For the first of these, the relationship between the project activities and its outputs is fairly direct, making this fairly easy to monitor. It is less direct with the second and third, but can still be captured by suitably adapted project management tools.

Because of their mandates and philosophies, NGOs and public sector organisations differ in how they view 'participation'. Government agencies are concerned largely with (i). NGOs, on the other hand, are interested in participation mainly as a way toempower the poor. NGOs are therefore concerned at least as much with (ii) and (iii) as with (i).

This paper offers a generic logframe that readers can adapt to suit their own FPR projects. For each output, it provides illustrative performance indicators that might be relevant to each of the two most important groups of stakeholders (researchers and farmers). The paper also suggests some means of verification for each of the indicators. Readers should select, adapt and add to these to suit their own situations.

An overall conclusion is that, whilst logframes can be constructed to cater for many of the requirements of monitoring and reviewing FPR, they have to be updated frequently to incorporate 'process' changes, and become cumbersome with the more empowering dimensions of FPR. Here they can usefully be complemented by more inductive techniques such as process documentation and monitoring.

Network Paper 74

Network Paper 74a: MANAGING APPLIED RESEARCH: EXPERIENCES FROM A POST-HARVEST PEST CONTROL PROJECT IN GHANA
Julia Compton

The aim of this paper is to make some suggestions about improving the management of applied agricultural research projects in order to improve the speed and quality of benefits to farmers. Factors influencing research success are described under four headings: choice of objectives and approach to work; choice of research methods; project organisation and management; and liaison with other organisations. Examples are given from the experience of the Ghana Ministry of Food and Agriculture/UK Overseas Development Administration Larger Grain Borer (LGB) Project, a recently completed three-year post-harvest project with a 25-person team.

Important features of this project's approach included: maintaining a focus on practical results; building upon farmers' own experimentation; involving commodity traders in research and extension; basing research around farmer decision situations rather than packages; and addressing the extension problems raised by the development of a range of technical options.

Research methods which were integral to the approach included: a participatory research- extension cycle; the framing of research questions to obtain critical data needed for decision- making; rapid survey methods; rapid field methods of sample analysis; rapid proxy methods for client evaluation of trials; and frequent re-examination of the programme by the whole research team. Favourable organisational features of the project included: a 'critical mass' of researchers organised in an interdisciplinary team with an anti-hierarchical ethos; extensive group training for the whole research team; monthly meetings and quarterly reports used as management tools; a supportive institutional setting; flexible funding arrangements; and good central administration.

Finally, it is argued that where a farmer-participatory approach is adopted, this should not be a grafted-on activity, but an integral part of all project work. It is therefore necessary to look closely at all research questions and technical methods to make sure that they are compatible with this approach. In particular, work is still needed in many technical disciplines to develop rapid field methods of sample analysis which are compatible with rapid, participatory field studies.

Network Paper 74b: COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS OF CLIENT PARTICIPATION IN AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH: A CASE STUDY FROM GHANA
Priscilla Magrath, Julia Compton, Anthony Ofosu, and Felix Motte

Participatory approaches to research are becoming popular in aid projects and in some national and international research institutes. But while research projects themselves are often subject to rigorous financial and technical appraisals, research methods tend to escape any kind of economic analysis. Although participatory approaches are often adopted for practical reasons, to increase the effectiveness and productivity of research, attempts to estimate net benefits of client participation are rare. One reason for this may lie in the difficulties of applying conventional cost-benefit analysis (CBA) techniques when the benefits of participation are often hard to measure and may be spread over many years. Ideally, one would want to compare a range of projects with similar goals, but varying levels of client participation. In the absence of comparative data from other projects, this paper explores the possibility of assessing the incremental costs and benefits of client participation in research within a single project, the Ghana/UK Larger Grain Borer project. This project included a range of research activities with varying types of client participation. The CBA involves comparing the costs, level of participation and contribution to achieving research goals of each research activity. Overall costs and benefits of client participation are then estimated.

The analysis is useful in highlighting the relationship between choice of research method and achievement of stated research goals. In a world of shrinking research budgets, it is hoped that it will stimulate debate concerning the cost-effectiveness of participatory methods, compared with conventional, research institute-based methods. achievement of wider project benefits, in this case a reduction in farm storage losses. This problem could be addressed through improved monitoring of benefits from individual projects, and through comparative analysis of data from several projects with similar goals.

