Participatory Research

Aden Aw-Hassan

Aleppo,

April 28, 2005

FPR is NOT an extension program and is NOT a community development program.

It is a research approach aimed at:Developing technologies and evaluating their performance

with substantial and active input from farmers.

Introduction

Why FPR?• It is expected to increase research impact by:

– Improving relevance of technology.– Reducing the research lag (development phase).– Reducing the adoption lag (early adoption).– Increasing adoption speed.

• It is expected to empower farmers through:– Giving them a say in research design & technology

development– Building their technical and problem solving capacities,– Increasing farmers knowledge

Principles

• Can facilitate: – Group learning– Developing different circumstances– Spread of information

1. Working with a group of farmers:

Farmers Interest Group

2. Farmer Selection

• Farmers with similar interest on a specific technology (olive production with water harvesting, improving soil fertility, irrigation management, improved forage production).

• Farmers hosting experiments.

• Farmers joining the group evaluation.

3. Farmers agreement with process

• The whole plan developed and agreed with farmers at the beginning of the season

• Clarify the process for the farmers from the beginning and get their input

• What is convenient for researchers may not be so for farmers, make sure that arrangements are mutually accommodating

4. Participatory Research Process

• Timing of participation– Planning– Evaluation and observations:

• stage 1

• stage 2

• stage 3

• stage 4

– Overall assessment of the results

• Data Collection– How farmers will record their

evaluation/observations:• Individually by host farmers recording sheets.

• Individually by group of other farmers.

• Through facilitated group discussion.

–Methods of data recording:

•Evaluation criteria (Farmers’ criteria, Researchers’ criteria)

•Evaluation sheets (individually)

•Participatory tools (scoring, ranking, using charts, etc.)

-How do farmers monitor the improvement in their capacities and skills

Farmers filling varietal evaluation sheets

5. Final assessment

• Discuss how the evaluation should be modified.

• Discuss if they suggest any changes.

Different FPR tools?

• RRA and PRA

• Participatory poverty assessment and Wealth ranking

• Community Resource mapping

• Gender and activity analysis

• Participator technology evaluation (PTE)

• Farmer interest groups

• Participatory land degradation assessment

RRA and PRA• Diagnose the problem• Identify potential solutions• Determine the types of users who are most

affected and could benefit the most• Determine potential farmers participation in

experimentation

• Tools: – Facilitated focus group discussions, use of cards,

unstructured individual interviews, use of drawings or community mapping, historical trend analysis,

Participatory poverty assessment/wealth ranking

•Develop farmers own criteria on poverty and well-being indicators

•Solicit farmers assessment of relative poverty levels of different households and determining factors

•Identify farmers priorities for improving their well-being

Community resource mapping

Farmer Interest Groups• Can facilitate:

– Group learning through farmer-to-farmer exchange

– Developing different circumstances (based on different farmers strategies and experiences)

– Speedy diffusion of information(extension element)

• Needs:- good facilitation- clear learning program

• Its drawback is the cost

Farmer Field Schools

• Mainly building farmers knowledge of a problem so they can change their practices

• Strengthening of farmer research and decision-making capacity

• Mostly developed and used in the IPM programs• This is now expanding to Integrated Crop

Management and marketing areas (for example organic production)

Farmer Research Committees (CIALS)

• Build and support local communities to:– develop their own research capacity – Demand more effective R&D services

Participatory Technology Evaluation (PTE)?

• Farmers are involved in specific events for technology assessment (mid-season, at harvest, etc)

• Specific tools are used for soliciting farmers assessment of the technology – Facilitated Group discussions using cards, charts, voting,

etc

– Scoring forms (farmers score technologies based on agreed criteria including farmers)

Participatory land degradation assessment

Participatory land degradation assessment

Why participatory research?

Passive

Collaborative

Collegial

Gradient of participation

Degree of participation in decision-making

Researcher-led

Farmer led

Low High

Research type

Extractive

Empowered

Water and soil management

Seeds of new varieties MFA

Degree of particip ation

High

High

Intensity of knowledge required

Maintaining crop varieties of different qualities

Seeds of new varieties LFA

Low

Prioritizing livelihoods options

Development of marketing network

Collective action on CR management

Research lag and adoption lag

Tec

hn

olog

y ad

opti

on

Years

Conventional research

FPR

7

11

Impact of participatory research

Cross

Initial increase

Y1

Y2

Y3

Y4

Y5

Y6

Y7

Y8

Breeder initial trial

Breeder preliminary trial

Breeder advanced trial

On-farm trial/year1

On-farm trial/year 2

On-farm trial/year 3

Y9

Y10

Farmer initial trials

Farmer advanced trials

Farmer elite trials

3-4 year reduction in research lag

Large scale trials/year1

Large scale trials/year2

Large scale trials/year1

Large scale trials/year1

CONVENTIONAL DECENTRALIZED PPB

MODEL ASSUMPTIONS

3%Discount rate

23 yearsDuration of benefits

$141/MTPrice

50%Prob. of success

+10%Yield change

822 kg/haBase Yield

874,060 MTBase Production

FARMER EVALUATION OF BENEFITS

1.28.3 SL/kgWillingness to pay for the new seed

0.36.7 SL/kgCurrent cost of local seed

1.62 yearsLength of “own” experimentation needed before replacing local

33.369%Expected % of total land planted for new variety

14.526%Expected yield advantage over local

St. Dev.Mean

Total estimated discounted research induced-benefits to

Syrian agriculture

$54.6 mill.$42.7 mill.$21.9 mill.

Higher adoption ceiling

Shorter research lag

Conventional

B a rle y B re e d in g B u d g e t, 2 0 0 2

P e r s o n e l

4 7 %

O ve r h e a d

3 0 %

o th e r c o u nt r ies 9 .1%

o ff -s ta t io n -S yr ia

2 .2 %

o n -s t a tion

1 1 .3 %

O p e r a tio n al

2 3 %

T o ta l b u d g e t : $ 1 .5 m il l io n

What is required for successful FPR?

•Training of researchers

• Well defined approach with clear stages of planning, capacity building, experimentation, data collection, evaluation, feedback to users, and reflection.

•Genuine desire to incorporate farmers knowledge and realities into the research process

•Genuine desire to see the impact of research outputs on people’s livelihoods

•Commitment to continuous learning