Farmers as Partners in Knowledge Development NotesKI I t is fashionable to talk about "part- ideally focus their work on improving nerships" and "stakeholders." Unfor- the lot of all partners, of whom the tunately, the main stakeholder--the poor--most of them small rural/farm- farmers--are often overlooked in the households--though an overwhelming process of search for and development majority, wield hardly any power. The of knowledge despite their extremely premise of this article is that "partner- rich knowledge. ship" and "participatory concepts" Knowledge can be classified into (i) have been rather insufficiently prac- explicit, which can be easily recorded ticed by some stakeholders--e.g., sci- http://www.worldbank.org/afr/ik/default.htm (e.g., books) and (ii) tacit, which can- entists and development managers--to not be always articulated. However, the detriment of the ultimate stake- much of this "tacit" knowledge can be holders, the farmers, especially the shared. The conversion of tacit knowl- small farmers/farm-households.1 edge into explicit knowledge is called Stakeholders have significant differ- "externalization." Farmers possess ences in their objectives, concerns, re- both kinds of knowledge. Scientists of- sources, and levels of control and ten pre-determine ignorance largely power, which render the partnership because they have little interest in ex- shaky at best and infeasible at worst. No. 69 ternalizing farmers' tacit knowledge. A For example, the objectives of scien- June 2004 new form of knowledge is generated by combining (analyzing, categorizing, IK Notes reports periodically on and integrating) this externalized ex- Indigenous Knowledge (IK) initiatives plicit knowledge of several individu- in Sub-Saharan Africa and occasionally on such initiatives outside the Region. als/entities so as to create a "new ex- It is published by the Africa Region's plicit" from tacit knowledge. Knowledge and Learning Center as part of an evolving IK partnership between the World Bank, communi- ties, NGOs, development institutions Stakeholders in agricultural and multilateral organizations. The knowledge development and views expressed in this article are World Bank those of the authors and should not be consequences for partnership attributed to the World Bank Group or its partners in this initiative. A The various stakeholders involved in webpage on IK is available at // development and the adoption of agri- www.worldbank.org/afr/ik/ default.htm cultural technology/knowledge should 2 tists are generally to produce "new" technologies which are activities. Given their general levels of poverty and precari- high yielding (often for the person concerned), bringing ben- ous economic situations, they try to follow a system which is efits to them in terms of publications, recognition, scientific conducive to sustainable livelihood and continuously adjust progress, etc. For several institutions (especially interna- to changing circumstances. Thus their knowledge, while tional agricultural research institutions), this has been a de- likely to be traditional, is by no means static. liberate strategy, in line with their mandate to develop such technologies. Their scientists usually develop these tech- nologies on research stations, where conditions of manage- Desirable features of a farm household-friendly tech- ment, input supply, and risk are quite different from those on nology farmer's fields, though testing these technologies on demon- From the viewpoint of a farmer, a new technology can be said stration and innovator's farms helps in partially narrowing to be sustainable, if it passes the acid tests of : (a) technical these differences. Their task is made more difficult by fac- feasibility within the current/ potential absorptive capacity tors such as: (a) their partial perspective (of looking at a of the farmer; (b) being relatively less risk-prone; (c) eco- single commodity or even a farming system, but often ignor- nomical profitability; (d) social acceptability; and (e) envi- ing the farm-household system which is central to the overall ronmentally friendly. Some technologies are examined in decision-making process of the farm family); and (b) the the attached table in terms of some of these characteristics wide variety of natural, social, cultural, and economic con- under the assumptions of their already being technically fea- straints under which the farmers operate. sible. An ideal technology for farmers would naturally be the The concerned researchers, educators and project manag- one which, from their standpoint, combines all these virtues ers are likely to be experts on their own subjects, and hence to the extent possible. The weight given by farmers to these tend to view the farmer as an ignorant stakeholder, who can characteristics would vary according to their resource en- only learn (and by implication, benefit) from them. They dowment, social condition, family priorities, etc. Hence, consequently perceive the process of knowledge develop- there is no single technology which would be perfectly suit- ment and transfer as a one-way channel. Their stakes in case able and acceptable to every farmer even within a region or of the failure of a new technology are relatively small; for the a locality. However, it can be safely concluded that nearly poor small farmer, it is a matter of survival. Further, the sci- ideal "new" technologies are likely to be those which are a entists and development managers are usually oblivious or refinement of the technologies already being followed by or indifferent to the local value system and ethos. Therefore, familiar to the farm-household and for which additional pre- their approach (diagnosis of problem, setting objectives and conditions of adoption (input supply, marketing, etc.) are pace of technology development and adoption) suffers from assured. Development of such technologies requires learning what is termed as the "external expert stance." Rather than from farmers, analyzing the reasons for their present prac- being partners, they often act as players belonging to differ- tices, building upon their indigenous knowledge, finding ent teams. The problem is exacerbated by differences within their constraints, cooperating with them, fostering their in- the farming communities. For example, small farm-house- novative potential and carefully assessing their absorptive holds are not a uniform entity but extremely heterogeneous capacity. in terms of their (a) objectives; (b) resource endowment; (c) A few examples from India demonstrate why introduced, family size and composition; (d) formal and informal educa- inappropriate technologies are