|
Experts wrong on farmers
A feature article titled: “Making Farming a Business” written by Taonga Sabola (Nation Online, of May 25) was informative and educative. It, among other things, highlighted the importance of creativity and economic activity portfolio diversification if the country is to forge ahead economically. But it was not without controversy.
The controversy was sparked when some of the experts quoted in the article observed that “the highly rewarding Sasakawa Global 2000 system of maize farming, with potential to triple yield, (introduced by Japanese International Cooperation Agency (Jica), was beset by disappointingly low adoption rate by farmers due to time consuming”.
A senior research officer at Bvumbwe Research Station argued that farmers just want to spend the most possible minimum number of hours on their farms. They lack seriousness and therefore could not adopt Sasakawa farming system.
A principal agro-business officer observed that farmers lack the seriousness and discipline of salaried employees to succeed.
If the perception of the ‘experts’ proves correct, it could be the first of its kind to question the Malawian farmers’ work ethic. Not that in the past there have never been such accusations, but that rigorous research always proved otherwise.
From the eyes of other stakeholders, farmers may seem ignorant of their circumstances, but they are not. Although they may not be able to carry out sophisticated PEST (political, economic, social, technological) analysis to identify opportunities and threats scientifically, farmers recognise an opportunity when they see one.
It, therefore, does not stand to reason that our farmers can turn down a farming system that radically improves crop yield on the basis of time-consuming, other factors being constant. There is more to it than what meets the eye.
If the benefits of the Sasakawa 2000 Global farming system indeed substantially outweigh the costs, then the experts must ask themselves the following: Are farmers aware of these benefits? And who told them? Did they believe them? Was the message that was passed on understood as intended and where is proof for that? The answers to some of these questions could prove a vital eye-opener.
It will be naïve to expect the inadequate, alienated and underpaid extension workers to pass on accurate and credible information to farmers. The problem, therefore, could partly be explained in terms of lack of effective promotional strategy on the part of those in authority responsible for farmer’s adoption of new farming practices.
Naturally, adoption of new practices the world over faces challenges and tends to be slow for reasons often best known to farmers themselves—the full time risk bearers. Unless the agriculture experts have high quality time and expertise, they tend not to understand the farmers’ psychology. Neglecting participatory rural research techniques in favour of ‘four-wheel-drive’ transect walk and the questionnaire may ‘take big paces but leave big spaces,’ which fill up with wrong explanations.
Given that most farmers have land size less than 0.5 ha (World Bank, 1998), it is almost impossible to spare some land for piloting—‘nobody tests the depth of a river with both legs’. With demonstration plots either non-existent or too far between in the rural areas, it could help to get each traditional chief to spare some land for a village demonstration plot to enforce the message with vicarious learning.
Sociological studies on adoption of innovation often show that in most places suggested innovations face grapevine counter-messages and lack of trust, hence the need to share the platform with often-trusted traditional, and religious leaders could be vital.
A farming practice is not only a time worn habit and an economic issue, it is also a socio-psychological one hence resistance to change and time lags are inherent. Therefore the provision of an enabling environment—goods roads, markets and affordable credits and involvement of farmers in the whole process improves the sense of ownership, and in turn oil the wheels of adoption.
The time consuming excuse is, therefore, likely to be a massive smoke screen behind which lurk the real reasons for resistance.
No amount of agricultural research on new practices in Malawi will improve agricultural production if the extension service, an essential link between research institutions and farmers, will remain neglected by the authorities.
—The author is an agriculture activist studying in the UK.
|
