multipurpose tree species research for small farms: strategies ... - part

planned bulletiii. are provided, but the quality of
the printing indicates they receive lower priority
and financial support than the field work and
training.
In most cases, a trained agriculturalist visits the
trainees after they have returned to their farms, to
distribute sample seeds and provide technical
advice on the ground. If a local group seriously
adopts the technology, technical advice is
continued indelaitely upon request.
In addition to the contour alley cropping,
gardens, and snail-duck-pig-rice paddy cultivation,
the Rural Life Center is notable for the amount of
cost and yield information collected for woodlots
and goat herds.
Mag-uugmad Foundation, Inc.
The third visit was with the Mag-uugmad
Foundation, Inc. (MF), a locally managed
organization based on an earlier World Neighbors
project. It operates in the hills about 40 minutes
from Cebu City, Cebu. MFstill maintains ties with
World Neighbors.
Normally, 3 - 5 representatives of a farmers'
organization visit for a few days, living and working
with MF farmers. After their return home, a small
group of MF members will visit their farms upon
request to help them get started with the new
technology. The participating MF training officers
and farmer leaders are reimbursed for the time
spent in training by outside grant money.
Comparisons
All three organizations used field
demonstration plots, covered similar technologies,
and included overlapping methods of teaching, but
there were obvious differences. IIRR was clearly
oriented toward a more highly educated
participant, both in the type of 'material used and
the manner of communication.
The RLC personnel stated and demonstrated
that they attach top priority to soil and water
conservation for the long-term good of the farmer
trainees. The Center's workers are dedicated and
competent as shown by the high level of technical
training, although trainees need not be literate.
There was an impression that a conscious effort
was necessary to avoid teaching visiting farmers
more details than they can absorb.
The MF, on the other hand, uses practicing
farmers as teachers. Their fields were generally
174
not as well managed as those of IIRR or RLC,
nor were they as consistent. Each farmer had
his own priorities, which were obvious. One
difficulty, it seemed, was that tite farmers were
taught a single generally usable technique for
carrying out each needed step, which was not
necessarily the best in every case, nor universally
practical.
No information was available to evaluate the
relative cost effectiveness, even approximately,
of using paid farmers versus using educated
national agriculturists.
All three organizations communicate
effectively, to slightly differing audiences, and
there is i.o reason why only one method should
be used. Indeed, as mentioned above, more
than one method is desirable.
The IIRR use of publications and trainee
groups is an extremely effective way to reach
large audiences who read and understand what
!hey read, and who absorb concepts easily.
The MF farmer-to-farmer method, on the
other hand, requires little literacy and is
demonstrably practical. If farmer leadership
participation were free of cost, the multiplier
effect could be tremendous. However, farmers
cannot afford to devote an appreciable amount
of time to training others without some form of
compensation.
To an extent, the RLC represents a
compromise between the other two: high
technical expertise, publications for the literate,
and hands-on experience for all.
In an ideal world, each organization would
have top quality publications and group training
facilities, great field training conditions,
dedicated agricultural specialists supervising the
field experience, farmers interested in training,
and funds to repay them for their time and
trouble. In the meantime, while taking different
routes, all three organizations are
demonstrating practical communication
methods and contributing significantly to
improving the lives of small farmers.
Note: Workshop on Sustainable Agriculture in the
Uplands, August 25 - Sceptember 9, 1989 in the Philippines.
Ilosied by the Mindanao Baptist Rural Life Center,
Mag-uugmad Foundation, Inc., 2nd the International
Institute of Rural Reconstruction.