A Review of Participatory Agricultural Research and Development in South Africa KZN

A Review of Participatory Agricultural Research and Development in South

Africa and KwaZulu Natal.

May 2014

Erna Kruger

and Jere L Gilles

Erna Kruger. Mahlathini Organics, 72Tahtam Road, Prestbury,Pietermaritzburg, KZN, South Africa.

erna@mahlathiniorganics.co.za

Jere LGilles. Department of RuralSociology226 GentryHall, University of Missouri, Columbia, Missouri 65211, USA.

GillesJ@missouri.edu

Page| 2 
A reviewofParticipatoryAgricultural
Researchand Developmentin SouthAfrica
andKwaZulu Natal;May 2014
Table of Contents
SUMMARY ........................................................................................................................................................................3 
INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................................................................4 
Global trends ....................................................................................................................................................................4 
Key themes and assumptions in Participatory Agricultural Research ..............................................................................5 
The interplay between research, extension and farmers................................................................................................7 
HISTORY OF PARTICIPATORY AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH IN SA-KZN ...................................................................................8 
Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA) and  Sustainable Livelihoods Analysis (SLA) .............................................................9 
Participatory Research and Extension (PRE).................................................................................................................12
Farmer Participatory Research (FPR)...........................................................................................................................14
Farming Systems Research and Extension (FSR&E) ......................................................................................................14
Participatory Technology (PDT) and Innovation Development (PID) .............................................................................15
Participatory Action Research (PAR) ............................................................................................................................19
Maize in KZN ...................................................................................................................................................................20
Conservation Agriculture (CA) .....................................................................................................................................22
SUMMARY OF TRENDS IN KWAZULU NATAL ....................................................................................................................24
RECOMMENDATIONS ......................................................................................................................................................25
Organisations..............................................................................................................................................................26
Geopolitical considerations .........................................................................................................................................26
Methodologies ............................................................................................................................................................27
Role players/stakeholders ...........................................................................................................................................28
ACTIONS FOR CHANGES IN POLICY..................................................................................................................................28
Bibliography ....................................................................................................................................................................30
APPENDIX A: Operational philosophies of a cross section of AR&D Organisations in KZN. ................................................34

Page| 3

SUMMARY

Globally, it is accepted that Participatory AgriculturalResearch and Development can play a significant role in

reducing rural poverty, food insecurity and malnutrition. The international development community is giving

increased attention to agricultural innovation processes and systems that lead to outcomes at scale.

Inclusive multi-dimensional and multi-stakeholder learning processes are seen as important. Smallholder

family farmers become more central inthe design and implementation of research processes as partners in

planning and implementation processes.

Key trends or changes in Participatory Agricultural development thinking are moving from:

Increase in production to improvement in local livelihoods

 Technology transfer to local innovation development

Beneficiaries of projects to influential stakeholders within programmes

 Technology transfer to co-development of innovation systems

 Functional participation to empowerment and

 Applied and adaptive research to strategic and pre-adaptive research.

In South Africa different participatory approaches and processes have developed primarily through North-South

partnerships and include methodologies such as PRA/PLA (Participatory Rural Appraisal/Participatory

Learning and Action),FPR (farmer Participatory Research) and FSR (farming Systems Research and Extension),

PTD (Participatory Technology Development) and PID (Participatory Innovation Development),PAR

(Participatory Action Research), CBNRM (Community Based Natural Resource Management), SLA

(Sustainable Livelihoods Analysis) and other gender and stakeholder analysis methods such as AKIS

(Agricultural Knowledge Information Systems) and RAAKS (Rapid Appraisal of Agricultural Knowledge

Systems). Most ofthesemethodologies have been introducedin KwaZulu-Natal through Non Government

Organisations and researchers associated with Universities, Parastatal Agricultural Research Institutions and

Corporate Social Investment bodies. Although some of the rhetoric has filtered into government

programmes through these channels, implementation and funding from government sources invariably do

not include these approaches.

There are two basic trends in terms of Participatory Research and Development (PR&D) in Kwazulu-Natal, for the

few organisations that consciously work in this field:

1.Participatory Innovation Development; primarily NGO based and supported through international

donor funding or CSI based and supported through for example Grain-SA and Wesbank. The latter is only

now (the last 2-3years) coming to thefore as this sector finally rises to the challenge of providing

meaningful support to smallholders. To a lesser extent the Parastatal Research Institutes have dabbled

in the process.

2.Participatory Action Research; this research paradigm appears to have become primarily, the domain of

the Universities with bothUNISA and UKZN focussing on these processes quite strongly.This ‘learning’

paradigm is one that can suite universities better in terms of the scope and scale of projects that they

can confidently tackle through supporting pre-and post-graduate students.

For those organisations that also have an advisory/extension role (Universities and Colleges, Parastatal Research

Institutes and Non Government Organisations) Agricultural Innovation Systems and Sustainable Livelihoods

Approaches have come to the fore.

Mostly the emphasis on participatory work will be led through specific projects or programmes, often donor

funded and led by individuals with a strong vision and commitment to such processes.

Page| 4

Participatory Agricultural Research and Development is almost entirely absent from Government Departments

and extension, outside of sporadic donor funded projects, despite policy and programmatic rhetoric

Given the disparity between the commercial andsmallholder family farming sector and the extreme

politicisation andfragmentation of the government sector nationally, provincially and locally,it is proposed

that research, education, theprivate sector andnon government institutions worktogether in multi

stakeholder partnerships to provide ahome for Participatory Agricultural Research and Development, until

the political will shifts more towards providing meaningful support to rural dwellers in South Africa. A

concomitant focus on the growing of local organisations and movements with the ability to lobby and

advocate for change is required. There are already a few working examples of such partnerships.

Specific actions required in policy development throughout the spectrum of stakeholders at local, provincial and

national level include: Convincing donors, organisations and governments to change the way they fund

agricultural research; supporting innovation platforms and other multi-stakeholder alliances at different

levels; developing innovation brokerage capacity; strengtheningthe pivotal role of agricultural advisors and

to integrating the innovation systems approach into education.

INTRODUCTION

Global trends

Global experience shows that new ways of thinking about anddoing agricultural research anddevelopment are

required. The basic paradigm shiftis one ofmoving away from the idea that research and development is a

process of generating and transferring modern technology to ‘farmers’. And then moving towards seeing the

idea as an inclusive multi dimensional learning process that:

Works from a holistic perspective that includes biophysical, socio-political and economic perspectives in

agriculture AND natural resource management;

Draws upon diverse source of knowledge – from local to global ;

Provides for meaningful participation of user groups in the process of investigatingimprovements in

local situation;

And builds synergy between local capacities, resources and innovations by

oProviding decision supporttools and information that enables various types of users to make

strategic choices and actions and

Which results in a wide range of knowledge products (technological through to socio-political) for

generating, sharing, exchanging and utilizing knowledge.

These global trends are reflected also in trends in Participatory Agricultural research in South Africa,albeit in a

much more haphazard way.

Local people become, not beneficiaries, but stakeholders or actors who provide key inputs into the process:

They have complementary roles in defining research priorities

They take on the adaptive/ applied testing (informal modes of experimentation) of promisingnew

innovations and for dissemination through their social networks for co-development of new innovations

Learning becomes more experiential and ways of externalising tacit knowledge are found. (Hoffmann,

Probst, & Christinck, 2007)

Page| 5

This has meant agrowing interestin theuse ofparticipatory approachesin natural resourcemanagement,

agriculture and rural livelihoods, that collectively can be seen as participatory research anddevelopment

striving for meaningful participation in the process of seeking improvements in local situations.

These approachesare more likely to beable todeal with ‘second generation issues’ suchas diverse biophysical

environments, multiple livelihoods goals, rapid changes in local and global economics and the drastic decline

in resource investment for the formal research and development sector.(Gonsalves, et al., 2005)

The mid to late 1990’ssaw aglobal trend towards meaningfulfarmer participation in agricultural researchand

development and methodologies such as Farming Systems Research and Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA),

developed in the 1970’s and 1980’s, were incorporated into methodological frameworks such a Farmer

Participatory Research, Participatory Learning and Action, Farmer Field Schools, Participatory Innovation

Development and Action Research. The frameworks take political, social- cultural and ethical issues into

account andplace thepriorities and processes offarmers centre stage.(Sutherland,1998).Subsequently,

Sustainable Livelihoods frameworks and other frameworks to attempt to incorporate the economic elements

of situations more overtly, have also been developed. These development processes provide a

framework thathelps in understanding thecomplexities of povertyanda set ofprinciples to guide action to

address and overcome poverty

More recently there has been a greater focus on institutional and organisational aspects of Participatory

Agricultural Research to assess progress and impact,interms of concernssuch aspartnership, capacity

building on all levels, as well as issues of scale (scaling up and scaling out). It hasalso meant an increased

focus onthe impact ofparticipatory researchon rural development indicators such s poverty reduction and

sustainability. (Becker, 2005)(De Leener, 2003) (Waters-Bayer, Van Veldhuizen, Wettasinha, &

Wongtschowski, 2005) (Guendel, Hancock, & Anderson, 2001).

Key themes and assumptions in Participatory Agricultural Research

These themes have emerged as different organisations (Research institutes, Universities, Non Government

Organisations (NGOs) and to a lesser extentGovernment Organisations) grapple with the real issues of

increasing productivity and sustainability for rural dwellersworld wide, mostly in the developing Southern

nations andmostly in partnership with moredeveloped Northern countries.These themes includethe

following:

Pro-poor targeting

Conservation and sustainable use of

natural resources

Development of uplands and other less-

favoured areas

Local governance,decentralization and

citizens’ rights

Equity for women and other

marginalized socio-economic groups

Trade globalization and supply chains

Migration and rural-urban dynamics

Property rights and collective action

Agriculture and human health

Multi-stakeholder partnerships

EiFrom increase in production... to

improvement in local livelihoods

F From technology transfer .... to local

innovation development

F From beneficiaries... to influential

stakeholders

F From technologytransfer.... to co-

development of innovations

F From functional participation... to

empowerment

Fromapplied and adaptive research ...to

strategic and pre-adaptive research

...

Page| 6

Local capacity development and

Organizational learning and change

These themes are being explored largely using the following two basic assumptions:

OVERALL ASSUMPTION 1: New technology is the key leading factor in the process of desired social

change

OVERALLASSUMPTION 2: Increased yields or production is the underlying goal of all agricultural

research and development

Because the themes that have emerged from working in the sector have by necessity broadened to also

encompass social, political, cultural and natural resource management concerns, these basic assumptions

now appear to be somewhat flawed and can lead to amismatch between programme intentions and

outcomes. It can be argued that a large portion of the failure of Participatory Agricultural Research to have a

sustained impact in more marginalised rural communities stems from this mismatch. The other major

contributing factor is the inability of governmentsin developing nations to put appropriate policies,

strategies and processes in place to provide an enabling environment.

The new basic assumptions that are emerging through consolidated internal and external review of programmes

are:

OVERALLASSUMPTION 1: Meaningful participation of user groups in the process of investigating

improvement in local situations.

OVERALLASSUMPTION 2: Increased livelihood diversity, resilience and security is to be the

underlying goal of all agricultural research and development.

Now, concepts such as strategic andpre-adaptive participatory research become important as does the idea of

best practise scenarios and options and the mainstreaming of cross cutting issues and themes. In many ways

these concepts are still in a developmental phase and are not as yet integral in existing institutional and

research cultures.

The development of methodological frameworks and processes to encompass the above themes and goals has

followed two broad tracks/lines depending to anextent, on the type ofinstitution at workand their overall

aims: researcher and innovation. (Brock & Pettit, 2007)

Participatory Action Research (PAR)is an approach to research in communities that emphasizes participation

and action. It seeks to understand the world by trying to change it, collaboratively and following reflection.

PAR emphasizes collective inquiry and experimentation grounded in experience and social history. Within a

PAR process, "communities of inquiry and action evolve and address questions and issues that are significant

for those who participate as co-researchers"(Reason & Bradbury, Introduction, 2008)PAR contrastswith

many research methods, which emphasize disinterested researchers and reproducibility of findings.

PAR practitioners make aconcerted effort tointegrate three basic aspects oftheir work:participation (life in

society and democracy), action (engagement with experience and history), and research (soundness in

thought and the growth of knowledge) (Chevalier & and Buckles, 2013).

This provides academic flexibility and rigour as well as providing a framework to easily include the socio-political

and cultural aspects of a research process. It is by nature primarily a methodof social enquiry andhasself

transformation and empowerment as an underlying goal.Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA), experiential

Page| 7

learning and indigenous knowledge facilitation techniques fit in well as facilitation methodologies, as do

methods such as photo voice, community theatre and role plays.

