Promoting Farmer Innovation and Experimentation in Ethiopia (Profieet)

PROMOTING FARMER INNOVATION AND EXPERIMENTATION IN ETHIOPIA (PROFIEET)

PROFIEET Tigray PID workshop

2–5 April 2005

AXUM, TIGRAY, ETHIOPIA

COMPILED

BY

LULSEGED BEYENE

Introduction

The workshop held on 2–5 April 2005 in Axum, Tigray Region, was sponsored by the Institute for Sustainable Development (ISD) and Agri-Service Ethiopia (ASE) and co-organised with Mekelle University (MU) as part of the programme called Promoting Farmer Innovation and Experimentation in Ethiopia (PROFIEET). Innovative farmers, extension experts, researchers, instructors from various colleges and other stakeholders participated in the workshop. The process of the workshop was totally participatory and farmers were the main actors.

The following were the main issues addressed in the workshop:

-History of research and extension

-Participation and participatory research and extension

-Farmer innovation and the Participatory Innovation Development (PID) concept

-Setting criteria for selecting best innovations

-Discussion on the establishment of databases and reporting mechanisms.

DAY 1: SATURDAY, 2 APRIL 2005

Welcoming and Opening Remarks

by Ato Kiros GebreSellassie, Vice-Administrator of Central Zone

Dear respected participants of the workshop, ladies and gentlemen:

In the first place I would like to welcome you all to the historical and ancient city of Axum. Currently our government is devising strategies and working more than ever to reduce our first enemy – poverty – and to achieve food security. Following this a lot of extension activities are being done in our region and zone.

I hope you all know that our rural development strategies and other policies always are evaluated and reformed. Hence our extension work is showing great progress from the former times, and is leading for many of the farmers to better livelihood by achieving food security. I also believe this will proceed with a better effort.

It has been long since the government and researchers drew their attention to the innovative farmers of the region and the zone. Innovative farmers are those who show observable change in their livelihood through various innovations like soil moisture conservation, using local antihelminths and devising better ways of ploughing to increase production by self-inventiveness or with little extension support. Identifying and encouraging such innovative farmers is one of our government issues and activities. This is because innovative farmers have a great role on reducing poverty and achieving food security. And I believe that muting on this issue will be fruitful and successful. You all will discuss in depth on how to provide back-up support to the innovative farmers and on how to identify their innovations and work together to transfer them to a better world. I also hope that you will discuss on how to proceed with participatory innovation development, which will have a concrete impact on the extension work.

And finally I am sure that you will develop ideas which will have their part in achieving food security and poverty reduction.

Thank you.

Introduction of Participants

Ato Mengistu Hailu (MekelleUniversity, MU) introduced himself and invited all participants to give their names and to say something on innovation. The list of participants is in Annex 1. The following were important points of innovation mentioned by the participants:

• To make an area cultivable land which once was a flood area;
• To resolve a problem of bacteria wilt affecting the ‘enset’ crop by applying a milky latex to the rooting part of the crop;
• To make drip irrigation by using locally available material like pots;
• To change gullies and hillsides into productive land;
• To change a plot that was affected by water-logging problem for a long time into cultivable land and by making underground canal to dispose the excess water safely and conserve the water by collecting it in a kind of pit.

Welcome by Ato Abera GebreAmlak, Regional BoA Extension Head

In the past times the extension system hada kind of top-down approach. But this direction was not right. Nowadays many inventive farmers are able to draw special attention from the government in contrast with the former attitude. In relative terms, they are in a better livelihood condition. Now we are adjusting the development agents’ attitude on innovation. To identify and promote farmer innovation is to be part of our duty.

Objective of Workshop, by Ato Mengistu Hailu (MU)

Our main objective is to help solve farmers’ problems and to strengthen food security in a sustainable way. In former times, there was an opposition to the extension system by the farmers. The ISWC (Indigenous Soil and Water Conservation) project in Ethiopia was facing opposition by the extension bodies. But now good hopes are emerging from extension bodies. Innovations are to be institutionalised by them. They are going to be part of their activities. This really is a good platform for the next activities.

History of Research and Extension, by W/ro Demekech Gera (ASE)

How was the situation of research and extension of the decades?

• Technology was developed in research centres by researchers. This technology was passed on to the farmers by extension experts. Then the farmers were supposed to adopt and use the technology. In this case, the farmers and their land situation were not taken into account. And hence it was not accepted.
• Then Farming System Research came, which takes into account the farmers and their different conditions. Farmers were asked to give information on their situation. The idea was, if the situation of the farming community is identified, then every intervention that is based on this will be successful. But it was not, because it still did not consider the farmers’ knowledge and participation in technology development.
• The third concept was to let farmers tell what they want and to let them participate only in the planning and evaluation stages of the intervention. Still this does not satisfy the needs, because farmers did not participate in the actual research as one of the stakeholders.
• At last, very recently, an environment has been created in which farmers, extension workers and researchers can work together. All share their knowledge from the very start till the end of every intervention and this has been quite successful.

