Realigning research and extension to focus on farmers’ constraints and opportunities

Abstract

This paper argues that research and extension have failed to (1) develop technologies that take into account farmers' resource constraints and risks; and (2) improve farmers' capacity to adapt technologies to their own situations. The paper critiques continued use of blanket, high-dose fertilizer recommendations, arguing for approaches that teach farmers how to maximize returns from smaller, more affordable input purchases. Developing such technologies requires that researchers integrate a wider range of stakeholders (farmers, extension agents, agricultural exporters and processors) into research activities at an earlier point in time than has been the case. Although evidence that these new approaches are increasing the use of purchased inputs remains weak, a number of important lessons are emerging about how research and extension outcomes are influenced by institutional culture and incentives. The authors conclude that developing recommendations for small, affordable input doses and training farmers so they can adapt recommendations to their particular circumstances is as much an institutional challenge as a technology challenge. #

Raising the productivity of smallholder farms under semi-arid conditions by use of small doses of manure and nitrogen: a case of participatory research

“…Continued evaluation of results with farmers led to the inclusion of large rates and combinations of small and large rates of fertilizer in comparison with the low rates of manure and fertilizer, therefore increasing options for the farmers. The process showed that there is a valid argument in encouraging research to focus on technologies that take into account farmer's constraints and improve farmer's capacity to adapt technologies to their own situations (Snapp et al 2003;Dimes et al 2004a, b).…”

“…The poor adoption of improved fertility management methods is attributable to several reasons, including: (i) inappropriate recommendations that fail to consider rainfall risks and investment capacity of smallholder farmers, (ii) blanket recommendations that overlook the spectrum of farming objectives and returns on investment that typifies smallholder farming systems, and (iii) inappropriate marketing of fertilizers to smallholder farmers (Dimes et al 2004a, b). Several authors have made the case for fertility options rather than blanket recommendations that do not take into account the local variability in soil fertility (Giller et al 2006) and largely ignore socioeconomic factors (Ahmed et al 1997;Rohrbach 1999;Snapp et al 2003).…”

“…One of the greatest research challenges is to develop technologies that are effective within farmer resource constraints, resource levels and acceptable risk (Snapp et al 1998(Snapp et al , 2003. Recent research emphasizes options that combine mineral fertilizer and organic manures (Ahmed et al 1997;Palm et al 2001;Nyathi et al 2003;Snapp et al 2003).…”

“…Recent research emphasizes options that combine mineral fertilizer and organic manures (Ahmed et al 1997;Palm et al 2001;Nyathi et al 2003;Snapp et al 2003). Research approaches are also required that help to build quality farmer-researcher partnerships using participatory research methods that can make technology testing more realistic (Snapp et al 2003). Smallholder farmers are more likely to accept the results and recommendations of research if they have been engaged in developing the recommendations under their farming environment.…”

The Mozambican Experience in Institutionalizing Agrarian Research

“…In fact, the weak link between research and extension is a problem characteristic of developing countries (Anandajayasekeram, Ranjitha, Sindu, & Dirk, 2008). There is evidence of inadequate technological messages from rural extension services (Snapp et al, 2003;Cunguara & Moder, 2011). At the root of this weak link between extension and agrarian research is the scarcity of resources on the part of these two institutions (Gemo, Eicher, & Teclemariam, 2005).…”