Participatory Innovation Development (PID);is an approach to learningand innovation that is used

in international development as part of projects and programmes relating to sustainable agriculture. The

approach involves collaboration between researchers and farmers in the analysis of agricultural problems

and testing of alternative farming practices.

It has developed out of methodologies suchas Farming Systems Research and Extension,PRA andPLA

(participatory learning and action) and Indigenous Technical Knowledge Systems andincorporates further

methodologies such as Farmer Field Schools.

This approach enables the research and development community to respond to locally defined problems and to

find solutions that build upon local knowledge and areconsistentwith local resources and contexts.

Moreover, by involving farmers as the users of the research process, it is more likely that farmers would

share and use (new) knowledge.

Local innovation in agriculture and natural resource management goes beyond technologies to socio-

organizational arrangements such as new ways of regulatingthe use of resources, new ways of community

organization, or new ways of stakeholder interaction. The term Participatory Innovation Development (PID)

embraces this broader understanding of joint research and development and is now being used alongside, or

in place of PTD (Participatory Technology Development).

The interplay between research, extension and farmers

Traditionally, a rather linear approach of policy development-research-extension-farmers has been implemented

and promoted. This approach largely still works well for the conventional farming sector albeit with a

number of feedback loops, designed forincorporation offarmers andextension perspectives back into

research and policy. Political and agri-business imperatives provide strong motivation for the success of this

process.

However, in the smallholder agriculture sector, neither the political nor agri-business imperatives hold much

sway and the linear model of technology transfer has failed repeatedly and at a large scale.

More circular andflexible models have been developed and the overalltrend in both PAR and PID hasbeen for

researchers and farmers to interact alot more andalot more directly.Extension,from a government and

public institution perspective has developed alongside to become more educational and participatory and

methods suchas FFS(Farmer Field Schools) and PTD (Participatory Technology Development) have been

included-although mostly on project or programme levels, rather than as an integral part ofthe extension

service. Many research and development organisations have tended to combine research and extension into

one component –usheringin multi-disciplinary approaches and research as wellas capacity building for

researchers in the fields of participation and facilitation. Agri-business to some extent hasfollowed suite.

Government extension services, especially in the beleaguered South arestill widespread but fundamental

questions about their role andultimate usefulness are the order of the day.(Leeuwis &Van den Ban, 3rd

Edition).

Page| 8

FIGURE1:THE INTERPLAYBETWEEN RESEARCH EXTENSION ANDFARMERS,INDICATING ASSOCIATEDMETHODOLOGIES.

HISTORY OF PARTICIPATORY AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH IN SA-KZN

Different participatory approaches andprocesses developed in North-Southpartnerships include PRA/PLA

(Participatory Rural Appraisal/Participatory Learningand Action),FPR (farmer Participatory Research) and

FSR (farming Systems Research and Extension), PTD (Participatory Technology Development) and PID

(Participatory Innovation Development), PAR (Participatory Action Research),CBNRM (Community Based

Natural Resource Management), SLA (Sustainable Livelihoods Analysis) and other gender and stakeholder

analysis methods such as AKIS (Agricultural Knowledge Information Systems) and RAAKS (Rapid Appraisal of

Agricultural Knowledge Systems).

Allhave been introduced in South Africa and KZN primarily through NGOs and researchers associated with

Universities, parastatal Agricultural Research Institutions and Corporate Social Investment bodies. Although

some of the rhetoric has filtered into government programmes through these channels, implementation and

funding from government sources invariably do not include these approaches or do soas short term, more

localised project based interventions, usually at the behest of Northern funding partners.

A selection of participatory research methodologies will be explored below, with examples of their use in South

African institutions to illustrate their applications in the last 20 years.

researcher

development

facilitator/

extension/ innovator

farmer

P PAR

PRA/PLA

Farming systems

Research

Farmer Participatory

Research

PTD/PID

FFS

PID (Agro-ecosystems)

FFS

PRA/PLA

Farmer to Farmer

PTD/ PID

Page| 9

Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA) and Sustainable Livelihoods Analysis (SLA)

PRA is ‘a growing family of approaches and methods to enable local people toshare, enhance and analyse their

knowledge of life and conditions, to plan and to act’ (Chambers, 1993)

A key feature ofPRA is its holistic approach, in which the interaction between differentelements in complex

people-environmentrelationships is an important focus. A common thread in all these methodologies is

their recognition of important inter-linkages between different elements of rural livelihood andproduction

systems. Unlike earlier methodologies, PRA recognizes that indigenous people are capable of identifying and

expressing their needs and aspirations themselves and in their own way, such that the role of the researcher

is changed to that of a listener, learner, catalyst and facilitator.

A comment made by University based researchers,indicate the trendin South Africa in the early 90’s. “Despite

the growing international interest in PRA, there has been remarkably little research and writing on this topic

in South Africa and there is little, if any, evidence of explicit PRA work being done”. (Binns, Hill, & Nel, 1994).

This has changed somewhat since then, in that PRA/PLA has become a common methodology taughtat

University level to students in community development, within a number of different disciplines and sectors.

It is promoted asa methodology for garnering community participationand support, mostly in situation

analysis/ needs assessment processes and for initiating involvement and research – so basically as an

information gathering tool. See the table below for a selection of examples that illustrate this point.

SLA is a framework for analysing sustainable livelihoods, defined here in relation to five key indicators. The

framework shows how, in different contexts, sustainable livelihoods are achieved through access to a range

of livelihood resources (natural, economic, human and social capitals) which are combined in the pursuit of

different livelihood strategies (agricultural intensification or extensification, livelihood diversification and

migration). Central to the framework is the analysis of the range of formal and informal organisational and

institutional factors that influence sustainable livelihood outcomes (Scoones, 1998). The PRA methodology is

central to the application of this framework in community situations.

TABLE1;EXAMPLES OF USEOF PRA(PARTICIPATORY RURALAPPRAISAL)AND SLA(SUSTAINABLELIVELIHOODS ANALYSIS)

FORRESEARCH PURPOSES.

Year

Organisation

and

methodology

Title

Aim

comments

1995

University of

Witwatersrand

(WITS)

Development, research and participation:

Towards a critique of participatory rural

appraisal methods. Jonathan Stadler .

Development Southern Africa. Vol. 12,

Iss. 6, 1995

A critique of PRA processes and methodologies He

comments on the methodological weakness of social

context within PRA

2002

Agricultural

Research Council

Raising livestock in resource-poor

communities of the North West Province of

South Africa - a participatory rural

appraisal study. Vol 73 No 4. Pges 177-184.

Journal of the South African Veterinary

Association

Tto obtain

information on the

challenges owners

face in raising

livestock in these

areas and to

evaluate the

livestock owners'

level of knowledge

of internal parasites

in their animals.

Questionnaires, PRA survey:

There were some difficulties in

using the participatory methods

since it was the first time that the

facilitators and the communities

had been exposed to them. Many

communities had difficulty in

dealing with the concept of finding

solutions within the community,

which is such an integral part of

participatory methods

2008

Agricultural

Research Council:

A facilitated process towards finding

options for improved livestock production

in the communal areas of Sterkspruit in the

Eastern Cape province, South Africa. WM

Interviews and focus group discussions; Multi

stakeholder process for options to improve livestock

production. Due to limitations in research agenda, no

common agenda for action agreed to.

Page| 10

Goqwana, C Machingura, Z Mdlulwa, R

Mkhari, O Mmolaeng, AO Selomane .

African Journal of Range & Forage Science

Vol. 25, Iss. 2, 2008

2009

2011

University of

SouthAfrica

(UNISA):

Community group environment for people

participation and empowerment.

Diale, Nkgodi, Race.

The data was collected through participants observation

Participatory Rural Appraisal techniques , community

groups, documents reviews, and groups and individual

interviews This study explores participatory development

methods which may be engaged with a smaller

community interest group to create an environment

conducive to free and effective participation towards

empowering more participants in rural communities

The study found that: interest groups are morecommon,

accessible and empowering in rural communities than

organisational linkage structures.

2011

University of

Pretoria (UP)

Towards redesigning the agricultural

extension service in South Africa: views

and proposals of smallholder farmers in

the Eastern Cape.JA Van Niekerk, A

Stroebel, CJ Van Rooyen, KP Whitfield, FCJ

Swanepoel .South African. Journal of

Agricultural . Extension. Vol

39 no.2 Pretoria2011

The research used a Logical Framework Analysis (LFA)

enquiry, including PRA methods to determine the

problems smallholder farmers face as well as the causes

and effects of their problems.

2014

University of

Kwazulu Natal

(UKZN).

Exploring the Role of Agricultural Extension

in Promoting Biodiversity Conservation in

Kwazulu-Natal Province, South Africa

Kamal Adekunle and Abdu-Raheem.

Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems

www.tandfonline.com

SSI’s (semi-structured interviews) with different

stakeholders used to determineKZN extension service

contribution to promoting biodiversity

Assessed extension astypicallytechnologytransferwith

no content in NRM, Diversity

1999

RhodesUniversity

(RU)

Empowerment for development: Taking

participatory appraisal further in rural

South Africa

Nicole Motteux, Tony Binns, Etienne Nel,

Kate Rowntree. Development in Practice

Vol. 9, Iss. 3,1999

Critiqueof PRA in the context of catchmentmanagement

and Land Care.

2013

ACCI(African

Centrefor Crop

Improvement)

UKZN

Potato production in Kenya: Farming

systems and production constraints. Jane

Muthoni, Hussein Shimelis and Rob Melis

Journal of Agricultural Science 5:182-197.

Preferences and constraints of maize

farmers in the development and adoption

of improved varieties in the mid-altitude,

sub-humid agro-ecology of western

Ethiopia. W. Abera, Shimelis Hussein, J.

Derera , M. Worku and M.D. Laing. African

Journal of Agricultural Research 8:1245-

1254.

Farmers’ desired traits and selection

criteria for maize cultivars and their

implications for maize breeding: A case

study from South Africa. Sibiya, J.,

Tongoona P., Derera, J., and MakandaI.

Journal of Agriculture and Rural

Development in the Tropics and Subtropics

114(1):39–49.

PRA component/chapter for all PhD ‘s in breedingtrough

the ACCI. (2003-2014)

PRA and SLA methods used for assessment,selection

criteria, breeding priorities etc.

2001

Rhodes University

The role of land-based strategies in rural

livelihoods: The contribution of arable

production, animal husbandry and natural

resource harvesting in communal areas in

South Africa. Charlie M Shackleton,

Sheona E Shackleton, Ben Cousins

Development Southern Africa Vol. 18,

Iss. 5,200

SLA, and PRA techniques employed to

Uses a livelihoodsperspectiveto analyse land based

strategies.

Page| 11

2013

Dept of Agric

economics,

University of free

State(UFS).

Exploring social capital of emerging

farmers from Eksteenskuil, South Africa

Henry Jordaan, Bennie Grové.

Vol. 30, Iss. 4-05,2013

(based at the University of Malawi), and Dr

Chrispen Sukume (Zimbabwe. : An example

of the participatory research, and multi

stakeholder partnership processes currently

being conducted at PLAAS (Programme for

Land and Agrarian studies based at the

University of the Western Cape.

Using the SLA and framework to assess social relations

among smallholders in a specific context

2013

PLAAS

(Progamme for

Land and Agrarian

Studies)

University ofthe

WesternCape

(UWC)

Space, Markets and Employment in

Agricultural Development. Prof Andries Du

Toit ; Dr Ian Scoones (IDS Sussex, UK)

and Prof Ben Cousins, David

Neves (dneves@plaas.org.za) Dr Ephraim

Chirwa

Programme and institutional partnershipapproachwithin

a broad SLA to analysis

The two summaries below give a good indication of the use ofPRA in a research context, in KZN and applied to

maize as a crop:

1.Use of PRA methods and surveys to glean information about farmers desired traits and selection criteria

for maize varieties.

2.Use of PRA and SLA (sustainable livelihoods analysis) in a study boytheARC to ascertainthe effectof

land degradation in Emmaus (Bergville) on local livelihoods.

