ess

of e

valu

atio

n, a

nd h

ow?

Doe

s th

e le

arni

ng c

ycle

add

ress

sol

utio

ns (i

.e. i

s th

e ri

ght t

hing

bei

ng d

one)

?W

ere

the

obje

ctiv

es m

et a

nd w

ere

the

activ

ities

effi

cien

t?W

ho s

houl

d be

invo

lved

in th

e pr

oces

s of

eva

luat

ion?

Wha

t ar

e th

e ac

hiev

emen

ts o

f th

e pr

ojec

t?W

hat c

an b

e do

ne to

impr

ove

the

proj

ect?

Wha

t ide

as c

ame

out o

f the

pro

cess

of e

xper

imen

tatio

n?Is

ther

e su

ffici

ent o

wne

rshi

p an

d ac

coun

tabi

lity?

Wha

t les

sons

can

we

lear

n?W

as in

itial

pro

blem

ana

lysi

s su

ffici

ent,

or is

mor

e no

w k

now

abo

ut th

e re

al is

sues

?A

re th

e so

lutio

ns in

itial

ly s

ugge

sted

suf

ficie

nt, o

r ar

e ne

w id

eas

requ

ired

?W

hat o

ther

are

as d

o w

e ha

ve to

tack

le?


16

Implications of PEA for extensionworkersTwo years later, the members of the pilot group ofextension workers evaluated their PEA experiencesin terms of their own extension work. Among manyother statements, they came to the followingconclusions:• the workload is initially high, but decreases after

the first process cycle is completed;• working relations with farmers have improved –

friction and tensions are reduced;

• farmers’ attitudes towards extension workers havechanged;

• extension workers’ workload is reduced;• extension workers get more recognition due to

an increased output;• community projects have increased sustainability;

All the extension workers involved felt that theirjob satisfaction has increased through PEA. This wasone of the factors which they considered highlymotivating.

Major problems faced

Dominance of leaders:leaders make solo decisions, dominatein meetings, do not attend meetings.

Dominance of men over women:women do not attend the meetings,planning is done by men, butimplementation by women.

Dominance of master farmers overordinary farmers: master farmers resistthe new approach as they are afraid oflosing their privileges.

Conflicts in communities:poor cooperation, jealousy andleadership problems.

Donor syndrome versus self reliance:people expect hand-outs, lowattendance of meetings if nothing isprovided for free or there is no donor.

Problem/needs assessment is skewed:problems may be mentioned toencourage donor participation – theymay simply be exactly what thedonors offered elsewhere. Shoppinglists emerge, while the poor and theirproblems are often neglected.

No funds for exchange visits and lookand learn tours: transport to researchstations and innovative farmers isexpensive.

How to overcome these problems?

Organise leadership courses and TFT for traditional and modern leadersTry to understand leaders and convince them personallyCarry out institutional surveys, stress the roles, qualities and styles of good leadersUse codes of good leadership in community meetingsAsk community members individually and encourage them to speak about their concernsArrive early at meetings, leave late and listen attentively what people discuss

Always invite the men and the women (the families) specifically to the meetingsForm groups according to gender and age (e.g. in the needs assessment). Encourage women tocontributeDo not use gender-biased words like ‘chairman’, and allow women chair meetingsInvolve women in development committeesUse role plays on gender issues for sensitisation of allAllow women to become confident about themselves, let them present individually

Introduce inter-community competitions which force information sharingDiscuss what the role and behaviour of master farmers should be and how everyone couldbenefit from extensionUse codes and role playsHold practical field demonstrations for poor farmers and motivate them

Conduct awareness meetings with TFTUse of codes during workshops (entangling game, cooperation and development game etc.)Try to build trust among community membersUse role plays in conflict situationsBe neutral as facilitatorTry to discuss conflicts openly in community meetings but in an impersonal way (e.g. throughrole plays) and also in personal discussions with the leadersTalk to the chief and other influential people

Break donor dependency by carrying out a good problem/needs analysis so that a project is‘owned’ by the communityProvide more training and fewer hand-outsUse codes of training for transformation (e.g. river code)Find out why people do not come to the meetings and discuss it openlyGive responsibilities to people, empower themAlways ask for community contributions to complement any outside assistanceInvite leaders and key people in writing so that the messages are not incorrectly interpreted

Start with the goals that people wish to achieveCarry out a root cause analysis. Often problems are not correctly specified, e.g. lack offertiliser rather than low soil fertility. This may increase the number of possible solutionsCarry out wealth ranking and group people accordingly – the needs of the rich are often verydifferent from the needs of the poorEmphasis that participants should analyse and plan on the basis of their own resources. Letthem prioritise their problems with minimal external influence