Network Paper 75: WAR AND CROP DIVERSITY
Edited by Louise Sperling

EDITORIAL INTRODUCTION

For there to be productive and stable agricultural livelihoods, there must be crop diversity, on- farm. Growing a number of crops and different varieties of each crop helps farmers to fine-tune their cropping systems to local ecological conditions, to enhance the food security of their households and to exploit a range of crop-related products or benefits (for example forage or medicine production and enhanced soil fertility).

Despite these well-known observations, crop diversity is generally narrowing in farmers' fields. A number of factors lie behind this trend, including, among others: the spread of commercial agriculture, acute natural phenomena (such as drought and floods), and war and civil strife. The frequency of the latter, in particular, is on the rise. For instance, each of the ten countries in the Greater Horn of Africa has experienced either drought or civil strife and war - or both - since 1980 alone (ASARECA, 1996).

Though crop diversity is declining, international understanding of the differential nature of the stresses it faces, and how to deal with them, remains under-developed. This argument was elaborated at the 1996 International Technical Conference on Plant Genetic Resources: ‘No formal mechanisms exist to monitor such [stress] situations, assemble information or initiate appropriate action' (FAO, 1996:45). In order to protect and enhance crop diversity, it is necessary at least to understand the particular nature of the problem; useful aid and development interventions in the area of crop diversity can only derive from more targeted knowledge.

The four papers presented in this volume focus on one potential stress to crop diversity, namely war and its accompanying civil strife. Taking a farmer-centred perspective, the case studies examine the effects of war on crop diversity through the same set of guiding questions: ‘what were the biological, social, and political factors which shaped crop diversity prior to the war?'; ‘which defining characteristics of the war itself seem to have influenced the way in which crop diversity evolved and was managed?'; ‘how do pre- and post-war crop production systems compare?'; and ‘what key lessons can we draw from these studies, for both development practitioners working at the grassroots level and policy- makers involved in shaping research, development and relief interventions in agriculture?'

By presenting comparative cases, this volume aims to stimulate analytical thinking about the links between war and changes in cropping systems. The studies themselves can but suggest the complexity of the term ‘war' and how the set of events that go to make up war can be linked to crop and varietal changes. They are preliminary (as is study of the subject as a whole) rather than definitive. They are also rather different in scope. The Cambodian and Nicaraguan studies provide overviews of the effects of war and civil disruption (which lasted a decade or more in both countries) on broad cropping systems and the rice crop, respectively. The Rwanda and Sierra Leone cases, in contrast, focus on the effects of fairly short-lived wars and pursue more micro-level analyses of varietal diversity issues in one or two crops.

Nicaragua

The Nicaragua study draws on a brief period of research in two war-affected regions and presents farmers' own descriptions of changes in cropping patterns. The period of the Nicaraguan civil war (which spanned the 1980s) saw profound economic and social changes in this country. Not able to separate out the effects of the war per se from massive changes in government policy, the author presents an overview of the way in which measures such as land redistribution, the establishment of cooperative production, the provision of credit to small farmers as well as the uncertainty of guerilla attacks, resulted in a dramatic changes in agriculture during the war. The most intense period of civil disruption was marked by increased production of basic staples as the revolutionary government geared its economy towards survival, food sufficiency and defence. The production of export and luxury items such as coffee, tobacco, and cattle declined, giving way to a focus on maize and beans (among other crops). Modern, high-yielding varieties of these crops were promoted in place of local cultivars.

The author traces changes through to the post-war period. Farmers now suggest that the individual varieties ‘lost' were not key and, in any case, can probably be reaccessed across the broader in Honduras. However, farmers are facing a more serious dilemma in the post war period: a change in government in 1990 and further shifts in policy have meant that farmers are now provided with relatively little direct agricultural support, except for in those areas in which NGOs are operating. At the same time they have lost some of the skills and knowledge which enabled them to endure the lower-input farming situation pre-war.

The Nicaragua example does not show guerrilla ‘war' immutably changing a local production system. Rather, it illustrates the consequences of war-time strategies which aim to promote one type of production system over another. Issues of biodiversity and sustainable production were not considered important during the early years of the war in Nicaragua; they were only brought to the fore through NGO efforts in the late 1980s. The authors point to the need for more concerted attention to be paid to the effects of wars on farming systems at the time when the wars themselves are underway. Only then can policy responses be adequately informed.