Adoption of hybridsand improved varieties has remained low in thesmallholder farming sector of South

Africa, despite maize being the staple food crop for the majority of households. The objective of this study

was to establish preferred maize characteristics by farmerswhich can be used as selection criteria by

maize breeders in crop improvement. Data were collected from three villages of a selected smallholder

farming area in SouthAfrica using a survey covering 300 households and participatory rural appraisal

methodology. Results indicated a limited selection of maize varieties grown by farmers in the area

compared to other communities in Africa. More than 97%of the farmers grew a local landrace

called Natal-8-roworIsiZulu. Hybrids and improved open pollinated varieties were planted by less than

40% of the farmers (Sibiya, Tongoona, Derera, & Makanda, 2013. Vol. 114 No. 1)

Page| 12

Application of the methodology in it’s more intended form, asa community planning and action methodology

that promotes self direction and empowerment is much more rare. NGOs using this approach in South Africa

also work primarily with the methodology as an information gathering and planning tool in the initial stages

of projects; thus a more development orientated application. Work with the methodology is more flexible in

this sector and has been used for many different themes such as;

Community level planning and decision making for the Community Work Programme (run by the

Department of Co-operative Governance and Traditional Affairs) and implemented by NGOs nationally.

Community based strategies for disaster risk reductionlinked to NGOs such as NCC (National Council of

Churches) and local municipalities and supported by Oxfam International.

Community level climate change adaptation strategies; supported by NGOs such as EMG (Environmental

Monitoring Group) in partnership with SANBI (South African Botanical Institute) and supported by the

EU (European Union)

Integrated water resource management planning at community level implementedthrough AWARD

(Association of Water and Rural Development) supported by CIDA (Canadian International Development

Agency) and others; to name but a few.

As can be seen the applications are generally more on a programmatic design level in complex multi stakeholder

environments rather than commodity or crop specific applications.

Participatory Research and Extension (PRE)

This approach, with attendant principles and processes can encompass a number of different methodologies.

Focusgroup discussions, community mapping, transectwalks and livelihood assessments wereused

as part of the LADA-L(Land degradation assessment- local –developed by the FAO) process for

mapping of land use and degradation.

The main land use systems (LUS) assessed were grassland and cultivated subsistence and the main

problems in the area as indicated by the land users are a lack of domestic water supply, a reduction in

quality of grazing and a lossof soil fertility.The effectof land degradation on humanlivelihoods isa

reduced potential forcrop production and the keeping of good quality livestockin the area to

supplement food security.

Current sustainable land management practices in the area include the implementation of

conservation agriculture, water harvesting and liming by some individuals. Manyindividuals are

deterred from practicing agriculture due to the labour and cost intensity required, as well as due to a

lack of financial returns and incentives.

Harvested grain used to last for a whole year, but the current harvests only last for about three months.

Late plantings caused by not having money (inputs) and own equipment for those who practice

SLM/CA causes yields to drop in combination with perceived erratic and unreliable rainfall.

Liming of communal fieldsand soil sampling has enabled SLM/CA farmersto use fertilizersefficiently

and land users saw improvement of yield(Stronkhorst, Maphumulo, Trytsman, Breytenbach, Lotter, &

Mpanza, 2010).

Page| 13

The following five processes are considered important and are central to PRE approaches:

A focus on marginalized groups,

Concerns about the environmental degradation,

Building of civil society,

Valuing of farmers experience and

A focus on constructivism.

In essence a linear technology development and transfer approach is still supported, but more emphasis is given

to types ofparticipation, stakeholder involvement,therole of the facilitators and different learning

strategies. This would then theoretically enable the approach to be workable with widely different clientele

and different local conditions. (Ton, 2005)

In South Africa the terminology and approach has been taken on board in the development of policy for

Agricultural Research and Extensionwithin the Department of Agriculture, through acommissioned study,

with financial support from the Netherlands.

Broadly the PRE principles are seen to be applicable to a number of different extension approaches,which can

be applied in different conditions across South Africa. These include:

Technology transfer; which is seen as relevant and important. Organisations developing technology and

innovations have aresponsibility to diffuse them. This shouldinclude collaborative diagnosis of farmers

conditions and needs, training of extension officers and on farm training of farmers.

 Participatory approach; which builds on farmers' own capacities and their ability to organize themselves

into groups to identify needs and priorities, plan extension programmes/projects,implement and

evaluate. This approach is recommended for implementing a multi-sectoral, client-focused, coordinated,

demand-driven and participatory extension service. This should include collaborative diagnosis of

farmers’ conditions using participatory methods, on farm trails and dissemination of innovations.

Advisory approach; which is easily achievable in the highly commercial farming sector where farmers

have achieved a high level of competence, are able to identify their own problems and are innovators.

The private sector is encouraged to offer this service because of resources availability and efficient

service delivery processes. (Agriculture., 2005).

These approaches serve to highlight the difficulties the Government is facing in providing a systematic and

coherentservice to farmers, as well as an inability to integrate the concepts of placing farmers centre stage

in any agricultural research and development process.Provincial extension services have been plagued with

high levels of inefficiency and a lack of direction. The necessary linkages with research and farmers are not

happening. The following quotes are indicative.

‘The nearcollapse of the extension services in the Limpopo Department of Agriculture, particularly evident in its

failure and its ability to respond to the needs of small scale farmers calls for an urgent and holistic

intervention in terms of appropriate approach and policy.’ (Zwane,E.2009).

‘The poor performance ofpublic extension services and their narrow focusin the delivery of technical

packages,...is a major contributor to the ineffective dissemination of conservation agriculture technologies

amongst smallholders. In the last two decades, severalalternative approaches have been developed or re-

discovered (like action-research) that have been adapted to integrated natural resource management and

sustainable agriculture technology development. Despite these conceptual advancements and the better

understanding of rural livelihood systems and the introduction of suitable agriculturaltechnologies, the key

challenge often faced by research and extension practitioners remains the operationalisation of these

concepts in practice’ (Ficarelli, Chuma, Ramaru, Mruwira, & Hagmann, 2002)

Page| 14

There has been a trend globally and much more so in South Africa, to side-step the role of extension in

agricultural research and development or more commonly to incorporate the extension aspects of a

programme directly into the research-farmer relationships. The methodology development around farming

systems R&E and farmer innovation attest to this.

Farmer Participatory Research (FPR)

Farmer Participatory Research refers to the active involvement and participation of beneficiaries (farmers) and

other stakeholders in the agricultural research process. This approach evolved as a response to earlier

agricultural research methodologies (on-station research and Farming Systems Research) that were found to

be unsatisfactory in producing appropriate and sustainable research results for the target beneficiaries.

A common classification used to identify the various types of participation in agricultural research is provided by

Biggs (1989): contractual – where researchers contract with farmers to obtain land and services; consultative

- where researchers consult farmers about theirproblems and thendevelop solutions forthem;

collaborative - where researchers and farmers collaborate as partners in the research process; and collegiate

- where researchers work to strengthen farmers’ informal research and development systems, and where

farmers are given scope to apply their initiative and specialised knowledge throughout the research process.

FPR represents an attempt to move towards collegiate research,recognising farmers as innovators and

experimenters,andtreating them asactive andequal partners withresearchers and extensionists (rather

than merely passive end-users of technologies). The aims and objectives of FPR include the following:

Increase the understanding ofthe complexities and dynamics of local agricultural and socio-economic

systems;

Identify priority problems, constraints and opportunities;

Identify, develop, test and implementnew technologiesand techniques (based on the knowledge and

research capabilities of local communities and institutions; and

Stimulate and strengthen the experimental capacity of farmers to analyse their situations anddevelop

relevant, feasible and useful innovation (Farm Africa-Ethiopia), 2001)

The literature documents awide array of methods that can be used to facilitate a FPR approachto agricultural

research and it is now commonly appreciated that a combination of methods is themost beneficialin

providing a holistic approach to FPR. Methods include:

Participatory on-farm trials

Group/community meetings/workshops/discussions

Case studies with individual households/farmers

Study tours (to other farmers’ fields and research stations)/exchange visits

Participatory Rural Appraisals (PRAs).

Farming Systems Research and Extension (FSR&E)

FSR&E has been used within a broader concept and approach of farmer support and participatory on-farm trials

in South Africa, in a number of cases (Stilwell & Van Rooyen, 1999).

Page| 15

FSR&Easan approach was developed in the 1970’s.The origins are many and varied, but basicallywas a

response tochanging from top-down researchagendas (set byresearch scientists) and a away from solely

research station based agendas, to include farmers’agendas and localised experimentation. FSR tended to

focus on technology development within specific disciplines and as such has mostly been used by agricultural

research institutions and stations. The systems thinking underlying FSR has often been underplayed or

misunderstood in these environments.

The approach has developed, so that today it is a process that seeks understandingofthe whole farming system,

at various scales (or hierarchies that include farms, agribusiness systems models and partnership models ),

from the individual farm enterprise up to large regions or areas and then identifies and shapes development

opportunities for sustainable production with farmers, involving a wide range of disciplines and stakeholders

(Packham, Petheram, & Murray-Prior, 2007) .

An analysis of the approach in South Africa, in the late 1990’s concluded that FSR&E should have as its ultimate

goal, the promotion of economic, social and structural change induced by technological transformation at all

levels in the rural community.It has however been limited in application since then and has in some ways

been superseded by participatory technology and innovation development methodologies; which, according

to peoples’ perceptions,have more flexibility to include the socio-cultural and economic aspects in terms of

community level organisation and stakeholder involvement.

A point in case is a research programme managed by the ARC- ISCW (Agricultural Research Council, Institute of

Soil, Climate and Water), between 2003-2006. The programme focussed on thedevelopment and

implementation of sustainable land management practices in the Bergville districtof KZN, under the

auspices of the then LandCare programme of the Departmentof Agriculture. The two primary activities of

the programme consisted of setting up grazingmanagement plansfor the communities involved and the

investigation and use of conservation agriculture principles in field cropping.

The research was conceptualised as having hard and soft systems platforms. For the prior a FSR&E approach was

used (with research and farmer based adaptive trials – on site) and the soft systems platform gave attention

to action research methodologies, tools and techniques(including farmer-to farmer extension approaches)

to capacitate stakeholders to manage their land in a sustainable way.The core model wasbased onthe

action learning cycle of diagnosis, planning, action and reflection (Smith, Trytsman, Bloem, Everson, &

Mthethwa, 2005).

The following quote summarises one of the main recommendations from this participatory research process:

“In general, the use and or development of conservation agriculture principles and practices are strongly

recommended for any (Maize0 cropping and mixed farming enterprise due to the favourable impact it has

on soil health, farmingprofitability and social well being” (Smith, Trytsman, Bloem, Everson, & Mthethwa,

2005).

Participatory Technology (PDT) and Innovation Development (PID)

The following statement in a recent publication in the agricultural development and extension field, sums up the

imperative for working with these approaches:

“Scientists are being challenged to re-consider that their role in technology development is through innovation

and a complex process involving a reorganization of social relationships, not justtechnical practice. Inthis

context, technologyshifts from somethingto be applied to something leveraged for networking and

organizing. To ensure the future, the idea of sustainability as a dynamic process rather than an endpoint

Page| 16

offers a route for understanding and engagement between research,policy and personal spheres. For both

research and extension agendas; in considering traditional agriculture in the context of economic

development we have to create thecapacity to co-operate in a way that opens up the possibility of social

change; a way of interacting that preserves andcreates new forms of social cohesion (Caister, K. 2013).

Researchers ..will come to understand that attitude, environment and relevant issues, not specific tools,

achieves participation”. (Caister, Green, & Worth, 2012).

Participatory technology development (PTD) is an approach to learning and innovation that is used

in international development as part of projects andprogrammes relating to sustainable agriculture.The

approach involves collaboration between researchers and farmers in the analysis of agricultural problems

and testing of alternative farming practices. It has it’s origins in FSR&E, indigenous technical knowledge and

PRA. PTD facilitators are usually researchers, sometimes consisting of a team that includes both biological

and social scientists. While PTD is closely linked to research,it often crosses the boundary into agricultural

extension because it involves learning activities with farmers.One of the leadingauthorities on this process

is the Centre for learning on sustainable agriculture - ILEIA based in the Netherlands. ILEIA has described PTD

as “a process between local communities and outside facilitators which involves:

Gaining a joint understanding of the main characteristics and changes of that particular agro-ecological

system;

Defining priority problems;

Experimenting locally with a variety of options derived both from indigenous knowledge … and from formal

science, and

Enhancing farmer’s experimental capacities and farmer-to-farmer communication” (Reijntjes, Haverkort, &

Waters-Bayer, 1992)

Local innovation in agriculture and natural resource management goes beyond technologiesto socio-

organizational arrangements such as new ways of regulating the use of resources,new ways of community

organization, or new ways of stakeholder interaction. The term Participatory Innovation Development (PID)

embraces this broader understanding of joint R&D, and is now being used alongside, or in place of PTD. It) is

a process in which farmers andother stakeholders engage in joint exploration and experimentation leading

to new technologies or socio-institutional arrangements for more sustainablelivelihoods. This action-

oriented approach promotes engagement in a process thatstrengthens the capacities of agricultural

services to support community-led initiatives (Hartmann, 2009 )(Wettasinha, Wongtschowski, & Waters-

Bayer, 2009).