Encourage contributions from community for transportOrganise look and learn tours to nearby areas with related projects and innovative farmersEncourage the community to have cooperative project land to grow cash crops for fund raisingBring as many options as possible into the area (e.g. to various farmers, near area trainingcentre; open a local experiment station)Enhance neighbour to neighbour sharing and learning

Table 3 Some problems and recommendations in PEA implementation


17

Criteria for successful PEAimplementationAfter their two years of PEA experience, extensionworkers described the criteria which they would useto assess if PEA has been implemented successfully.An indication of what can be expected as PEA outputfollows:• Farmer participation/involvement in extension

activities: farmers participate fully (high level ofparticipation of farmers in the whole ward), thenumber of farmers involved in decision makingincreases, farmers attendance at meetings andtraining sessions increases;

• Empowerment – increased farmer-articulation,confidence and decision making: services areactively demanded by farmers, farmers make theirown decisions, farmers attitudes change;

• Implementation of community projects: thenumber of projects increases;

• Active farmer experimentation with ideas andinnovations): the number of farmers’ ownexperiments in the area increases, new farmerinnovations are being developed;

• Process documentation: the learning experienceand farmers’ ideas/knowledge are welldocumented by extension workers, indigenousknowledge is documented and made available.These (self-identified) indicators help to develop a

framework for PEA impact evaluation. Impacts atvarious levels of stakeholders (farmers, communities,extension agents) need to be evaluated, as dodifferent type of impacts – technology adoption isonly one of them. Farmers’ problem solving andadaptive management capacities are other impactswhich have a strong qualitative basis. It is obviousthat these require joint monitoring of insiders andfacilitating outsiders in order to create acomprehensive assessment.

6 HOW TO BUILD THE CAPACITY TOIMPLEMENT PEA?

The framework described above requires a highdegree of flexibility when implemented in practice.Participatory community development processes cannot be implemented as a blueprint, nor can they bepredicted in terms of output, as every community isdifferent. Some steps in the process may take severalmonths with one community but just one day inanother, depending on the consensus which has tobe negotiated. Solutions cannot be prescribed byoutsiders even if the temptation is high.

The complexity of rural situations and the flexibilityrequired for such processes are a challenge to theskills, capacity and identity of extension workers whoare used to being technical agents, advising peopleon proven technologies. Unless the competencerequired to implement PEA can be developed by theextension workers themselves, PEA will not work.Therefore, the challenge is to develop capacity and

bring about the organisational change required tocreate a conducive environment and to internalisePEA in government agencies.

One of the major challenges facing extensionagencies is how to make the transition from the oldapproaches to the new. How to re-orient extensionwith a vigorous emphasis on partnership, participationand sharing in the development effort? How to balancecontinuity of service provision with progressive, yetmanaged, transformation towards a very differentapproach? Re-orientation of extension staff on such ascale needs deliberate, intensive and focusedopportunities for learning.

Such a learning process goes beyond training inparticipatory tools. The shift from teacher to facilitatorinvolves new skills, different attitudes and behaviourwhich cannot change overnight. An iterative learningprocess for re-orientation and capacity developmentat field level was designed in Masvingo. It consists offive action learning phases in about 18 months (Box13).

This capacity building process among extensionworkers was very successful in Masvingo, Zimbabwe.Pilot groups of extension workers were able to handlethe process in a flexible way and even started todevelop their own tools and methods to cope with

Box 13 Iterative PEA training process foroperational extension staff

Phase 1 Two week training workshop on PEA in training centre.• exposure to concepts (PEA, TFT);• introduction, exposure and tools training for initial steps of the

PEA cycle;• create an operational framework (conceptual understanding of

PEA);• planning (individual action plan for one community to try out

PEA);Phase 2 Field implementation of action plan (approx. six months)• if possible follow up and backstopping by trainers in the field;• mutual learning support among AEWs, further exposure of local

staff;Phase 3 One week workshop – evaluation and re-planning (newaction plan)• sharing of field experiences during first action plan and• learning from each other;• joint work on how to overcome the major problems faced in

the field;• more training regarding tools and methods;• second action plan formulation;Phase 4 Field implementation of action plans (approx. six to ninemonths)• peer to peer sharing and support;• mutual learning support and follow-up by trainers;Phase 5 One week workshop• sharing of field experiences during second action plan and

further learning;• joint work on how to overcome the major problems faced in

the field;• review of the whole process experience and planning for

future learning support;

(A detailed description of the training programme is available inthe form of a trainers manual.)