Cambodia

As in Nicaragua, the Cambodian genocide and civil disruptions throughout the 1970s ushered in profound agricultural change. Once more, the particular impact of the victor's policy edicts is difficult to separate from that of the combat itself and accompanying disruption. Large-scale population movement - of farmers from one part of the country to another and of urban dwellers to the countryside - during the war meant that many were new to the areas in which they were now farming. This dramatically increased the incidence of crop failure.

Cambodia lies on the edge of the region of origin of rice and it is on this crop that the author concentrates. Rice diversity in this country is very high: for every 400 ha there exists a distinct cultivar and some 3,000 Cambodian rice varieties have already been preserved in genebanks. The author describes how the wartime government promoted irrigated rice, officially forbidding the cultivation of both upland and deepwater rice. As Cambodia was closed to outsiders for long periods, it is hard to ascertain the micro-level effects of such policy pronouncements. However, a very focused case study suggests possible trends. In a deepwater rice area of Takeo district, farmers indicated, by name, their 15 most important local rice varieties. All had been lost during the war; none had yet been recovered.

Unless more precise assessments of loss are conducted in Cambodia, it will be difficult to design appropriate interventions. However, as a general principle, the author suggests screening and releasing some of the farmer varieties already held in genebanks (a process already underway) and re-evaluating breeding strategies so as to promote the use of diverse germplasm on farm. Recent farmer interest in a narrow set of modern rice cultivars otherwise threatens to do what the civil disruptions may not in the end have done: to decrease sharply rice varietal diversity in farmers' fields.

Rwanda

The Rwanda case study examines the effects of a civil war which killed a million people within several months in the mid-1990s. Somewhat surprisingly, countrywide analyses have shown the effects of the war on agriculture to be fewer than anticipated: fighting was staggered, harvests were relatively good, at least a third of the population was not displaced at all and ‘seed aid' helped farmers keep their own adapted stocks.

In assessing varietal diversity, the author draws several lessons from Rwanda. First, equal attention should be paid to understanding and, if possible, safeguarding the seed channels which can re-supply germplasm as to the germplasm itself. The key issue in Rwanda was not whether a farmer possessed a particular variety at any point in time, but rather whether she/he could re- access that variety on demand. A comparison between two crops illustrates the point. Bean production in Rwanda remained relatively stable during the war as local bean varieties (some 1,300 phenotypes) could be restocked through the remarkably resilient, local farmer markets. By contrast, potato production tumbled. Pre-war, it had been dominated by three improved varieties. Production was the victim of reliance on formal sector supplies of clean seed, fungicide and fertiliser, all of which dried up in the early days of the war.

Second, the Rwanda case shows the importance of distinguishing between farmers' absolute versus relative lack of varieties or seed. Absolute lack implies a true scarcity of varieties or seed in a region. Remedial action in such circumstances should focus on re-introduction or interventions to build seed production capacity. However, relative lack of varieties/seed - by far the more common scenario in Rwanda - implies problems with accessing seed (e.g. farmers may not have adequate funds available) rather than absence of seed per se. In such circumstances, interventions should not be germplasm-based. Rather, innovative poverty-focused projects and, perhaps, selective distribution of seed vouchers (to buy local seed) should be considered.

Finally, pre- and post-war comparisons clearly suggest the dynamism of varietal use in Rwanda and demonstrate how important baseline data can be. For example, war did not appear to have an impact upon bean varietal profiles but important bean varietal changes had been documented over the previous decade. Climbing bean varieties had been heavily adopted and a partial shift in bush bean types had taken place in response to increased root rot. The current trend for promoting biodiversity has led many to suggest, as a near-panacea, the restoration of farmer germplasm from genebanks to their original sites of use. Documentary evidence of rapidly changing bean use in Rwanda shows that such an approach may not always be to farmers' benefit, even in low input situations.

