Communicating Agricultural Research in Africa: The New Role of Rural Radio

Helen Hambly Odame

Research Officer, International Service for National Agricultural Research, P.O. Box 93375, 2509 AJ, The Hague, The Netherlands.

ABSTRACT

New developments in rural radio in Africa hold promise for the application of farming systems thinking for agricultural innovation and development. This paper examines the challenge of international and national agricultural research institutions moving beyond the conventional “technology triangle” of research-extension-farmer linkages whereby information tends to be selectively released and controlled. In contrast, a web-like set of interactions among multiple stakeholders and research institutions prevails and requires a learning-centered approach to knowledge generation and information sharing to support agricultural innovation for rural development. A pilot project at the International Service for National Agricultural Research (ISNAR) to investigate the current role of broadcast radio in linking farmers, research institutions and rural extension in Africa is discussed.[*] To date, the project has carried out a study of radio/research linkage needs and worked with teams of African researchers and radio broadcasters. The results suggest a ‘linkage gap’ exists that prevents the two ‘stations’ of research and radio rarely, if ever, interacting. Lack of teamwork, and certain policy and organizational issues operate against research/radio linkages. Overcoming these limitations will be an on-going effort, but there are encouraging ways forward.

INTRODUCTION

Nowhere in the world is the outlook for farming systems more bleak than in sub-Saharan Africa. In the last three decades, the continent has confronted a major decline in per capita food production; in the next two decades Africa is the only region of the world where the number and percentage of children who are malnourished is predicted increase to 49 million, an increase of 50% from 1997-2020 (Rosegrant et. al, 2001). Scenarios of environmental degradation, the HIV/AIDS pandemic and the persistent neglect for basic human rights reinforce the poverty and chronic deprivation of rural Africa (IFAD, 2001).

In most African countries, broadcast radio (not to be confused with two-way personal radio service) remains relevant to any strategy for rural development, including greater public accountability and decentralization of services, because it involves a relatively inexpensive technology that effectively reaches rural people in their own languages. Rural radio is technically defined in terms of its relatively local range (25-50 km radius) or functioning at frequencies of less than 1000 MHz. In some cases, rural radio stations using larger transmitters (e.g. 5000 Watts) can technically reach millions of listeners.[1] Multiple information and communication technologies (ICTs) support radio broadcasting, including in some contexts, digital systems, satellite communications and the Internet. Radio stations may be commercially or publicly operated, although distinguishing between the two is difficult as government-owned stations increasingly engage in commercial activity while some commercial stations offer free services to government or non-governmental organizations.

Another important type of rural radio broadcasting is defined as ‘community radio’, which is owned and operated by a community. Ilboudo (1991) argues that the success of this kind of rural radio station in Africa is that it complements the oral tradition of communication in many rural societies and builds on principles of participatory development. Such decentralized community radio maintains close ties to the local community and often provides local people with opportunities to voice their opinions and share their knowledge (Gumucio Dagron, 2001; Balit, 1999). Community radio stations are fast expanding in Africa. In South Africa, for example, over 90 community radio stations have joined the National Community Radio Forum started in 1993, and 50 stations were reported on-air in 2001 (Stone, 2001).

Farm radio broadcasting has existed since the 1930s, taking off initially in Canada, and soon after in the United States, Europe and Australia. In 1963, UNESCO with Canadian support transferred the experience of its Farm Radio Forums to three developing countries, India, Ghana and Kenya. The Forums are farmer listening and discussion groups communicating with each other and public services via radio programs. By the mid-1960s radio broadcasting disseminated information to farmers and their organizations about new wheat and rice technologies during the ‘Green Revolution’ (Borlaug, 1970). Since then, the context of research and radio linkages has changed both technologically and conceptually. For example, new ICTs create options like “Internet radio” (downloaded audio clips) or “Internet browsing on radio” (searching the Internet and discussing the finds on radio). As well, new agricultural biotechnologies are demanding more from public information systems, and last but not least, research itself is expected to go beyond the mere dissemination of new technical information to two-way dialogue with rural populations (Wette, 1997). This paper addresses the current role of rural radio in Africa and how researchers improve communication with farmers via radio, as well as research relationships with civil society where media is an influential but often underestimated institutional partner.

AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH LINKAGES

Global and national systems of agricultural knowledge generation and exchange are increasingly engaged in flows of cross-sectoral technology and information among stakeholder groups (Haverkort and de Zeeuw, 1992). Stakeholders of research have been defined as “those groups whose interests are likely to be affected by or, conversely, whose activities will affect the research system” (Gijsbers et. al., 2001: 329).[2] Many of these groups are identifiable entities with defined objectives and responsibilities, and internal organization. They may be part of the public sector and hold responsibility for investment, policymaking, research, extension, or education. There are also community based-organizations such as farmer groups, non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and private sector agencies involved in systems of technology development and use.