PID offers opportunities to place smallholder farmers centre stage in the research and development field,

recognising thatover time, smallholder farmers have adapted anddeveloped innovations to allow them to

beproductive under their own difficult environments. Development practitioners have realized the need to,

not only take this knowledge into consideration but to build upon it

The Farmer Support Group (FSG), the outreach unit of the Centre for Environment, Agriculture and Development

at the University of KwaZulu-Natal uses participatory action research to facilitate farmers toidentify and

experiment with innovations to address their problems (Mudhara & Ngubane, Use of Innovation Support

Funds to create Conditions for Smallholder Farmers to INnovate: Preliminary Insights from a Pilot in South

Africa, 2009)

FSG and partner organisations in PROLINNOVA (an international programme promoting local farmer innovation

in the smallholder sector –a global partnership programme under GFAR (Global Forum for Agricultural

Page| 17

Methodology for the GrainSA SFIP (Smallholder farmer Innovation Programme 2013-2015

A farmer centred innovation systemsresearch process underpins the approach which is based onworking intensively with

farmer learning groups and local facilitators in each of the6 villages identified.Within the learning groupsfarmer

innovators volunteer to set up and manage farmer managed adaptive trials as the ‘learning venues’ for the whole

learning group. Farmer field school methodologies are usedwithin the group to focus the learning onthe actual growth

and development of the crops throughout the season. New ideas are tested against the ‘normal’ practise in the area as

the controls. Farmers observe, analyse and assess what is happening inthetrials anddiscussappropriate decisions

and management practices.Small information provision and training sessions are includedinthese workshops/

processes. These are based also on the seasonality of the crop and the specific requests and questions from farmer

learning group participants (Kruger, E and Smith, H, 2014).

The adaptive trials are also used as a focus point for the broader community to engage through local learning events and

farmers days. Stakeholders and the broader economic, agricultural and environmental communities are drawn into

these processes and events. Through these processes platforms are developed for cooperation, synergy between

programmes and developmentof appropriate and farmer led processes for economic inclusion. These platforms also

provide a good opportunity to focus scientific and academic research on the ‘needs’ of the process.

Research)) have endeavoured to provide greater ownership of the innovation process to smallholder farmers

through, among other aspects provision of local innovation funds to farmers and promotion of local farmers’

forums for planning ,implementation and sharing. Such pilot programmes are linking a more ongoing trend

to support smallholders directly and workwithin their agendas andexperiences(Triomphe, etal., 2013).This is

an example of moving towards strategic and pre-adaptive research.

A further example that extends the concept of farmer innovation into collaborative programmes between

agribusiness and NGOs is the Grain-SA smallholder farmer innovation programme. This is a new initiative

under their Conservation Agriculture portfolio and funded through the Maize Trust. It is anexample of

research agendas being formulated and funded through a large membership based farmers’organisation

The FSG (Farmer Support Group) and INR (Institute of Natural Resources) worked together within the

PORLINNOVA programme to manage a process of farmer level experimentation in locally identified or

‘grassroots’ topics, for which some funding was provided.

Two case studieswere considered: one aboutdeveloping an alternative production practice for growing potatoes,

and theother about introducing a newcash crop (cherry peppers) and the establishment of a new marketing

relationship.

One of the purposes of the study was toexplore questions about the development ofinnovation indicators that

might support policyand managementconcerned with this kind of innovation.The case studies are therefore

located in the context of a review of existing science, technologyand innovation indicators and their limitations

withrespect tothis areaofagricultural innovation. Another purpose was to identify and clarify the position of

'grassroots' innovation within other perspectives on different kinds of innovation system (or mode of innovation)

in agriculture in developing countries.

The combination of case studies and broaderreviews leads to twomainconclusions: (1) grassroots and other

participatory modes of agricultural innovation merit much greater policy attention than they have received; but

(2) the base of available analysis and indicators about these approaches to innovation and their effectiveness is

still inadequate to inform and support policy and management in this area (Letty, Shezi, & Mudhara, 2012).

Page| 18

such as Grain-SA. Research and facilitation capacity is brought on board mostly through universities andthe

Agricultural Research Council)to support agendas shaped by farmers. The recognition of the smallholder

farming sector and more appropriate participatory processes for such work, is significant(du Toit, 2013).

Linked tothe latest round of reforms to the Common Agricultural Policy and the Horizon 2020research

programme, the European Union launched the European Innovation Partnership for agricultural productivity

and sustainability. It aims to promote bottom-up approaches by linking farmers, researchers, businesses and

other stakeholders into groups charged withfinding solutions toshared problems.For this initiative to

succeed, governments must opt to spend a proportion of their rural development funds on supporting grass-

roots training and learning by actual farmers — beyond the established partnerships with farmers' suppliers,

customers and political representatives.Governments should back brokerage services that help farmers to

team up with relevant researchers on theirown terms,and enable them to navigate the maze of

bureaucracy that willprobably stand between them and this invaluable seed investment.(Macmillan &

Benton, 2014).

While SouthAfrican agricultural research policy is stillfirmly rooted in technology transfer jargon (Agriculture,

2006), there is atleastsome movement in the academic and NGOssectors to movetowards learning and

innovation. The box below provides a short analysis of this situation.

Post apartheid policy and socio political environment

Hopeful statements such as the following “There is great urgency in South Africa to implement policies leading to

empowerment of the people, whilst promoting rural development and establishing a basis for the sustainable use

of availablehuman and naturalresources. This would represent a major departure from earlier approaches and

would hopefully strengthen the ideals of democracy and transparency which are gradually developing in the

‘new’ South Africa”. , were common in the early years after 1994. (Binns, Hill, & Nel, 1994).

Since then, policies and strategies that enshrine principles of democracy, participation and the meaningful

involvement of smallholder farmers in all aspects, have been put in place, but implementation either lags

dramatically or doesnot follow through into methodologies and approaches for implementation that uphold the

principles.

Racial liberalism to corporate and government authoritarianism

There is a strong desire to see black commercial farmers working at the same scale as present commercial farmers.

This vision is not coming to fruition at the scale anticipated or needed even though a number of programmes

have been put into place (BEE, SEDA, land reform post settlement support and the like)

The model of commercialisation that relies on high external input and economies of scale thatis considered the only

way to be globally and locally competitive is not working for the average smallholder and rural dwellers in

communal tenure areas. Even though there is a socio-political imperative to support these people there is not an

econo- political imperative. It is however becoming clear that smallholders can not just be ‘incorporated’ into the

agribusiness environment as it stands.

Prosperity—continuous and sustainable wealth creation—is an elusive goalin South African smallholder agriculture.

It is possible to realise if principles and assumptions within extension can be re-shaped to strengthen the

capacity of people engaged in agriculture and thereby tap the agricultural potential of rural communities. Such an

approach would need to give practical expression to South Africa's policies to revitalise rural agrarian

communities. Incorporating elements of livelihoods approaches and learning theory, would bea learning model

that shifts i) the context and locus of learning, ii) what is learned, and iii) the learning process. The model fosters

a culture of continuous reflective learning that is submitted as the highest purpose of extension.The model

suggests that prosperity can be realised through engaging smallholder farmers in scientific discovery, innovation

and technologydevelopment based not on what they lack, but on what they have. (Worth, 2006)

Page| 19

Participatory Action Research (PAR)

Successful participatory knowledge production requires not onlyusefulknowledge, but also knowledge

produced through continuous negotiation within aspecific context (Van Heck, 2003). This effectively

describes a learningprocess.The philosophy oftheparticipatory paradigm assumes that thenaturaland

social worlds are part of the same complex whole. When research practice gives priority to the realities and

analysis of rural problems by the people themselves, a whole new range of experiences and ways of working

opens up. Attitudes and behaviour inherently have priority over method in participatory methodology and

rest on three supportive pillars: power sharing, methods todoing research andbehaviour and attitudes of

outsiders (Chambers, 2005).

Participatory action research (PAR) is thus an approach to research in communities that emphasizes participation

and action. It seeks to understand the world by trying to change it, collaboratively and following reflection.

PAR emphasizes collective inquiry and experimentation grounded in experience and social history. Within a

PAR process, "communities of inquiry and action evolve and address questions and issues that are significant

for those whoparticipate asco-researchers" (Reason & Bradbury, 2008). PAR contrasts withmany research

methods, which emphasize disinterested researchers and reproducibility of findings.

PAR practitioners make aconcerted effort tointegrate three basic aspects oftheir work: participation (life in

society and democracy), action (engagement with experience and history), and research (soundness in

thoughtandthe growth of knowledge). It ismore an orientation to socialchange and knowledge creation

than a specific methodology. The basic tenet in participatory agricultural research then becomes that

farmers and researchers jointly define the research agenda and do the ‘research’ together. Including

farmers in setting the research agenda should move researchers towards new ways of working and thinking;

producing researchable problems that include social priorities in the way that knowledge is produced.

(Caister, Green, & Worth, 2012)

This research paradigm appears to have become primarily, thedomain of the Universities (Mutimba & Khaila,

2011) includingUNISA and UKZN, who are focussing on these processes quite strongly. This learning

paradigm is one that can suite universities better in terms of the scope and scale of projects thatthey can

confidently tackle through supporting pre-and post-graduate students.

The Agricultural Extension and Rural Resource Management (AERRM) academicprogramme within UKZN, is

designed to build the capacity of extension services through the provision oftrainingand education thatis

relevant to the urgent issues facing agricultural and ruraldevelopment. The programme offers a powerful

combination of theoretical knowledge and practicalskills in agricultural extension, rural development,

projectmanagement, agricultural production andfarm economics and management. PAR is the main

supporting research framework for this programme (http://caes.ukzn.ac.za/ news/ 11-03-08/

Agriculture_Programme_on_the_up-and-up.aspx).

A further example from UKZN, that include both PAR and PID, revolves around an integrated multi-institutional

programme around improved water management in communal lands- called the SSI (Smallholder Systems

Innovation programme) andisimplemented through the School ofBioresources Engineering and

Environmental Hydrology,with the Farmer Support Group fulfilling the extension function of the research

and farmer involvement process. The overarching methodologies here area PAR process linked to farmer

innovation (Sturdy, Jewitt, & Lorentz, 2008). The program takes an integrated approach to agricultural water

management:analyzingthe interactions between the adoption and adaptation of water system innovations

(such as water harvesting, drip irrigation, conservation farming, etc.) in a participatory manner.

Page| 20

The following statement by an associated researcher from IWMI (International water management Institute)

sums up the thinking;

“Today,as opposed to twenty years ago, there is a firm understanding that technology transferof temperate

zone successes alone will not work. Instead,tailor made, site-specific adaptations, building on indigenous

knowledge are required. But the magnitude of the agrarian crisis is solarge that development and

refinement of indigenous knowledge alone will not be enough. Instead, innovations—often alien innovations

that go through aparticipatory process oflocal adaptation—are required in allfields ofland-use

management such as the handling of crop choice, of water, soil, livestock, and forests” (Bhatt, et al., 2006).

Using participatory action research, cross visits and participatory monitoring and evaluation by the farmers

themselves,FSG and approximately 60 farmers shared and experimented with new technologies in farming,

including water conservation measures such astrench beds, cover crops and tower gardens (Mudhara,

Malinga, & Salomon, 2007). The project also demonstrated that the minimum tillage technique, which the

projectassessed against conventional tillage, resulted in maize yield increases of 168% above those ofthe

conventional treatments. Survey results showed thatmaize production per household increased significantly

after the introduction of the SSI project (Kosgei, Jewitt, Kongo, & Lorentz, 2007).

Again, there is a mismatch between what is happening in institutions and what Government processes know and

think. In a very recent report on educationand training in Agriculture they make the following summative

statements: “There is a need thathigher learning institutions train people foragriculture and rural

development adding into their agricultural training packages, human sciences. Lastly there is also a need for

agricultural education and training bodies which could focus on giving direction to agricultural education and

training in the province (Ngcobo & Dadla, 2014)”.

Maize in KZN

A snapshot of known AR&D activities related to maize production and conservation agriculture (CA) will be given

to provide some insight into the scope of activities and also into the stakeholder interactions and

relationships in the province. The table below summarises present projects and processes.

TABLE 2:PRESENTAGRICULTURAL RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENTPROJECTS IN KWAZULUNATAL.