Sierra Leone

The insights from northwest Sierra Leone, based on intensive interviews with about 250 farmers, focus on two distinct episodes of rebel attack: one in 1995, one in 1996. As in the Rwandan case, the period of actual fighting was relatively short-lived and there was significant family and varietal stability (in this case of rice). Rice seed could still be obtained through the usual channels (among others, informal social networks of exchange, gifts and loans) which appear not to have been severely ruptured by the attacks.

This case is unique in the perspective it gives on household management strategies during a crisis period. Families in the study area actually increased their rice production (rice being the preferred food crop) during the time of the ‘war' at the expense of groundnut (cash crop) production. Rice diversity seems also to have increased, although this may have been for the negative reason that farmers were obliged to supplement the seeds they already had by importing non-local types.

Drawing on between-site comparisons, the author suggests the need to be more cognisant of the relatively localised effects of war on seed systems. There is a growing awareness among relief and rehabilitation agencies of the need to supply locally-adapted cultivars to displaced farmers. Yet it is often difficult for such agencies to acquire local seed types in the quantities required. One approach to this problem might be for such agencies to support the multiplication of seed by farmers in areas in which agricultural production is still functioning. The case study area - due to its border location and the particular nature of the rebel activities which it witnessed - is an example of one such area.

Drawn together in this way, the four case studies show quite vividly that wars can have dramatically different impacts on crop diversity. The duration of war, extent of dislocation, and extent of physical damage may be just the first pointers for understanding the effects of the war on specific crops and varieties. Perhaps more importantly, the cases show how critical it is to place crop and varietal diversity within broader analyses of the systems which shape farmer decision-making. The Nicaragua and Cambodia studies suggest how powerful the larger policy context was in determining the shape of war and post-war agriculture in these countries. By contrast, the Rwanda and Sierra Leone cases show how important local, community systems of maintenance (of knowledge, seed and the social relationships which move seed) are. Ultimately, crop diversity and varietal diversity is about a lot more than the physical things which are planted. It is about the political, socio-economic, and bio-technical processes which allow people to manage their cropping systems in dynamic ways.

Thus, when thinking about appropriate crop diversity interventions post-war, questions about how to replenish germplasm or crops are but the first line of inquiry. It must equally be asked whether the systems are in place to sustain and allow crops and varieties to evolve. Is local technical expertise still relevant? Are appropriate seed systems functioning (whether based around markets or social exchange) to multiply and move the crops and varieties? Are the varieties and crops of the pre-war period still biologically adapted and socio-economically suitable for the inevitably changed post-war agricultural system?

The case studies also begin to give us some pointers as to what type of support for crop diversity might be appropriate in the immediate aftermath of war. First, the studies show us the resilience of some local systems even in times of war. (Note that this contrasts with the widespread vulnerability of formal seed systems). This suggests that large-scale interventions (for example, massive distribution of free seed), which pose the threat of swamping local systems, may not always be necessary nor appropriate. The need may rather be for very targeted support, what some authors call ‘smart' relief (Richards et al., forthcoming). Second, the studies show us that the reasons for apparent seed shortages after war need to be investigated very carefully: relative rather than absolute lack of access to seed may be the problem. In this case, support that helps to overcome the reasons for this (for example, food aid to stop people eating their seed stocks) may be more appropriate than seed relief itself. Third, the studies show us that some wars can have a surprisingly localised impact on crop diversity, with many communities and farming systems being relatively unaffected. This suggests that, if required, there may be considerable scope for sourcing relief seed and planting materials locally and even for building up local production capacity relatively quickly. Certainly the state of local seed sources should be assessed at the same time as ‘seed import' possibilities are being considered.

The ODI Seeds and Biodiversity Programme welcomes comments on the papers in this volume. We are particularly eager to hear from others trying to explore some of the practical consequences of the effect of war on crop and varietal diversity. If the quality of war-related seed and variety interventions is to be improved, policy-makers, researchers, development workers and grassroots support systems must have access to further insights on the micro-level effects of war on cropping systems and the various options farmers have for rebuilding sustainable and diversified, agricultural production.

