 |
|
|
|
Farmers Participation in Design
Since the early 1990s the design of many projects and programmes in eastern Africa have included active roles for farmers and farmer groups, mostly to try and improve the sustainability of the interventions and to ensure that developments are in agreement with local priorities. However, participation as defined in the project design has often meant that communities are expected to provide labour and materials and to accept responsibility for the maintenance of the facility, whilst their involvement in decision making has gone only as far as deciding who will provide what was required by the project implementers. How the facility is to be operated and maintained has often already been decided, for example when beneficiaries are required to establish operating committees as a condition of access to the assistance. The result of this approach has frequently been that communities have seen themselves as the objects of the development, not the subjects. The problem seems to revolve around assumptions that (i) farmer participation is easily obtained even when they are not involved in the decision making process, and (ii) that implementing officers are in agreement with and knowledgeable about the proposed participatory approach. When projects face problems during the implementation process the need to involve participants becomes even more pressing, but is much more difficult to obtain at this stage.
In Uganda (BG-005-UG) farmers’ participation was a feature of the design, but only as far as providing labour and materials and guaranteeing the maintenance of the facility, hence they had no say in the exact nature of the intervention.. In the case of health units the approach had to be changed in the course of implementation, because the communities forcibly expressed that the destroyed units should not be rehabilitated, but new and different units should be built. The realisation that they could be involved in shaping the project design made the farmers resentful of the other, more imposed aspects. In Ethiopia (SRS-003-ET) water users groups were formed as a statutory requirement for the construction of small-scale irrigation schemes, but without obtaining the commitment of the farmers for scheme repayments or maintenance. The result was that cost recovery agreements proved unenforceable, only a fraction of the costs were collected, operational efficiencies deteriorated and no funds were generated to continue construction activities. In Kenya, (188-KE) the government failed to consult livestock owners when a cost recovery scheme was introduced for dipping during the course of implementation. The result was that farmers objected to having their cattle dipped and incidences of serious cattle diseases increased and could not be controlled. This mostly affected the poorest farmers and pastoralists, who were supposed to be the main beneficiaries of the project.
- Community involvement with project and programme developments has to start very early on in the design process, by soliciting farmers’ priorities and perceptions of the intervention. This then has to be translated into active participation in project designs, including agreed definitions of the inputs to be provided by the participants. Without this early dialogue with communities it is not possible to utilise a participatory approach in the design.
- A thorough understanding of participation should not be assumed in the design - the need for training in the approach should be assessed both for the implementers and the recipients (especially where seconded government staff are likely to be concerned with project management).
- Farmers should preferably be asked to contribute (time or money) to developments before they take place, to demonstrate their commitment and to ensure that the investment is a major priority for them.
eferences:
1. Ethiopia - Special Country Programme, SRS-003-ET S003ETBE, Interim Evaluation, 1996.
2. Kenya - Animal Health Services Rehabilitation Programme, 188-KE R188KECE, Completion Evaluation, 1995.
3. Tanzania - Smallholder Development Project for Marginal Areas, SRS-024-TZ%S024TZBE, Interim Evaluation, 1998.
4. Uganda - Hoima / Kibaale Districts Integrated Community Development Project, BG-005-UG% R005UGBE, Interim Evaluation, 1996.