not accepted by the farmers. tion; and the (e) natural, social, ethnic and policy environ- ment. The indigenous knowledge that they have developed and acquired through generations is therefore highly diverse; Examples of some experiences it is conditioned by as well as tailored to the above factors. High- yielding varieties of maize and wheat Within the above framework and their present level of India introduced high-yielding hybrid varieties (HYV) of knowledge/information, most farmers operate at optimal/ maize in the late 1960s. To realize their full potential, these near optimal level in terms of their overall farm-household 3 needed highly-controlled water management and a relatively Introduction of the Jersey breed in Himachal Pradesh high dosage of fertilizer. The farmers had to purchase new Smallholder farmers in the state of Himachal Pradesh prac- seed every year. The cobs of the new varieties were too big tice mixed crop and dairy farming and usually maintain a pair for roasting and also less tasty. Some types of composite vari- of draft oxen. In order to improve their income and nutri- eties, developed as a consequence of this experience, though tional status, a development project introduced pure Jersey not so high-yielding, overcame some of the problems. breed cows. These are high milk yielders, require good man- The first HYVs of wheat, introduced at around the same agement, and have no hump. However, in spite of its high time in India, were relatively easier to cultivate. They did milk yields and subsidies on purchase and feed, this breed not require purchase of seed every year, but were suscep- did not find favor with the farmers. Its male progeny, in the tible to water-logging. Their color was reddish, different absence of a hump, could not be used for draft purposes from the preferred amber color of the local varieties. Awn- (ploughing, threshing, transportation, etc.). The scientists less high-yielding varieties of wheat had high grain produc- took a clue from the farmers' attitude and experimented tion, but practically no straw. These might have been fine for with a cross between the Jersey and the local breed. This the highly mechanized farms in developed countries, where cross-breed, in spite of its lower milk yield as compared to straw has little use. But for the Indian farmer, straw is very the pure Jersey, found a wider acceptance among farmers, valuable as animal feed, thatching material, and fuel. Conse- because it had a hump and served both as a milk and draft quently, Indian scientists bred amber-colored dwarf varieties. animal. Diverse experiences with two rice varieties Scientists in India heavily favored and promoted IR8, Some lessons amongst the first HYV of rice developed by the International Farmers cannot be expected to blindly adopt technologies Rice Research Institute in the Philippines. It had a coarse developed and propagated by stake holders whose objec- grain but was easily susceptible to pests and diseases. The tives, interests, and constraints are often substantially differ- adoption of this variety by farmers was gradual. The story of ent from their own. If the scientists, development planners another variety, Mahsuri, is different. It shows that, if the and managers, wish to develop some "new" knowledge for new technology meets farmers' needs, they would adopt it the farmers/farm-households, they would need to first look even when it has not found favor with the scientists. "The at what the farmers are doing, how they are doing it, and most striking example is the paddy variety of Mahsuri which understand the reasons for the same--any related proposal was introduced in India from Malaysia for tests during 1967­ would need to make sense in this context. Farmers need 68. After two years of work, this variety was rejected by rice more meaningful options and not prescriptions. Such options breeders on account of its lodging behavior. But somehow can be best developed with their participation and through the seed reached some villages through a farm laborer in knowledge sharing as real partners, ready to share both the Andhra Pradesh. Farmers who tried it found its performance profits and risks. excellent. As a result, it spread from Andhra to Orissa, and then to West Bengal, Bihar, Uttar Pradesh and part of Madhya Pradesh. As a result of this farmer-to-farmer extension, Mahsuri is now the third most popular variety among Indian farmers, after IR8 and Jaya dwarf rice. Its semi-tall habit, high tillering, heavy panicle, high milling out-turn and excel- 1 Though farm activities are a subset of farm household activi- lent grain quality make it well-liked by farmers. (Maurya, ties, the two terms have been used interchangeably in this ar- D.M. "The innovative approach of Indian farmers" in Cham- ticle. bers, R. et al. Farmer First, London, Intermediate Technol- ogy Publications, 1989) 4 Characteristics of cropping/farming systems under various stages of technological development System Productivity§ (per Stability (vis-ą-vis Sustainability* Equitability/ unit of land) risk) Social Acceptability 1 Shifting Cultivation Low Variable (usually less High High risky) 2 Traditional lowland Medium Medium High Medium rice-based cropping system 3 First generation High Low Low Low improved rice varieties introduced in system 2 4 Modern improved rice High Low to Medium** Medium Medium varieties introduced in system 2 5 Genetically High Low*** Variable (low in terms Low engineered varieties of adoption) 6 Ideal cropping High High High High System 7 Ideal small farm- High (a level consistent High (at least ensuring High in terms of Medium to High in view household system with optimal use of subsistence level) adoption; of diverse cultural overall household Medium in terms of background resources and not time horizon simply per unit of land) § High productivity is not synonymous to high profitability. * Sustainability has several dimensions. Here, it has been used from the viewpoint of environment and adoption. ** Because of increased dependence on external factors (input supply, marketing, etc.). *** Many require special inputs. Source: Significantly adapted from Beets W. C. Raising and Sustaining Productivity of Smallholder Farming Systems in the Tropics. Alkamaar,1990. This article was written by Ramesh C. Agrawal, Professor Emeritus at Humboldt University Berlin, Faculty of Agricul- tural and Horticultural Sciences; Centre for Advanced Training in Agricultural Development. For more information, contact: rcagrawal@web.de Weisswasserweg 47, D 12205, Berlin, Germany The author presented this paper at the Deutscher Tropentag 1999 and adapted it for the IK Notes series.