Organisation

Unit/

person

Research Focus

Methodologies

Stakeholders

KZNDAE: Cedara &

Kokstad

Research Farms

(Internal funding)

Bezuidenhout

– Agronomy

The management of cover

crop residues to reduce weed

growth in maize. The

influence of different weed

types on the growth and

development of maize and

sunflower

Research and

demonstration

projects

KZNDAE

KZNDAE: Cedara/

Potshini (Internal

funding)

S Madiba

- Farming

Systems Unit

Plant spacing in dry land CA

maize

Research and

demonstration

projects

government,

participant farmer,

KZNDAE: Cedara/

Karkloof,

Loskop, (-2020)

(Internal funding)

GR Thibaud

- Soil Science

Soil acidity interactions with

no-till. Tillage effect on N

requirements

Research and

demonstration

projects

government,

participant farmers,

No till Club,

Page| 21

KZNDAE: Kokstad ,

Cedara &

Dundee Research

Farms (-2020)

(Internal funding)

N Mtumtum -

Agronomy

Short and long season-season

maize cultivar trials

Research and

demonstration

projects

government, Seed

companies, ARC-

Grain Crops

Institute(GCI)

KwaNalu– (Missouri

University)

Lima Rural

Development

Foundation

Potential of GM Maize to

increase food security in

smallholder farming sector

Farmer based

adaptive trials,

learning platforms

Missouri University,

private sector,

participant farmers,

farmers groups and

organisations,

NGOs, KZNDAE

GrainSA (internal

funding)

Mahlathini

Organics

Conservation Agriculture

Smallholder Farmer

Innovation Programme

PID – farmer led

adaptive trials,

Farmer Field Schools,

Learning platforms,

Participatory Value

Chain Development

Private sector,

participant farmers,

farmers groups and

organisations,

NGOs, KZNDAE

parastatal research

institutes,

Agribusiness,

Universities

GrainSA (internal

funding)

Provincial and

regional

coordinators.

Emergent farmer support

programme

Study groups, farmer

level adaptive trials,

Participant farmers,

farmers, farmers

groups and

organisations,

private sector,

KZNDAE

SAB (South African

Breweries)

Commercial

farmer

mentors

Production of yellow maize

by smallholder farmers for

contractual agreements with

SAB

Mentorship

programme with

commercial farmers,

KZNDAE, private

sector, participant

farmers, Agri-

business.....

Agricultural

Research Council:

Grain Crops Institute

Charity

Mapumulo

Sustainable Land Use

management project;

LandCare -including CA

Facilitation of group

based activities in

Msinga area

KZNDAE, participant

farmers farmer

groups and

organisations....

UKZN: Bill Gates

Foundation (AGRA)

ACCI – Prof

Derera

Breeding of maize hybrids

appropriate for CA in

smallholder farming systems

in Southern Africa

Research station

based breeding

research programme

Start up Phase;

UKZN: Water

Research

Commission (WRC)

Agronomy,

Hydrology,

Cedara,

Farmer

Support Group

Adaptation and adoption of

CA in KZN– Bergville region

(MSc in progress) and other

studies

Social survey and

focus group

discussions

Participant farmers,

UKZN and KZNDAE

staff, NGOs,...

KZNDAE: Cedara-

FAO COMESA

Bright

Mashiyane

National CA Task Force linked

to regional SADC CA working

group

Awareness and

training–materials;

Some inputs for

existing CA initiatives

DAFF, KZNDAE, ARC,

Grain-SA.....

KZNDAE- Extension

Officers

Bergville

Demonstration of CA

implementation using GM

maize

Farmer level

demonstration trial

KZNDAE, farmer

groups and

organisations,

No Till Club

Bergville

Present focus areas are soya

beans, cover crops. Support is

provided by the Protein

research Foundation, Grain

Sa and Agribusiness.

Farmer led research

with assistance from

researchers linked to

ARC and KZNDAE

Government,

parastatls,

agribusiness,

commercial farmers

A summary of the organisations mentioned and their operational philosophies are provided in Appendix A

Page| 22

The table above demonstrates the trends mentioned in that the PR&D processes are employed mostly through

NGOs and private sector organisations,some participatory processes are used for University and Parastatal

research processes and very little participation is evident in government process.

Conservation Agriculture (CA)

According to the FAO (Food and Agriculture Organisation, United Nations) deﬁnition, CA is characterizedby

three linked principles expected to be adopted together, namely:

• Continuous minimum mechanical soil disturbance (reduced, minimum or zerotillage[no morethan 25%

disturbance]).

• Permanent soil cover with crop residues or other types of organic materials [>30% at planting] and

• Diversiﬁcation of crop species grown in sequences (crop rotation) and/or associations [at least 3 crops].

This definition will be used here, although terms such as minimum tillage and no till are often used –and not

always within the strict confines of their definitions.

In a recent summary of conservation agriculture, in the smallholder family farming context, in sub-Saharan Africa

(Stevenson, Serraj, & Cassman, 2014), the following points have been made:

Yield increases under CA are possible but uncertain given the low average yields that pertain in these

regions, and yield gains are more likely to be observed after several years.

CA is not widely adopted in Sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia owing to a lack of economic incentive for

smallholder farmers- the process of conversion to CAis not proﬁtable over the short term planning

horizons of most farmers.

There is no clear trend for greatercarbon sequestration underCA, sothe potential for subsidizing

farmers to adopt CAusing payments for ecosystem services/carbon credit schemes seems limited in

scope. There is early evidence that farmers perceive a beneﬁt from CAadoption inregions that are

prone to erratic rainfall, suggesting a potential risk mitigation role.

CA provides other benefits, e.g. residue cover that reduces runoff and surface crusting, increased

aggregate stability and water infiltration, greater total water supply and water use efficiency.

Factors that reduce the adoption of CA includeweed pressure, livestock demand for feed and the

potential for increased severity of root and foliar diseases associated with residue retention.

In South Africa and in KZN specifically, in the smallholder context,this level of critical analysis of CA is still

something that stakeholders need to grapple with,as are locality specific adaptations of the system. The

focus ofCA, in smallholder farming systems needs to expand from physical (improved soil characteristics)

and or technical (adapted equipment and machinery)considerations toinclude theeconomical andsocial

implications as well. (Bot A & Achora, 2014)

Conservation Agriculture was introduced in KwaZulu Natal through the Department of Agriculture as early as the

1970s and programmatically since around 1995. For a few years around the year 2000, many on site

demonstrations and trials were conducted both by research staff and extensionofficers. The Annual report

for 2000 has the following entry:

“Multi-site research conducted throughout the Province since 1995 indicates that no-tillcropping systems are

well suited to small-scale maize production. This relatively low -cost system is most effective on high clay

content soils and on small, sloping fields, especially in areas where timeous ploughing and discing is difficult

to achieve. This new system of "planting without ploughing" was tested on 300 sites of 1 000 m2to

demonstrate this practice to small-scale farmers as part of the Xoshindlala campaign.”

Page| 23

“ These demonstrations were conducted mainly by Extension Officers, although research staff also conducted 31

demonstrations. Maize yields of 3 to 6 t/ha were mostly achieved, which is considerably higher than the very

low yields usually produced with traditional maize growing methods. The optimum benefit from this system

is achieved when large quantities of crop residue are retained on the soil surface. In order to simplify and

speed up the planting process, popular animal draught maize planters were modified by the Department and

ARC scientists from the Grain Crops Institute and the Institute for Agricultural Engineering. It was thoroughly

tested at Cedara and demonstrated by Extension staff to small-scale farmers, and was found to be

commercially viable. Farmers showed a keen interest in the planting without ploughing production system to

plant mainly maize,but also drybeans andcotton.’.(http:// agriculture.kzntl.gov.za/ publications/

corporate_publications_other/ tdt_annual_report_2000/tdt_annual_report_2000.htm) accessed 7March

2014).”Despite some 1000demonstrations during its 5-year promotion (Planting without Ploughing within

the Xhosindlala campaign), however, adoption hasbeen minimal, and fewfarmers today practice notill, let

alone conservation agriculture (Fowler, 2004).

This was augmented by a LandCareprogramme run through the ARC(ISCW- Institute of Soil Climate and Water)

and funded partially by theKZNDAE - ‘The development and implementation of sustainable land

management practices in the Bergville district of the KwaZulu-Natal Province”(Smith, Trytsman, Bloem,

Everson,&Mthethwa, 2005).Four years of demonstration and farmer basedtrials were conducted, initially

within a farming systems research and extension paradigm (FSR&E), whichwas broadened to a Agriculture

Innovation Systems (AIS) paradigmto also include farmer level trials, farmer to farmer learning and

extension, multi stakeholder platform building processes and the participatory design, testing and

commercialisation of appropriate CA implements and machinery. Issues of scaling out (through the initiation

of the Okhalamba farmers forum for the whole region) and scaling up (introduction and handover of the CA

process to the KZNDAE extension agents) were also included.

In contrast to the KwaZulu-Natal Department's initiative, each of these activities were carried out with a specific

community and trials and demonstrations were carried out by researchers with farmers on their fields, with

minimal extension involvement. This intimate relationship between farmer and researcher have led to

reasonable to good levels of adoption, albeit at present in localised areas (Fowler, 2004). Recommendations

at the time included:

In the development of all CA systems, weed scientists,entomologists and soil scientists etc should be

incorporated in multi-disciplinary teams. Teamwork, interdisciplinary research anda systems approach

are of utmost importance for success.

On farm demonstrations should be run by agronomists with practical knowledge of all aspects of the

system or by technicians with a sound theoretical and practical grounding in agronomy.

Fencing of farmer fields may be necessary. When developing systems (which should be done TOGETHER

with each target group) homogenous groups should be identified on thebasis oftheir socio-economic

conditions and culture.

Presently Grain-SA has initiated a smallholder farmer innovation programme (SFIP)(2013-2015)through their

Conservation Agriculture coordinator (a new area of focus). This programme builds on the Agricultural

Innovation Systems processes initiated in the province through the ARC and KZNDAE and aims to tackle

some of the more complex social, environmental and economic questions as part of the participatory

innovation development process for CA.Some of the main constraints mentioned in a land management

assessment conducted in 2010 include that many land users lackthe finances to purchase implements and

the inputs (herbicides, fertilizers,etc.) needed to practice CA and even those who currently practice CA

sometimes struggle to maintain the correct level and timing of inputs. Many farmers also find CAtoo labour

intensive and the planning and management that goes along with CAis considered too intense. A practical

Page| 24

constraint to the adoption of CAis thecommunal practice of grazing crop residues during winter which

prevents the practice of mulching. Many farmers stillfind access to sufficient CA information a constraint.

The continued implementation of CA and the adoption of CA by additional land users is one of the main

suggested responses by researchers(Stronkhorst, Maphumulo, Trytsman, Breytenbach, Lotter, & Mpanza,

2010).

KawNalu (The KwaZulu Natal Agricultural Union) has partnered with Missouri University, with funding from the

Templeton Foundation to implement a PR&D project(2012-2014)as part oftheir attempt to answer the

question, “Can GM crops feed the world?” The foundation wished to examine a new technology, particularly

GM technology and how it could help small-scale farmers in KwaZulu-Natal. This projectseeks to develop a

model thatensures smallholders and their communities become integral to decisions madeaboutadopting

GM crops. Farmer based adaptive trials are central to the process as is building a Community of Practise

which includes smallholders, their communities, scientists, agribusiness and government representatives.

This approach allows emerging farmers to be at the centre of this Community of Practice as they will

experiment and useGM crops in their own fields.Such participatory research creates feedback loops for

researchers, farmers, extension advisors, policymakers and others involved.

For the large scale, commercial farming sector,In the early 1980's KZN farmers, led by Messrs Anthony Muirhead of

Winterton and Charles Shepherd ofBergville, started planting limited areas using directdrilling(Fowler,2004).

They spearheaded the establishmentof theNo-Till Club in 1997, with researchand extension staff of the

Department of Agriculture. The No Till club continues to expand and link with stakeholders and to do their own

researchand experimentation around CA practices.

Farm-scale demonstrations (Commercial) of maize produced with conservation tillage practices havealso been

carried outin co-operative trials in the Karkloof, since 1999. These demonstrations have generated

tremendous interest in no-tillplanters for maize andsoyabeans. The Brazilian no-tillage planter funded by

the Protein ResearchTrust andcapable of seeding maize, soya beans and wheat in ultra-narrow to

conventionallyspaced rows was used for row spacing, crop rotation and fertilizer placement trials. Farmers

also hired this machine for no-till and ultra-close row planting in certain areas. This encouraged some

farmers to purchase their own ultra-close row and no-tillplanters. This research is still ongoing and

implementation of no-tillis known in the Underberg, Ixopo, Howick andKarkloof areas.Implementation of

no-till is as high as 50% of maize growers in some regions, such as Bergville.