Since 1988, ISNAR has defined and characterized research linkages, assisted in establishing linkage policies within national agricultural research systems (NARS) and strengthened linkages through collaborative research and training projects.[3] Linkages between organizations representing research, extension and farmers were often captured in the metaphor of the “technology triangle” so that all are involved in planning and evaluation of research processes and products (Kaimowitz, 1990; Merrill-Sands et. al, 1989). The concept of ‘linkages’ implies structured collaboration among stakeholder organizations based on achieving shared objectives and diversifying sources of income. It is argued that linkages work best when they are consciously planned and activated(Peterson, et. al., 2001). Linkages may also be developed to avoid duplication of effort and build strategic alliances across and within sectors (Tabor and Faber, 1998). According to Peterson et. al. (2001), the four key aspects of linkage planning are: a) identifying linkage needs and partners, b) specifying linkage functions, c) defining linkage mechanisms, and d) determining resource requirements.

In practice, linkages are difficult to facilitate and even well planned linkages run the risk of falling short of their objectives when they reach implementation (Tola et. al., 2001). Linkage gaps (i.e. missing partners or disconnects among stakeholders) are created by changing contexts which make some links less or more relevant. This point is illustrated by the description of a linkage gap between natural resource management research and policy created by a lack of trust and acceptance between the science and policy establishments.

Even when there are mechanisms established for official communication between agricultural research leaders and NRM policy makers, such communication is likely to be “noise”, periodic and characterized by a low match between signal and policy information-demand…Even where scientists and policy makers share a common definition of the natural resource use “problem”, they may not communicate because scientists may not view policy makers as a legitimate client for their research results, and policy makers may not perceive the research community as producing relevant information for policy making purposes (Tabor and Faber, 1998:2)

In past work there was a tendency to strengthen linkages in terms of the number of linkage partners operating at different levels (i.e. their connectivity). Instead, an approach building on Granovetter (1985) would find the critical issue is the density of the linkages in terms of the quality of communication and partnership actions taken. This perspective on linkages fits well with constructivist approaches in which emphasis is placed on facilitatinglearning about rural development and farmer knowledge and values, rather than instructing policy decisions, extension advice or farmer adoption of technology (Loevinsohn et. al., 2000). Constructivism rejects that objective science exists. Research driven by scientists who lead and manage on the basis of their own dominant worldview is rebuked. It is not accepted that there is a fixed amount of knowledge that farmers need to be “taught” and that scientists must “teach”. Questions initiated by farmers should be the impetus behind continuous dialogue and mutual learning in research and its application to development activity (Long and Long, 1992).

Farming systems thinking has long dealt with the constraints of a linear approach to scientists developing technologies, government extension agents disseminating them as packages, and farmers adopting them. Okali and Sumberg (1986), for example, report the neglect of farmers’ own knowledge and role in developing and adapting technology, which is often embedded in scientific organizations. As well, the middle ground of extension is seen on shaky ground, especially as structural adjustment in Africa reduces subsidies to agricultural inputs and technical services (Farrington, 1994). As a result, many new, mainly private sector technology and extension providers enter the arena (Janssen, 2000). Such services are not necessarily accessible to all, as some farmers are far too poor to pay for them. Even for farmers who can pay the ratio of extension personnel to farmer population in Africa is estimated at no better than 1:3,000 (World Bank, 1999). Marginalized stakeholders such as women and youth are often targeted by non-governmental organizations, but their efforts to supplement or replace public services are not easily sustained (Hambly Odame, 2001). Overall, these are trends that indicate unprecedented institutional diversity as well as increasing cross-sectoral demands on agriculture. The implicit relationships are not neat and triangular, but rather, like a spider’s web of institutional arrangements that form and reform in a constantly changing context (ISNAR, 2002; Uphoff, 2001).

A PROJECT ON FARMER, RESEARCH AND RADIO LINKAGES

In October 2000, ISNAR, together with four global partners, embarked on a pilot study of the linkage between agricultural research and rural radio in four African countries: Cameroon, Ghana, Mali, and Uganda. The project, known as Linking Agricultural Research and Rural Radio, involvedtwo types of partner organizations- national agricultural research centers and rural radio stations conducting farm broadcasting in local language(s). These countries were selected on the basis of their diverse experience with government and/or community farm radio broadcasting. Mali has for instance, the largest number of rural radio stations per capita in Africa (Ilboudo, 1999; 2001). Ghana operates over forty stations including centralized and decentralized government broadcasting, as well as nascent commercial and community radio broadcasting. Uganda is in the process of decentralizing its government broadcasting and significant resources have been invested in ICTs for agriculture and rural development by donor agencies. For example, the Department for International Development (DFID) of the United Kingdom has supported the expansion of the public radio station Mega FM (formerly known as Radio Freedom Gulu), which will serve 4 million rural inhabitants of Northern Uganda and Southern Sudan. There are an estimated 45 radio stations in Uganda now, many of which are commercial FM stations serving a relatively small target audience (average of 4,000 households). Finally, Cameroon represents a case in which decentralized rural radio broadcasting is quite new although in 2002 the country will initiate 15 new rural radio stations in the country with support from the United Nations Education, Social and Cultural Organization (UNESCO).