Comments on the Issues

Ato Abera GebreAmlak (BoA)

All attempts mentioned earlier were aiming to increase productivity and achieve food security. But the last one was the very successful one.

Ato Hagos Hailu (ATVETCollege)

Farmers all the time are on their farms. The so-called educated have learned agriculture for only a few years. To say to the farmers, we have a technology which benefits you, is forgetting their in-depth experience and will be a kind of joke and a futile exercise. So it is good to work together for better change.

Priest Amare Atsbaha (Farmer)

We raise a question of whether a farmer knows or not. There is knowledge which farmers know and these also is knowledge that farmers do not know. The same holds true for the educated people. To fill this gap to work together is the better action. In ancient times we were planting with a wooden stick which was not durable and strong but, through time, by the innovativeness of farmers and by the assistance of the government we are able to plough with a better farm implement. Farmers do not listen through their ears but through their eyes. If they see, they follow that. The thing is: a lemon in the hand smells bad, but one really needs your assistance. That is fact.

Ato Araya WoldeAregay (Farmer)

Farmers do experiments but they also face shortage of inputs. Ponds could be good, but they could have some practical problems. There could be material and labour shortage. This might be filled by the assistance of education. There also could be a shortage of seed. For instance, I have an orange tree but the variety is the sour one. I do not have the sweet orange. This is because I had that shortage. So to support each other is good. To plant an orange could be my strength, but which type? That part could be technically assisted by the educated to plant sweet orange. So we highly need you to be beside us.

Ato Hailu Araya (ISD Coordinator)

Farmers hear through their eyes, not through their ears. A good technology done in Wolega may not work here. So farmers will be reluctant to receive a technology from Wolega. To make you happy he may say OK, then he will not put it into practice because they avert risk. In contrast, if he sees by his eyes and feels that it is good not tomorrow but today, he will apply it and change will occur.

Priest Amare Atsbaha (Farmer)

In the process of spread of any technology or package, I might accept and need to apply it on my farm. But an opposition may also rise from my wife and children. That is the case of mine. I planned to buy a generator with one partner at a cost of 28000 Birr. But there was opposition from my family and neighbours. The neighbours said this proverb: One who has no credit will take credit by insurance, one who has no disturbance will have two wives. What they want to say was: why are you putting yourself into crisis, is that because you are not having any disturbance? You better resign yourself from such risky business. I also consulted with my wife. The response was the same. At last I decided by myself and took the loan. I paid back my loan and my wife apologised to me. So there also is a resistance from your neighbours and family.

Ato Abera GebreAmlak (BoA)

Farmers + Researchers + Extension workers should work together. This is correct. Because Farmers through their life experience have an in-depth knowledge, Researchers also have scientific knowledge, so working together is unquestionable. Farmers also could face some problems. Some of them could be from the family. With disseminating any technology, it is not only the household head who should be convinced but the whole family should participate.

Ato Solomon Teka (REST Coordinator in Adigudem Woreda)

It has been for long said that farmers know. But the fact of the situation is that, rather than developing to the better world, we are developing back. Why? It is also said that research results have good contribution. But past experiences are showing us that there still is a problem with research results, too. Maybe is that because of the very few innovative farmers that we say farmers are knowledgeable? Is that because we did not discriminate innovators from the others that one is not able to come out of poverty? Or is because we have a problem in the approach we use to convey the technologies?

We had one experience. We convinced farmers to take chemical fertilisers for maize at a row-sowing system, but they said there was no water. We provide them with water and by mobilising students we watered the maize. It brought a very nice growth. Then we went back to them and see the progress. It was totally invaded by weeds. We asked them why they left it. They said that they were waiting for us to weed the field and because of this the outcome was zero production. So where is the problem? Who is making mistakes? Is that the farmer? The extension worker? The researcher?

Ato Weldu (Farmer)

Any activity, if it is to be done, its source and use has to be known. It is not by hearing but by seeing. It is at this stage that we can bring a change.

Ato Hailu Araya (ISD)

If the educated and students are on one side and farmers are on the other side, any exercise will be a futile exercise. If we tell them to use this exit door and if they want to exit on the other door, it is a problem. Knowledge from different angles will not meet and we will not think of change.

Ato Mengistu Hailu (MU)

• Who knows? The farmers or the educated?
• Knowledge is of many types.
• What both farmers and experts know
• What both do not know
• What farmers know but experts do not know
• What farmer do not know but experts know.