SUMMARY OF TRENDS IN KWAZULU NATAL

There are two basic trends in terms of Participatory Research and Development (PR&D) in Kwazulu-Natal, for the

very few organisations that consciously work in this field:

3.Participatory Innovation Development; Primarily NGO based and supported process through

international donor funding or CSI based and supported through for example Grain-Sa and Wesbank. The

latter is only now (thelast 2-3years) coming to the fore as this sector finally rises to the challenge of

providing meaningful support to smallholders. To a lesser extent the Parastatal Research Institutes have

dabbled in the process.

4.Participatory Action Research; this research paradigm appears to have become primarily, the domain of

the Universities with bothUNISA and UKZN focussing on these processes quite strongly.This ‘learning’

paradigm is one that can suite universities better in terms of the scope and scale of projects that they

can confidently tackle through supporting pre-and post-graduate students.

Page| 25

For those organisations that also have an advisory/extension role (Universities and Colleges, Parastatal Research

Institutes and Non Government Organisations) Agricultural Innovation Systems and Sustainable Livelihoods

Approaches have come to the fore.

Mostly the emphasis on participatory work will be led through specific projects or programmes, often donor

funded and led by individuals with a strong vision and commitment to such processes.

Participatory Agricultural Research and Developmentis almost entirely absent from Government departments

and extension,outside of sporadic donor fundedprojects,despite policy and programmatic rhetoric. There

have been a number of attempts toinstitutionalise participatory processes within the Department of

Agriculture, both at national and provincial levels –through medium term donor funded processes such as

the Participatory Extension Approach in Limpopo (funded by GIZ) (Rootman, Letty, & Stevens, 2014) and the

Empowerment for Food Security programme in KZN (funded by the Flanders Intentional Cooperation

Agency). Both programmes collapsed within months of withdrawal of donor support, after running for

between 7-8 years, due to extreme political pressure and interference in these Departments. There is clearly

a lack of political will to foster and promote participatory approaches for the smallholder family farming

sector within government circles. There is also a politically motivated lack of understanding of the need for a

specific focus on the smallholder farming sector,within a different framework and organising principles to

the commercial farming sector.

For the international agricultural researchinstitutes represented in Southern Africa such as CGIAR and CIMMYT,

there are a lot more examples of participatory research processes. These approaches are stillnot very well

institutionalised and recommendations include that they should (1) create a more conducive environment

for scientists to shareexperiences on such approaches and(2) better document theirimpacts onfarmers’

livelihoods and well-being (Lilja & Bellon, 2006). The primary assessment of such work is still through

producing peer reviewed scientific publications, where research uptake and impact falls by the wayside (pers

comm. B Letty, INR, 2014)Two way information flows (farmers actively involved in research) will occur only

with structural adjustments in the institutions.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Given the disparity between the commercial and smallholder family farming sector and the extreme

politicisation andfragmentation of the government sector nationally, provincially and locally,it is proposed

that research, education, theprivate sector andnon government institutions worktogether in multi

stakeholder partnerships to provide ahome for Participatory Agricultural Research and Development, until

the political will shifts more towards providingmeaningful support to rural dwellers in South Africa. A

concomitant focus on the growing of local organisations and movements with the ability to lobby and

advocate for change is required.

Research should demonstrate its value, relevance and practical utility to society andthe economy. These should

be expressed in a theory of change, charting out a variety of impact pathways and tools for specific target

audiences (T Windham-Wright, IWMI, 2014). Much investment in Agricultural Development is made without

the benefit of using improved practices and technologies, better methodologies and new lessons learned

through research. (Waters-Bayer, Bernhardt,Bocock, Dugan, Lohmann, & Sanyang,2013).Demand driven

priorities and stakeholder engagement are crucial processes and must be matched with efforts to guarantee

the quality of research.

Page| 26

Responsibility for this process lies with research and development institutions, donors and Government in terms

of policy, strategies and support.

Organisations

1.Performance measures in research institutes (Parastatals and Universities) still focus on producing

scientific journal articles, with little or no incentivefor end-user engagementand relevant research

outputs. This needs to be revised. Uptake should be reflected in performance indicators across all levels

of the organisation: from local project to global strategic level. Reporting on uptake activities alone is not

enough, but should include a focus on uptake and impact (Salomon, 2014)

2.Mechanisms are needed to fill uptake gaps within the organisations by allocating a clear portion of

budget to uptake, include it as requirement in project reporting and funding and givingattention to

communication for uptake. Information should be targeted and packaged appropriately; takinginto

account language, visual aids such as photographs, video, pictures,working with mentors and local

facilitators for example.

3.Training and capacity building of researchers in institutions is important.

4.Funding processes toinclude uptake andimpact pathways are required, with flexible strategies for

adaptation research.

Geopolitical considerations

1.Agricultural production systems need to focus more on the effective conservation and management of

biodiversity and ecosystem services in order to address the twin objectives ofenvironmental

sustainability and food security (FAO, 2011).

2.Two major geopolitical realities have a constraining effect on peoples’ thinking. Firstly, modern,

intensive farming in developed countries receives very large levels of financial support and all sectors of

the agricultural and food industries are linked in to this highly subsidized system to a greater or lesser

extent. Secondly, there is a continuing commitment to ensuring that food prices remain low andthat

basic foodstuffs are affordable by all sectors of society including the poorest. These both tend to lead to

a disinterest in the nature of agricultural production systems and present a very real barrier to the

development of new approaches to production.However, it is increasingly recognized that an

appropriate policy framework can largely overcome these constraints and, indeed, must be developed.

3.Crop rotations, intercropping and growing different varieties of a single crop haveall been shown to

have beneficial effects on crop performance, nutrientavailability, pest and disease control and water

management. Multi-cropping, intercropping, alley farming, rotations and cover cropping are all ways of

combining crop species that have positive effects on productivity and yield stability.

4.There is a need to test arange of economic instruments such as payment for ecosystem services in

agricultural landscapes, internalizing environmental costs and increasing the responsibility of the private

sector are important.

5.Present research agendas aimed at increasing the effective use of biodiversity for food and agriculture,

including the strengthening of local institutions and the capacity to maintain and use biodiversity

through mechanisms such as farmer field schools, participatory crop and livestock improvement and

locally-identified adaptation strategies, need to be supported. This needs to be underpinned by a

framework that takes particular account of the needs and interests of small-scale farmers and ofthe rural

poor and meets societal needs for a safe and healthy supply of food.

Page| 27

Methodologies

Move towards recognition andtransparencyin underlying principles of methodologies and development

frameworks and work with these organising principles, rather than focussing too centrally on methodologies.

This flexibility is important for recognition of local differences in socio-political,agro-ecological and

economic conditions. Overall, methodologies that include innovation systems,action research,sustainable

livelihoods analysis and grounded theory show the most promise in the South African context.

It is assumed that at present, best practise for smallholder farmers, in managing the interplay between research

extension and farmers falls within the ambit of Agricultural Innovation Systems (AIS)and Sustainable

Livelihoods Analysis (Worth S & Abdu-Raheem K, 2011). Organising principles that can be used tobridge the

gap between research and development are the following:

Recognise that innovationis an interactive process with multiple complementary dimensions-

Innovation encompasses the human element (not just technology), so that social, cultural, economic,

organisational, institutional and political dimensions are all important. These processes take time and

require researchers with skills to engage with this complexity.

Plan for scaling (up and out) from the outset of an intervention process- Clear impact pathways that can

support or refute the evidence should be proposed and costs estimated.

Facilitate multi-stakeholder engagement, tailored to the specificobjectives and research topics and

building on existing networks rather than creatingnew ones- Include community members and

organisations, development partners, donors, extension services, researchers, theprivate sectorand

relevant government entities. The process should be documented and feedback given should be used to

make adjustments to the innovation system.

Focus on a demand-driven approach to research issues thatconsiders the needs of different groups and

give particular attention to resource poor andilliterate farmers and women –work with clearly defined

stakeholder groups. It may be necessary to support moremarginalised groups in participatory

assessment of how climatic and other changes are likely to influence their environment and livelihoods;

also looking at a longer term perspective.The process of identifying demand (or streamlining demand

and supply) should build onpast experiences and lessons learnt about the spreading and adaptation of

technology.

Create open communication and learning spaces as a facilitated two way dialogue that gives equal value

to contributions ofdifferent actors, allowingfree access to knowledge and encouragingthe sharing of

information- this requires a comprehensive and multi-faceted communication plan which includes both

sharing of information and capturing of feedback within and between different stakeholder groups.

Take a long term perspectivethat allows innovation processes to evolve and mature- looking beyond

projects. Project goals need to be linked with specific goals and strategies of national governments. Use

longer term programmatic frameworks for projects to enable pro-active sequencing. Donors should

commit to supporting longer term research that goes beyond but can be linked back to projects.

Investment should be made to developing the capacity and functionality of the public sector.

Provide incentives,including strategic capacity enhancement for different actors involved in the

innovation process.- needed to enhance the performance of multi stakeholder innovation processes and

can be monetary or non-monetary (trust, confidence, respect, recognition). It could/should include

capacity enhancement.

Recognise the needto invest in research to understandinnovation dynamics, including the

complementary dimensions of innovation. Planned as components of development interventions to

understandand strengthen the process. This includes appropriate monitoring and evaluation systems,

process documentation and recognising unexpected changes and outcomes. A common theory of

change needs to be created and frequently revisited and should be able to accommodate a re-definition

Page| 28

of roles and tasks. This needs to provide lessons for how to strengthen innovation processes and achieve

scale and should include government bodies.

Organising principles to bridge the gap between researchers, advisors 9extension and farmers are the following:

Combine local and external knowledge and resources- including new ideas and innovations.

Encourage access for farmers to diverse value chains; flexible engagement with both formal and informal

value chains

Support the unpredictability of innovation processes; longer term, useofopen ended and iterative

approaches , flexibility in activities and budgeting

Address the multiple dimensions of innovations; Technologies are often seen as central and transferable

form one context to another, but in practice they are shaped by the people using them (social, economic

environmental and institutional aspects). –New ways for farmers toorganise themselves and access

markets, new services, new approaches to supporting innovation,new rules and policies are all needed-

thus enabling and accompanying organisational and institutional changes that make innovation possible.

 Encourage formation and strengthen capacities of farmer organisations (new forms of organisation that

can reflect the above principles)

Role players/stakeholders

Uptake and impactshould be monitored throughout the research process(D Naidoo WRC). Measuring and

attributing uptake and impact of research andits knowledge products is challenging, both short-term and

long-term. Impact is sustained change over time, scaled out and up (A Sullivan ex-FANRPAN). Uptake takes

place when stakeholders “becomeaware of and accessresearch outputs, and the institutions, policies,

systems and mechanisms that support this”.Impact is made when there is evidence of a demonstrable

contribution to society (Dr I Jacobs WRC).

Research uptakeprocesses require building relationships and partnerships, and engaging in separatebut inter-

connected activities to get from outputs to outcomes and impact. Thus, itis important tomap out the

system and its stakeholders. Who are the most influential people, whose actions are most likely to bring the

change we seek in the most effective way, and impacting the greatest number of potential beneficiaries?

Actions with regards to specific role players in this context include:

-Policy making processes are complex, and involve multiple actors and policy makers. Target all levels of

Government, political hierarchy, and Departments.

-Intermediaries who specialize in stimulating research uptake are important to achieve impact.

-Social scientists contribute to better understanding of impact and uptake processes.

-Build on people’s local practice and multiple water-needs to plan for and provide water services, using a multi-

stakeholder action-learning approach (Dr B van Koppen, IWMI).

-Trust the stakeholder engagement process and ensure it remains flexible. (Salomon, 2014)

-Focus on achieving change and practical solutions, Research can be a catalyst - not everything can be or needs to

be measured and

-Distribute responsibility for impact and uptake across partners (E Weight, IWMI)

ACTIONS FOR CHANGES IN POLICY

1.Convince donors, organisations and governments to change the way they fund agricultural research to:

Be process oriented, be demand driven, be inclusive of participatory activities,include multiple

Page| 29

stakeholder engagement,include monitoring and evaluation, work across longer time spans (~10yrs) –

programmatic vs projects and with an emphasis on uptake and impact.

2.Support innovation platforms and other multi-stakeholder alliances at different levels: From local to

national –include smartanddecentralized financial support to localalliances of stakeholders to

strengthen their innovation capacity.

3.Develop innovation brokerage capacity: Trained ‘brokers’ canfacilitate the interactions between

stakeholders at key stages; encouraging joint reflection onconstraints and opportunities and sharing of

knowledge resources and responsibilities.