The means of information sharing and communication in agriculture and rural development are diverse including newspapers, radio, television, books, magazines, the Internet, cellular telephones, films, and official press releases or published speeches. In Africa, most rural people do not have access to all of these different media. By the end of the 1990s, there were approximately 12 newspapers, 52 televisions, and 198 radios for every 1000 Africans (Niang, 2001). This included more than an estimated 65 million radio receivers in sub-Saharan Africa, excluding South Africa (BBC, 1996). For Africa, the ‘digital divide’ is real because less than 1% of rural people in Africa have access to any single ICT, although broadcast radio in the project countries is the most prevalent (Table 1).

Table 1: Data on radio and Internet access for selected African countries

Selected Country / Radios per 1,000 people (1997) / Internet hosts per 10,000 people
(Jan. 2000)
Cameroon / 163 / 0.01
Ghana / 238 / 0.06
Mali / 54 / 0.00
Uganda / 128 / 0.06
Mean low income countries / 157 / 0.37
Mean middle income countries / 359 / 9.96
Mean high income countries / 1286 / 777.22

Source: World Development Report 2000/2001 and International Telecommunications Union (1999). Data includes urban and rural radio and Internet access.

At the same time, it must be recognized that the Internet and mobile telephony have become increasingly accessible to organizations in Africa, if not affordable to all individual users. Telephony and Internet (email) access are just two of the popular services offered by telecenters in Africa. Benjamin (2000) distinguishes between two types of telecenters. One is the relatively small, private sector telecenter that operates mainly as a cybercafe or a secretarial/communications bureau. The second type is the larger, donor-funded telecenter that provides information services for development purposes to a defined rural population. One such case is the Nakaseke Telecenter which was started in March 1999 to test and demonstrate the value of ICTs on rural development in the rural areas of Nakaseke and Kasangombe in Luweero District (see Nakaseke Telecenter provides communication, secretarial, training and entertainment services including the generation (collection, documentation, storage. packaging and dissemination) of local knowledge on household health, mother-child health, nutrition and agriculture (UNESCO, 2002).

Cognizant of the different stages of rural radio/ICT development in the four countries in the project, some general findings are discussed under two headings: 1) key policy and organizational issues for research/radio linkages, and 2) identification and engagement with teams of researchers/broadcasters and extension workers.

1) Policy and Organizational Issues

Based on findings of the assessment of needs and organizational constraints documented by ISNAR et al (2001), a linkage gap between research and radio exists and gains relevance with the ‘digital divide’ of ICTs in Africa. It is found that few research institutes in the four project countries have active research/radio linkages embodied in their work plans. No single institute, with the exception of the National Agricultural Research Organization of Uganda includes radio in its national agricultural research information and communication strategy. Management attitudes within research and radio organizations also suggest lack of awareness about each other (ISNAR et. al, 2001). Research managers and scientists perceive broadcasters as “politician followers” and not agents for community development. Broadcasters find researchers highly academic with insufficient practical information to offer listeners. National research contributions to creative, locally popular formats such as story telling, drama and magazine radio programs are underutilized.

By putting researchers into contact with broadcasters in the needs and organizational constraints assessment exercise undertaken in March 2001 it came to light that research and radio stations had more, rather than less in common. For one thing, both stations serve the same audience: farmers. Secondly, scarce resources are common in both organizations, and therefore, collaboration could build upon resource sharing and mobilization of new resources (human, physical and financial) through partnership. Through a participatory process of needs and organizational constraints assessment the following priorities for policy and organizational change for research/radio linkages were identified:

  • subregional, national, and provincial inventories of agricultural research facilities and rural radio stations.
  • case studies of what constitutes high-impact agricultural research communication and information exchange to inform new policy development or improve existing information and communication policies in NARS.
  • rapid priority-setting methods for research and radio collaboration.
  • tools for assessing the added value of collaborative efforts.
  • impact assessment of rural media and development communications.
  • collaborative management such as appointing a scientist to the advisory board of the radio station.

2) Identification and Engagement with Research/Radio/Extension Teams

In July 2002, the project conducted a workshop in Kumasi, Ghana to develop the concept of research/radio linkages by testing an experiential learning module that included the development of team action plans (TAPs). The workshop was initiated by a competitive call for team applications from the four countries.[4] The criteria for selection required each team to include at least one researcher, one radio broadcaster and one extension worker (from government or non-governmental organizations). Eight teams could be selected but the competitive call received a total of 79 team applications representing 260 persons.

In the workshop, the teams worked on exercises designed to explore, generalize process and apply their individual experiences relevant to research/radio linkages. Each team worked out a plan of collaboration known as a Team Action Plan (TAP). Through facilitated learning sessions on team building, communication with farmers and new and existing resource mobilization, one TAP activity that required new resources or fundraising was developed into a first draft concept note. Table 2 presents a summary of the TAPs developed through this process.