18

certain conflict situations. Such experiences are veryencouraging and lead to a real improvement of serviceprovision in extension.

7 CONCLUSIONThis approach to make the PEA process transparentand operational through a detailed description of sometheoretical/conceptual consideration and practicaldescription has shown great potential in Zimbabwe sofar. However, there is still a danger that steps will beused as blueprints, which will lead to low effectivenessof PEA. A high quality training and coaching in thefield as well as peer learning groups needs to beestablished to achieve quality implementation andensure fully committed extension agents.

The experiences in Zimbabwe indicate the highpotential contributions PEA can make to theimprovement of livelihood systems in ruralcommunities. Action and social learning is thefoundation for a sustainable human development.Whether this vast potential can be mobilisedeffectively and country-wide depends on the peoplewho are in favour of, and implement, suchapproaches. PEA is a flexible framework whichchallenges individuals’ and communities’ creativity andflexibility.

In terms of the scope of PEA, it is obvious that theapproach to social mobilisation and localorganisational development has potential far beyondagriculture. Issues like improved self-governance andimproved decentralisation efforts (through betterrepresentation and accountability of local leaders)indicate that agricultural extension approaches suchas PEA have more to offer than just the promotion ofagricultural technologies. These new avenues needto be explored further.

Implementation of PEA through large extensionorganisations who often have top-down cultures ofmanagement remain a major challenge. Bottom-upapproaches hardly match such hierarchical systems.Therefore the thrust towards PEA needs to beaccompanied by institutional reform programmes. Thismakes it an even more difficult venture. In Zimbabwe,such an initiative is on-going and the early stageshave been described in Hagmann et al. (1998).

In terms of the resource implications of PEA, thedevelopment of implementation capabilities throughon-site and off-site training and learning as describedabove, requires a concentration of training resourcesover a period of two years. PEA implementation isresource neutral except for stationery and visualisationmaterials such as flipchart paper, etc. The majordifference – the change in attitudes and behaviourof extension agents – is not costly, but requires acertain level of motivation, which not every agenthas. Therefore, the impact will not necessarily behomogenous across different areas.

ENDNOTES1 For more details see the training manual and video

which shows the whole PEA process and is meantas an initial training tool for extension workers.Contact Jürgen Hagmann.

REFERENCESChambers, R. (1993) Challenging the professions.

Frontiers for rural development. London: ITPublications.

CTA (1997) ‘Extension services: Masters or servants’.Spore Newsletter No. 68.

Hagmann, J., Chuma, E., and Murwira, K. (1997)‘Kuturaya – Participatory research, innovation andextension’. In L. van Veldhuizen, A. Waters-Bayer,R. Ramirez, D. Johnson and J. Thompson, Farmers’research in practice: Lessons from the field. London:IT Publications.

Hagmann, J., Chuma, E., Connolly, M., and Murwira,K. (1998) ‘Client-driven change and institutionalreform in agricultural extension: An action learningexperience from Zimbabwe’. Agricultural Researchand Extension Network Paper No. 78. London: ODI.

Hope, A. and Timmel, S. (1984) Training fortransformation, a handbook for communityworkers. Gweru: Mambo Press.

Intermediate Technology Zimbabwe (1997) Ourcommunity ourselves. A search for food security byChivi’s farmers. Harare: ITZ.

Madondo, B.B.S. (1995) ‘Agricultural transfer systemsof the past and present’. In S. Twomlow, J. Ellis-Jones, J. Hagmann and H. Loos, Soil and waterconservation for smallholder farmers in semi-aridZimbabwe. Proceedings of a technical workshopheld 3–7 April 1995 in Masvingo, Zimbabwe.Zimbabwe: Belmont Press.

Moyo, E.S. (1996) ‘Re-thinking community-levelplanning and development: Conceptualconsiderations for the future’. Integrated ruraldevelopment programme Discussion paper.Zimbabwe: Integrated rural developmentprogramme.

Scoones, I., and Hakutangwi, M. (1996) ‘Evaluationof the Chivi food security project’. Unpublished.

Network Papers cost £3.00 sterling each (add postage & packing - 50p Europe or £1 elsewhere for each paper).Please contact the Network Administrator at:

The Overseas Development Institute, Portland House, Stag Place, London SW1E 5DP, UKTel: +44 (0)171 393 1600 Fax: +44 (0)171 393 1699 Email: [email protected]

Information about ODI and its publications can be found on our World-Wide Web pages on the Internet at:http://www.oneworld.org/odi/

putting process into practice: operationalising ... · pra participatory rural appraisal rra rapid...

Documents