4.Strengthen the pivotal role ofagricultural advisors; giving them explicit mandates for brokering and

increased capacity, including renewed investment from donors and

5.Integrate the innovation systems approachinto education; for preparation of current and future

researchers and rural advisors. Close interaction between educational institutions and farmers on the

ground is important. Thus community engagement aspects of research need a much stronger,

incentivised focus. (Waters-Bayer, Triomphe, & Oudwater, 2013)

Page| 30

Bibliography

(Ethiopia), F.-A.(2001). Farmer Participatory Research in Southern Ethiopia. The experiences of the farmers'

Research Project. London: Farm Africa.

Agriculture, D. o. (2006). Nataional Agricultural Research and Development Strategy. Pretoria: Draft No. 2

submitted to DEXCO.

Agriculture., D. o.(2005). Norms and Standards for Extension andAdvisory Services in Agriculture.Pretoria:

Directorate of Scientific Research and Development.

Becker, T. (2005). Participatory researchin the CGIAR. In G. e.al., articipatory Research and Developmentfor

Sustainable Agriculture and Natural Resource Management:A Sourcebook (pp. 37-57).

Bhatt, Y., Bossio, D., Enfors, E., Gordon,L., Kongo, V., Kosgei, J., et al. (2006). Smallholder System Innovations in

Integrated Watershed Managagement. Strategies of Water for Food and Environmental Security inDought -

prone Tropical and Sub-tropcial Agroecosystems. IWMI Working Paper 109.SSIWorking Paper 1.

International Water Management Institute.

Binns, T., Hill, T., & Nel, E. (1994). Learning from the people, Participatory rural Appraisal, Geography and Rural

Development in the 'new' South Africa.Brighton,UK: School of Afircan and Aisan Studies, University of

Sussex.

Blackburn, J. a. ( 1996). The power of participation. PRA and Policy. IDS Policy briefing,Issue 7. Brighton: IDS.

Bot A, C., & Achora, J. (2014). Topic 1: CA for Sustained Wealth Creation.African Conservation Tillage Network,

Online Forum Discussions. http://www.act-africa.org/forum_category.php?com=70&com2=72&id=1.

Brock,K., & Pettit, J.(2007). Springs of Participation: Creating and EvolvingMethods for Participatory

Development. Warwickshire, UK: Practical Action.

Caister, K., Green, M., & Worth, S. (2012). Learning how to be participatory: An emergentresearch agenda.

Action Research , 10(1):22-39. DOI:10.1177/1476750311414737.

Chambers, R. (1993). Challenging the Professions; Frontiers for Rural Development. London, UK: IT Publications.

Chevalier, J. M., & and Buckles, D. J. (2013). ParticipatoryActionResearch: Theoryand Methods for Engaged

Inquir..UK: Routledge.

De Leener, P.(2003). How Changes Generate Impacts. Towards Attitudinal, Behavioral and Mental Changes in

the Footsteps of Research Partnership. Part 1.International Workshop on “The Impact Assessment Study on

Research Partnership”. KFPE-GDN-World Bank: Ca.

du Toit, P. (2013, October). Alookat Conservation Agriculture and the Developing Grain Farmer. Pula Imvula

(GrainSa Magazine for Developing Farmers) , pp. 16-18.

FAO. (2011). Biodiversity of Food and Agriculture: Contibuting to Food secuirty andSustainability in a Changing

World. Outcomes of an Expert Workshop held by FAO and the Platform on Agrobiodiversity Research(p. 78 ).

Rome, Italy: FAO.

Ficarelli, P., Chuma, E.,Ramaru,J., Mruwira, K., & Hagmann, J.(2002).Strengthening LocalOrganizations for

Conservation Agriculture –Some experiences from South Africa and Zimbabwe.Retrieved April 2014,from

http://www.betuco.be/CA

Page| 31

Gonsalves, J., Becket, T., Braun, A., Campilan, D., De Chavez, H., Fajber, E., et al. (2005). ParticipatoryResearch

and Development for Sustainable Agriculture and Natural Resource Management. A Sourcebook. Volume 2.

Ottawa, Canada: International Potato Center-Users' with Agricultural Research and Development.

Guendel, S., Hancock, J., & Anderson,S. (2001). Scaling Up Strategies for Research in Natural Resources

Management: A Comparative Review. Chatham, UK: : Natural Resources Institute.

Hart, T., Burgess, R., Beukes, O.,&Hart, C. (2005). Reducing Pitfalls in Agricultural Development Projects:A Case

for the Participatory Project Management Cycle (PPMC). South African Journal of Agricultural Extension. Vol

34(1), 104-121.

Hartmann, M. (2009 ).Participatory Innovation Development and Extension in Ethiopia: ACase Study.

Proceedings of the 25th Annual Meeting, InterContinental San Juan Resort. Puerto Rico: AIAEE.

Hoffmann, V., Probst,K., & Christinck, A. (2007). Farmers and researchers: How can collaborative advantages be

created in participatory research and technology development? Agriculture and Human Values , pp. 24:355–

368.

Kosgei, J., Jewitt, G., Kongo, V., & Lorentz, S. (2007). The influence of tillage on field scale water fluxes and maize

yields in semi-arid environments: A case study of Potshini catchment, South Africa. Physics and Chemistry of

the Earth:32 , 1117–1126.

Leeuwis, C., & Van den Ban, A. (3rd Edition). Communication for Rural Innovation: Rethinking Agricultural

Extension. Blackwell Publishing.

Letty, B., Shezi,Z., &Mudhara, M. (2012). An exploration of agricultural grassroots innovation in South Africa

and implications for innovation indicator development.Retrieved from Ideas:

http://www.merit.unu.edu/publications/wppdf/2012/wp2012-023.pdf

Lilja, N., & Bellon, M. (2006). Analysis of Participatory Research Projects in the International Maize and Wheat

Improvement Center. Mexico, D.F: CIMMYT.

Macmillan, T., & Benton, T. (2014). Agriculture: Engage Farmers in Research. Nature , Vol 509, Iss 7498.

Mudhara,M. (2010). Agrarian Transformation in Smallholder Agriculture in South Africa: Adiagnosis of

bottlenecks nad public policy options. Overcoming Inequality and Structural Poverty in South Africa.Theme

4:. Johannesburg: The South African LED Network.

Mudhara,M., & Ngubane, N. (2009). Use of Innovation Support Funds to create Conditions for Smallholder

Farmers to INnovate: Preliminary Insights from a Pilot in South Africa. Proceedings of the 43rd Conferecne of

the South African Society for agricultural Extension.Potchefstroom, NW Province: SASAE.

Mudhara,M., Malinga, M., & Salomon, M. (2007). Enhancing farmers innovative capacity in soiland water

management through participatory action research in Potshini, South Africa. Poster presented at the

Waternet Symposium. Lusaka: www.dry-net.org.

Mutimba, J., & Khaila, S. (2011). Action research: A practical step-by-step guide for Agricultural Extension

Professionals. South African Jounral of Agricultural Extension , Vol 39 No 1.

Ngcobo,H., & Dadla, B. (2014). Provincial Reporton Education and Training for Agriculture and Rural

Development in Kwazulu Natal. PMB, KZN: KZNDAE.

Page| 32

Packham, R., Petheram, J., &Murray-Prior, R. (2007). FarmingSystems Research (FSR) as a Platform for RDEin

Agriculture and NRM.Retrieved from apen.org.au:

http://www.apen.org.au/images/PDF%20documents/APEN%20Forum07%20papers/Packham_Petheram__P

rior___A_Farming_Systems_Research_(FSR)_As_a_Platform_for_RDE_in_Agriculture_and_NRM.pdf

Reason, P., & Bradbury, H. (2008). In P. R. (eds), The Sage Handbook of Action Research: Participative Inquiry and

Practice. (pp. 5–10.). Sage, California.

(2008). Introduction. In P.Reason, & H. Bradbury,The Sage Handbook of Action Research: Participative Inquiry

and Practice. (pp. 5–10.). CA: Sage.

Reijntjes, C., Haverkort,B., & Waters-Bayer, A. (1992). Farming for the Future:An Introduction to Low-External-

Input and Sustainable Agriculture. Amsterdam: ILIEA.

Rootman,G., Letty, B.,& Stevens, J. (2014). EnhancingFarmers' Organisational and Experimentation Capacities

for SoilFertility Managementin Smallholder Cropping Systems in Vhembe District of Limpopo Province in

SouthAfrica. Proceedings of the Agricultural Innovations Systems in Africa Workshop.JOLISAA,European

Commission FP7.

Salomon, M. (. (2014). Water Research Impact and Uptake Workshop Proceedings.12-13 March Lombardy Hotel

Pretoria: IWMI, WRC, CGIAR.

Scoones, I. (1998). Sustainable Rural Livelihoods: A Framework for Analysis.Brighton BN19FE.: IDS (Institute of

Development Studies), UNiversity of Sussex .

Sibiya, J., Tongoona, P., Derera,J., &Makanda, I. (2013. Vol. 114 No. 1). Farmers’ desired traits and selection

criteria for maize varieties and their implications for maize breeding: A case study from Kwazulu-Natal

province, South Africa. Journal of Agriculture and Rural Development in the Tropics and Subtropics , 39–49.

Smith, H., Trytsman, G., Bloem, J., Everson, T., & Mthethwa, S. (2005). Development and Implementation of

Sustainable Land Management Practices in the Bergville District of the KwazuluNatal Province.Pretoria:

ARC-ISCW Report NO GW/A?2005/4.

Stevenson,J., Serraj, R., & Cassman, K. (2014). Editorial. Evaluating Conservation Agriculture for Small-scale

Farmers in Sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment , No 187 pges 1–10.

Stilwell, W. J., &Van Rooyen, C. J. (1999). Farming Systems Researchand Extension in South Africa: Lessons of

Experience. Agrekon , Vol 29, Iss 4.

Stronkhorst, L., Maphumulo, C., Trytsman, G., Breytenbach, F., Lotter, L., & Mpanza, T. (2010). Local Level Land

Degradation Assessment in the Emmaus area, KwaZulu-Natal Province.Pretoria: ARC-ISCW Report Nr.

GW/A/2010/35. Project Nr. GW/56/017.

Stronkhorst, L., Mapumulo, C., Trytsman, G., Breytenbach, F., Lötter, L., & Mpanza, T. (2010). ARC-ISCW for the

FAO.

Sturdy, J., Jewitt, G., & Lorentz, S. (2008). Building an understanding of water use innovation adoption processes

through farmer-driven experimentation. Physics and Chemistry of the Earth , Vol 33 Iss 8.

Sutherland,A. ( 1998). Participatory Research in NaturalResources.Socio-Economic methodologies Best Practise

guidelines. Chatham, UK: Natural resource Institute.

Page| 33

Ton,W. (2005). Participatroy research and extension in Agriculture. Organisation of learning inparticipatory

research and extension approaches.Enschede, The Netherlands.: Faculty of Behavioural Sciences, University

of Twente.

Triomphe, B., Floquet, A., Kamau, G., Vodouche, S., Nganga, T., Stevens, J., et al. (2013). What does and

Inventory of recentExperience Tell Us About Agricultural Innovation in Africa. The Journal of Agricultural

Education and Extension , Vol 9, Iss3.

Waters-Bayer, A., Bernhardt, M., Bocock, P., Dugan, P., Lohmann, J., & Sanyang, S. (. (2013). The Feldafing

Principles forEenhancing Agricultural Innovation Systems. Feldafing, Germany: GIZ, CGIAR.

Waters-Bayer, A., Triomphe,B., & Oudwater,N. (2013, November). Building on Local Dynamics: 5 Policy

Recommendations for Enhancing Innovation byAfrican Smallholder Farmers.JOLISAA Policy Brief. JOLISAA-

Joint Learning in Innovation Systems and Agriculture. European Commission FP7.

Waters-Bayer, A., Van Veldhuizen, M., Wettasinha, C.,& Wongtschowski, M. (2005). Developing Partnerships to

Promote Local Innovation. In G. e. al., ParticipatoryResearch and Development for Sustainable Agriculture

and Natural Resource Management:A Sourcebook (pp. 74-83).

Wettasinha, C., Wongtschowski, M., & Waters-Bayer, A. (2009). Recognising local innovation:experience of

PROLINNOVA partners.Silang, Cavite, the Philippines: International Institute of Rural Reconstruction /

Leusden: PROLINNOVA International Secretariat, ETC EcoCulture. 66pp.

Worth S, H., & Abdu-Raheem K, H. (2011). Household Food Security in South Africa: Evaluating Extension's

Paradigms Relative to the Current Food Security and Development Goals. South African Journal of Agricltural

Extension , Vol 39 No 2:91-103.

