Integrated Soil Water and Nutrient Management and Dry ... - Icrisat

More documents

Recommendations

Info

udgets are now activity- and performance-based, the Chief suggested that one could budget to support some non-extension work and the bulk to support delivery of services. Because the FFS are bottom up from farmers, they can be supported. However, travel and subsistence comprise the major share of costs and the challenge is to mobilize funds to support these costs. The Chief expressed his belief that the provincial budgets can support a few resource requirements such as seed and fertilizers for running FFS. Farmers should also contribute with non-cash inputs such as seed. Focusing on piloting, he noted that AREX had pilot tested several extension approaches. These were successful during the trial phase but not replicable because budgets were not provided to support scaling out and up. In addition AREX requires resources because its government-voted appropriations are limited. Consequently, scaling out and up needs to be complemented with NGO and private sector investments such as CARE- and ZFC-supported fertilizer demonstrations around rural traders. The Director of the Department of Agricultural Engineering, RJ Chitsiko, moderated the concluding session. The mandate of the Agricultural Engineering’s Department includes soil and water conservation. The director discussed the fact that FFS involves an informal training process carried out in the farmers’ fields. He said that as people grow older their fear of failure increases and that the adoption of more informal and farmer-friendly learning methods actually encourages them to acquire new skills. The Director cited field extension officers’ reports which mentioned that during simultaneouslyconducted sessions of MF training and FFS, farmers opted out of MF to FFS. This is because in FFS what they are doing is tangible. Another advantage of FFS is that since farmers train other farmers, the shortage of extension workers can be overcome, and FFS can exploit multiplier effects. The Director noted that despite the advantages there are three major problem areas that researchers and practitioners need to emphasize and focus on. The first is that although there are 5 districts participating, surprisingly, all district programs for 2002/03 cropping season on SWNM focused only on tied ridges. He said that this was more than mere coincidence, and that field extension agents need to identify with farmers their needs. The second addresses the open-mindedness of the technocrats. Are extension agents willing to accept feedback from stakeholders? During the discussion when AREX’s technology recommendations and knowledge base was challenged, the extension officers became defensive and formed a laager. Yet feedback 5
that is well received can be beneficial. The third was the issue of institutionalization and internalization of FFS by AREX. The Director observed that while institutionalization is necessary, internalization is not good enough. The latter needs to be accompanied by institutionalization and assimilation, and to take into account culture. He argued that FFS should be implemented with discretion because the method has its weaknesses. In much the same way that the Training and Visit extension system was found too costly to scale out after successful initial piloting, FFS could be very expensive. Still there remains a challenge for all technocrats to shift from farmer involvement to empowerment. When farmers are empowered they occupy the driver’s seat and demand what they want extension agents to do. The FFS approach and ISWNM both take place in the field. The Director concluded by making the case for taking the technologies back to the field for application. 6
Page 2 and 3: Citation: Citation: Rusike J, Heinr
Page 4 and 5: The opinions expressed in this publ
Page 6 and 7: Synthesis Synthesis of Workshop Out
Page 8 and 9: • Increased crop and variety dive
Page 12 and 13: Appendix Introduction Background an
Page 14 and 15: The farmers decided on the experime
Page 16 and 17: Table 1. Manzimahle Farmer Field Sc
Page 18 and 19: egistered to become members of the
Page 20 and 21: The farmers appreciated the fact th
Page 22 and 23: The groups discussed problems affec
Page 24 and 25: • Fuel shortage • Low mileage r
Page 26 and 27: • Pre-planting tied ridges are no
Page 28 and 29: completed in all FFS. Installation
Page 30 and 31: wider options available and whether
Page 32 and 33: for the whole country. Provincial t
Page 34 and 35: • Participating farmers liked sha
Page 36 and 37: • There is high staff turnover of
Page 38 and 39: Responses of farmers and extension
Page 40 and 41: years, ranging from 23 to 87. On av
Page 42 and 43: Government extension officers and N
Page 44 and 45: Table 11. Allocation of government
Page 46 and 47: Impact of Master Farmer, Farmer Fie
Page 48 and 49: Compared to the control group, the
Page 50 and 51: Empowerment Farmers were asked whet
Page 52 and 53: farmer-to-farmer visits, a sense of
Page 54 and 55: to the majority of farmers, conduct
Page 56 and 57: This study conducted a comparative
Page 58 and 59: Participants Alibaba, S Provincial
Page 60 and 61:
Makumbe, Willie Senior Agricultural
Page 62 and 63:
Ndebele, Crispen Crop Research Offi
Page 64 and 65:
Tsikisayi, Sylvester Director ZFU P
Page 66:
ICRISAT-Patancheru (Headquarters) P
show all

Integrated Soil Water and Nutrient Management and Dry ... - Icrisat

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?