This shows that knowledge is of many types. The question here is: So what should be done? How should we proceed?

What we all know is already known and we need only to implement it. What experts know and farmers do not know will be known though extension. What should be done to know what farmers know but researchers do not?

Ato Araya WoldeAregay (Farmer)

We have heard and it is correct that the types of knowledge are different and what one knows may not be known by the other. Farmers know which seed gives more production. Both farmers and experts have to work together. Farmers adopt if they see it is useful. Experts could also know what farmers know by working closely with farmers.

Ato Gebrecherkos (MU)

In any society innovating farmers are very few. To identify this innovation, the users of the innovation could also have a role.

Ato Mengistu Hailu (MU)

It is only by working with farmers that we could know what farmers know. This leads us to the Participatory Innovation Development (PID) concept. In the former one, we were saying that there is technology which we know and let us give this technology to the farmers. We were doing this because we were in need of better livelihood of farmers. But we lack something by doing so, we lack to know what farmers know. This will be resolved by working together with farmers. It is also by doing things together that we will know what both do not know.

Ato Hailu Araya (ISD)

We can transfer ourselves to a better world if we can combine knowledge by different carriers. By doing so, what we both do not know will be known.

Let me tell you one thing: There are two types of teff, summer teff and winter teff. I saw the summer teff and it had wilted. I really felt bad and asked a farmer: are we again to get starvation? And he answered with bright face: no, we are not, rather this year will be a good production year. I was surprised and asked him: how? He said, because the wind is blowing from this direction to the other [showing with his hands], if so there will be a good production year. If the reverse happened, you were right, there would be starvation. But this is the fact, he said. So, in many ways, we educated people see things very narrowly but farmers see things widely from multiple angles. We have to widen our view to also embrace farmers’ view.

Priest Amare Atsbaha (Farmer)

Our government brought an improved variety of seed and said to sow it. Those of us who sow it were benefiting. This knowledge our ancestors say:

• Milk is not bad for water
• Water also is not bad for milk

By saying so, we can grow.

Ato Mesfin (Instructor in Saint Mary’s College)

In our world there are people who know, there are also people who do not know.

ResearcherFarmerDevelopment agent: There is a big gap in between. We are not able to make contact. If we are not able to narrow and then fill the gap in between, there is a danger. It is to resolve this danger that we are saying, let us make contact and work together The experiences so far are showing us that innovative farmers share their innovations only to their first son while they are nearly to die. This is because they do not need to share their knowledge because of greediness to benefit only for themselves. If this is not uprooted, it will be a problem.

Ato Mengistu Hailu (MU)

Knowledge of the researcher alone is not enough. Knowledge of the farmer also is not enough. Both lack certain knowledge. By combining their different types of knowledge, it will benefit both. The needed target will be achieved by both.

Ato Abera GebreAmlak (BoA)

• Which part is known by farmers?
• Which part is known by educated people?
• Which part is known by both? and
• Which part is not known by both?

For instance, if we take the disease anthrax, farmers know that they can cure it with leaves. The physician also knows the part of the chemical which cures the disease. The farmer knows the leaf with its stem and other features, but the physician might not know. So, if they work together, they can save time and money by combining their knowledge. Farmers will assist in finding the leaf quickly and save time. The physician will extract the needed part of the chemical from the leaf and decide how much and for how long it is to be taken. So this brings Participatory Technology/Innovation Development.

Priest Malede Abraha (Farmer)

The source of innovation is a problem. If a person by chance is to fall down a big steep-sloping mountain, he will try to assess what was the reason to fall down and how will I get out of this? Then he will try his maximum best to save himself.

Me myself I had a malaria and a cough. I slept for three weeks. Then I asked my wife to bring me one cup of garlic and to grind it. Then she made it into a juice and I put salt on it. I drank it all at once. I was almost to die. My heart was really hurting because the amount was too much. The malaria and the cough were cured. Since both were acid, I understood that it was wrong to put salt on the garlic juice. After some time again, the malaria and cough get back. At this moment, what I did was I reduced the amount of garlic juice and put sugar on it, then drank two spoons of that juice for two days. I at last was cured and feel now there is no more malaria and cough. I also had a dandruff problem on my hair. I then mixed a small amount of butter with lemon. I applied it on my head three times a day for three days, now there is no more dandruff. Even the source of my plantation of guava and of other crops and of digging a well was a problem. There is a saying: one who seeks will find, if you also look for wisdom you will get it. I remember my father was advising me: my son, you have to watch out for the guys whom you were beating while they were children not to bury you in the well you are digging. He said this because the whole day I was digging the deep well that is about 12 m. But this didn’t happen, thanks to god, I survived and I was able to get water.