Network Paper 76: CRISES AND TRANSITIONS: NON- GOVERNMENTAL ORGANISATIONS AND POLITICAL ECONOMIC CHANGE IN THE ANDEAN REGION
By Anthony Bebbington

Two profound and related changes are reworking the rural economy of the Andean region today. These must necessarily be central considerations in the search for sustainable forms of development in this area. The first is institutional change, comprising reform of the state, increased assertiveness of civil society, and ever increasing space being given to, and expected of, the private sector. The second is economic liberalisation, comprising the progressive removal of subsidies, tariffs, quotas and trade barriers. The aim is to create a more favourable environment for investment and private sector activity. These two types of change are closely linked. Together they represent an attempt to increase the role of the marketplace in mediating patterns of development, whilst concurrently reducing the relative importance of the role of government in this mediation process.

Within this context, non-governmental organisations (NGOs) are being asked to assume some of the roles traditionally performed by the state and even commercial organisations - all in the name of more sustainable, participatory, and efficient development. Yet this new context, and the deeper change in development thinking of which it is indicative, present important - indeed penetrating - challenges to Latin American NGOs working in rural development. Furthermore, these challenges are presented at a time when NGOs are faced by a series of institutional problems, characterised in this paper as crises of legitimacy, identity and sustainability.

Recent discussions have begun to raise some of these issues at a general level (Edwards and Hulme, 1995; Hulme and Edwards, 1996). This paper takes the discussion to a more specific level, focusing on the Andes and Chile in particular. The thesis is that changes in the political economy of Andean America have demanded that NGOs rethink their relationships with the state and market. In turn, this rethinking has triggered general uncertainty about the role of NGOs in development. This uncertainty is part of a larger crisis in alternative development thinking (both normative and analytical). It relates, in particular, to questions about the legitimate (and most effective) role of civil society, the state and the market in development.

The paper argues that - in the context of a funding crisis - this uncertainty is fostering a set of institutional changes among NGOs. Though painful, these changes offer the possibility of re- rooting civil society institutions into the societies of the countries in which they operate such that they are better adapted to the conditions of their own political economies, and less distorted by the incentives and agendas fostered by foreign aid. This has implications for how we think of the role of civil society in development and, more practically, for how donors might best support the process of institutional adjustment.

Network Paper 77: EXPERIMENTING WITH AGRICULTURAL EXTENSION IN ZAMBIA: CARE'S LIVINGSTONE FOOD SECURITY PROJECT
By Godfrey Mitti, Michael Drinkwater and Sylvester Kalonge

In many southern African countries the role of national agricultural extension systems over the last two to three decades has been mainly to promote the hybrid maize and fertiliser packages of the Green Revolution. The assumption has always been that this would prove the saving of southern African smallholder agriculture and food security. Over the last eight or nine years another revolution has, however, swept the region: that of economic structural adjustment and reform programmes. Inefficient parastatal institutions have been a particular target for economic liberalisation programmes, and this has led to the demise of many former state-supported smallholder agricultural systems. Zambia is a case in point. A series of droughts in the early 1990s, and the disappearance of parastatals which had been supplying subsidised hybrid maize and fertiliser inputs to more remote parts of the country, have left large numbers of smallholder farmers facing a significant crisis. They are being forced to adapt their farming systems. The national extension system has found itself unable to meet this relatively sudden but huge demand. This had led to growing self-inquiry about how the institution might reform itself and become relevant in an era in which it is increasingly important for institutions to demonstrate effective performance if they are to maintain financial support.

This paper documents the start-up of an NGO project, the Livingstone Food Security Project, run by CARE in south east Zambia. The project, which pilots some features of an alternative extension model, is being carried out in collaboration with the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries. In the first three seasons of the project, a series of participatory livelihood and needs assessment exercises have been conducted, village management committees (VMCs) have been established, and a seed loan scheme has been implemented through these institutions. These interventions have helped the satisfy the priority requirements of communities hit by successive droughts. Working with the VMCs and farmer extension facilitators, the project has achieved extensive coverage of farmers in its second and third seasons with small numbers of field staff. Collaboration with the government extension service is also increasing as the project provides training in participatory assessment approaches and community institution-building to field staff from districts outside the immediate project area. Technically, the project's broader farming systems and resource management challenges are just beginning in helping smallholder farmers develop more resilient production systems. However, with the role of the private sector in agricultural extension also increasing, the project is helping to demonstrate a partnership model of extension which may be more appropriate for the future, both in Zambia and elsewhere.

Return to top of page

Network papers may be ordered by contacting the Network Administrator at the address below. If you wish to pay by credit card please use the ODI secure internet ordering service