Worth,S. H. (2006). Agriflection;A Learning Model for Agricultural Extension in South Africa. The Journal of

Agricultural Education and Extension , 179-193, 12(3).

Zwane, E. (2009). Participatory Development of an Extension Approach andPolicy for Limpopo Porvince, South

Africa.University of Pretoria. Pretoria: Departmentof Agricultural Economics, Extension and Rural

Development. .

Zwane, E. (2009). Participatory Development of an Extension Approach and Policy for Limpopo Province, South

Africa. Univeristy of Pretoria. Department of Agricultural Economics, Extension and Rural Development.

Page| 34

APPENDIX A: Operational philosophies of a crosssection of AR&D

Organisations in KZN.

UZKN

Presently there are literally thousands of papers and dissertations linked to Universities in South Africa that

mention participatory research in Agriculture. A closer look may however indicate the following trends:

There is a strong tendency towards choosing research frameworks that require random sampling for

studies within regions and then locally and then to

Administer structured questionnaires that can be analysed statistically, albeit with SPSS (statistical

package for social sciences) or similar packages.

This is put forward as participatory research and in a number of instances may be the only form of’ participation’

in the study, even though the papers and reports may analyse farmer participation in ‘empowerment’ terms.

Two examples:

- K. K. S. Nxumalo and O. I. Oladele. 2013Factors Affecting Farmers’ Participation in Agricultural Programmes in

Zululand District, Kwazulu Natal Province,South Africa.Department ofAgricultural Economics and Extension, North-

West University, Mafikeng Campus, South Africa. Journal of Social Science 34(1):83-88 (2013).

- H Ngcobo,B Dladla. 2014. Provincial Report on Education and Training for Agriculture and Rural Development in Kwa-

Zulu Natal (KZN). KZNDAE, PMB.

A similar trend is found in the use and implementation of PRA (participatory rural Appraisal; where PRA

methodologies are used primarily as a way fro researchers to gather information from farmers in a more

participatory manner.

The UKZN AFRICAN CENTRE for CROP IMPROVEMENT (ACCI) is a point in case. It is located within the School of

Agricultural,Earth and Environmental Science and was established in 2001 to train African plant breeders in

Africa in the area of African food security crops. It is an applied PhD programme in plant breeding The focus

of the PhD theses is on the applied breeding of key food crops such as sorghum, cassava and cowpeas for

increased disease and drought tolerance, and improved yields and quality, with the aim of improving food

security in 12 African countries, including Ethiopia, Kenya, Mozambique. The students are expected to

include a chapter on PRAas a minimum requirement,buthopefully to embark on more extensive

participatory breeding processes within their studies. They are provided with specific training and some

funding to include this participatory element into their work.

PARASTATAL RESEARCH INSTITUTIONS

The Agricultural Research Council (ARC)and it’s associated Institutes such as the Grain Crops Institute (GCI) and

the Institute of Soil Climate and Water(ISCW) have the following overall brief:

To ensure that technological innovation flows from researchers- extension to farmers and must therefore

actively interactwith farmers and extension agents.Thus research programmes are to be planned in

collaboration with extension services and farmers, technical back up is provided, training of trainers is

incorporated as are small business development principles. The, knowledge generated is made widely

available. (Agriculture., 2005)

Page| 35

In accordance with the need to focus on national development priorities, the ARC conducts agricultural research

and development and drives technology development and dissemination in order to:

promote sustainability and equitable economic participation in the agricultural sector;

promote agriculture development and growth in related industries;

facilitate sector skills development and knowledge management;

facilitate and ensure natural conservation;

promote national food security; and

contribute to a better quality of life.



None of the 11 Institutes are based in KZN, but research work is carried out in the province.

The overall paradigm here is thus still one of technology transfer, albeit with a vision for greater involvement and

participation of farmers.The ISCW promotes sustainable use and management of the agricultural natural

resources through research, technology development and technology transfer.One of the focus areas, Soil

Health and Remediation concentrates on applying an understanding of the soil system including the physical,

chemical and biological processes to sustainable yet productive agricultural systems. The applied research

focuses on issues suchas CA, water harvesting, carbon management, green manure, sustainable wetland

utilization and degradation (erosion) monitoring. Cutting-edge approaches to research methodology are

used such as Participatory Action Research.

The Water Research Commission (WRC) is based in Pretoria. It boasts an impressive array of research focus

areas and many publications and hasincluded thedevelopmentand useof many different participatory

research processes along with also doing highly technical and scientific work.Research teams are drawn

from the Universities, Research Institutes andgovernment by in large. Of latea fewNGO basepersonnel

have also been included.

Some examples of recent publications include:

1. Denison J, Manona S(2007) Principles, approaches and guidelines for participatory revitalisation of

smallholder irrigation schemes,volume 1–a rough guide for irrigation development practitioners. Research

Report No TT 308/07. Water Research Commission, Pretoria

2. Du Plessis FJ, van Averbeke W, van der Stoep I (2002) Micro-irrigation for smallholders: guidelines for funders,

planners, designers and support staff in South Africa. Research Report No TT 164/01. Water Research

Commission, Pretoria

3. Schoeman G, Magongoa B (2004) Community identified performance indicators for measuring water services.

Research Report No. TT 228/04. Water Research Commission, Pretoria

4.Denison J; Smulders H; Kruger E; Ndingi H; Botha M. (2010) Water Harvesting and Conservation –Volume 2

Part 3: Facilitation Manual. Research report no TT 495/11. Pretoria

5. Du Toit D;Pollard S. (2010). Public participation inthe drafting of catchment management strategies made

simple. WRC report No TT 455-10. Pretoria

6. Lotz-sisitka H; Burt J. 2006.A critical review of participatory practise in integrated water resources

management. WRC report no. 1434/1/06

Page| 36

7. Stimie, CM; Kruger, E; De Lange, M; Crosby, CT. (2010) Agricultural water Us in Homestead gardening Sytems

for facilitators and food gardeners; main Report> Volume 1. Research Report No.TT 430/09. Pretoria

NON GOVERNMENT ORGANISATIONS

Tshintsha Amakhaya

Tshintsha Amakhaya (TA) is an action learning platform of civil society organizations (10 throughout SA inlc for

example AFRA, TCOE,FSG, SCLC etc) that supports local community struggles in land and agrarian reform.

Through action research, campaigns, and building active citizenry, Tshintsha Amakhaya seeks to enhance

rural people’s capacityto secure and realize their livelihoods and rights, and to promote alternative models

of land tenure and agricultural production for household food security and national food sovereignty.

Through action research the TA partners – involving CSOs and their constituencies –generate an agenda for

joint action, movement building, and lobbying & advocacy.

The collaborative process in TshintshaAmakhaya involves three iterative stages of action learning: starting with

phase 1 Baseline research to understand rural realities, followed by phase 2 Implementation and advocacy of

alternative forms and arrangements for land andagrarian transformation; and concluded with phase 3

Reflection on impact.

The aim of the study was to identify priorities for joint action on land access and agricultural production amongst

constituent communities. For this purpose, the survey zoomed in on access to land, income, food

consumption, livestock keeping, crop farmingaccess to water,agricultural support, farm worker conditions,

evictions and levels of organisation.

“the Agrarian Household economy –a publication from large baseline study(1743 householdsacorssfive

provinces) recommends:This publication argues that while governmentand private sector resources are

going into building a Black commercial smallholder sector to feed into formal agri-food value chains, this is

likely to benefit only a small minority of producers. Instead government should focus on improving

agricultural production for household use and sales to local markets by learning from and strengthening local

distribution systems.Support also requires welfare interventions for households that are often oralways

hungry. The rural poor need improved access to grazing land, better livestock management and fodder

production, intermediate processing and storage technologies, and participatory systems for sharing

knowledge and learning. Governmentshould also tackle the basic conditions ofemployment in rural areas,

particularly farm dwellers. - See more at: http://www.plaas.org.za/bibliography/rural-households-

tshintsha#sthash.nL425zQj.dpuf

Farmer Support Group

Farmer SupportGroup (FSG) is a research,community developmentand outreach unit within theSchool of

Agricultural Earthand Environmental Sciences (SAEES) at the University of KwaZulu-Natal. FSG places

emphasis on addressing the needs of resource-poor farmers, other land users and development

practitioners in sustainable agriculture,food security, natural resource management, institutional

development and entrepreneurship. The unit is recognized internationally for its expertise in community

participatory approaches, (such as PID) appropriate technology and indigenous knowledge creation. In this

capacity, it facilitates networking and capacity-building, sustainable land management and improvement of

the livelihoods of smallholder farmers. FSG’s projects focus onissues offood security, innovation, natural

resource management, and entrepreneurship development (business and marketing).

PID advocates for the building on and scaling up of farmer-based development. It starts by discovering how

farmers experiment on their own to develop and test new ideas. Understanding local innovation transforms

Page| 37

how research and extension agents view local people. This experience stimulates interest in joint action and

analysis leading to mutual learning. Local ideas are further developed in a participatory process that

integrates IK and scientific knowledge (Mudhara M. , 2010)

GOVERNMENT POLICY AND STRATEGIES

Training and skills development come up in Agriculture and the development context almost continually.There

is however an understanding that ‘training’ should have an immediate impact on creation of ‘jobs’ and the

‘business of agriculture’ –meaning that training is ‘judged’ more in terms of access to Agricultural resources

than in terms of learning outcomes and impacts. The following comment in a recent report is indicative

‘There was a big gap in terms of practical knowledge and skills in most providers of agricultural education and

training. This gap was mostly related to the fact that the majority of clients did not have adequate access to

resources to sustain agricultural development.’ (Ngcobo & Dadla, 2014)

The extension service or system in the province is faced with major problems, such as lack of commitment and

little motivation from the staff. Educators at high schools also raised these problems. They also highlighted

the fact that agriculture was not recognized as a major science subject by the Department ofEducation.

Furthermore,there are no explicit policies and institutional arrangements to address agricultural education

and training in a holistic way

There is some level of very literal understanding of roles and functions and continued complete separation of

research ,extension and farmers. There is still a strong tacit understanding of knowledge creation by ‘others’

to beprovided ‘appropriately’ to farmers sothat they can ‘graduate’ toa more commercial level. The

following statement indicates:

‘Furthermore, the respective institutions designed their course programmes with little to no participation by and

consultation with the targeted clients and other role players. This approach had a negative impact when the

clients ventured into areas outside theinstitutions. In casesof students, it is difficult for them to adaptin

practical situations (reallife experience) because mostinstitutions of higher learning concentrate more on

theoretical aspects than on practical aspects’(Ngcobo & Dadla, 2014)

Kzndae: Directorate Research and Technology Development

The Directorate: Research and Technology Development performs one of the line functions of the KwaZulu-Natal

Department of Agriculture and Environmental Affairs within the vision and mission of the Department.

The outputs in terms of researchand technology development and transfer (Key Responsibility Areas) of the

Directorate are performed by the following Sub-Directorates:

Crop Production with Divisions Agronomy, Horticulture and Crop Protection

Farming Systems Research

Analytical Services

Animal Science Services

Grass & Forage Science Services

KZN Agricultural Farms

oInland Farms (Cedara, Dundee(Varied, including Maize cultivar trials spacing in min till systems, grain

legume trials and demos) & Kokstad)

oCoastal Farms (Owen Sithole College of Agriculture, Bartlow Combine (Nguni) & Makhathini (cotton))

Juncao Mushrooms

Page| 38

The research and demonstration trials are conducted on six Research Stations, as well as on-farm in various rural

communal areas. The customers ofresearch are farmers,extension officers, agrochemical firms and home-

gardeners, NGOs, universities, the ARC, companies and organized agriculture.http://www.kzndae.gov.za/en-

za/agriculture/researchandtechnologydevelopment.aspx. Accessed 7 March 2014)

KZNDAE: Farming Systems Research

The Farming Systems Research (FSR)Section assesses the farming systems practiced bysmall-scale farmers and

the constraints which apply to these systems. The Section then has the responsibility of conducting research

so as to effect improvements to these systems, with the ultimate goal being of enhancing food security and

the profitability of farming operations. The research conducted is demand-driven and carried out within

communities, with farmers involved in the planning and management of the trials. The strength of the

Section is based on in its bottom-up, rather thantop-down approach. The Section works in close co-

operation with Extension personnel, Veterinary Services staff, on-station researchers and the private sector.

Their terminology differs slightly different from the rest in being more responsive to farmers within the same

overall framework. They talk about demand driven on farm trials, do diagnostic surveys and emphasise that

research-extension-farmer linkages are vital for successful technology development and transfer