FARMERS’ ORGANISATIONS AND AGRICULTURAL TECHNOLOGY:
INSTITUTIONS THAT GIVE FARMERS A VOICE
Paper drafted by:
Karim Hussein
Research Fellow, Rural Policy and Environment Group, ODI
Overseas Development Institute, Portland House, Stag Place, London SW1E 5DP
E-mail: k.hussein@odi.org.uk
Project Bio-Data
Coordinating institutions
Overseas Development Institute assisted by ITAD Ltd. (Karim
Hussein) and CIRAD-TERA, Montpellier (Pierre-Marie Bosc,
Michel Dulcire, Christian Bourdel, Nicole Sibelet)
Collaborators
CORAF-WECARD, Dakar, Senegal (Jean Zoundi, INERA,
Burkina Faso)
Jeannot Engola Oyep (Cameroonian Consultant)
Funders
UK DFID, French Ministère de la Coopération, EC (DGXII)(Dakar
stakeholder workshop only)
Duration of project
1996 - 1999
Region / Countries studied
West and Central Africa (The Gambia, Ghana, Cameroon, Burkina
Faso, Senegal and Uganda – with additional study commissioned
on Nigeria)
FARMERS’ ORGANISATIONS AND AGRICULTURAL TECHNOLOGY:
INSTITUTIONS THAT GIVE FARMERS A VOICE
In West and Central Africa, a number of processes have resulted in a new division of roles between public bodies, the
private sector, civil society organisations and farmers in the areas of agricultural research and extension. The most
important processes common to most countries are: the State ceasing to provide certain services; economies opening up
to the market; structural adjustment; and the creation of decentralised and locally accountable political and
administrative bodies. At the same time, rural development research and practice has conclusively shown the merits of
increasing farmer participation in and influence over research and extension so that agricultural services become more
relevant to farmers’ livelihoods. In this context, local institutions - farmers’ organisations - have emerged in many
countries as key providers of agricultural services to their members. The increased emphasis on the role of civil society
in providing agricultural services (which are seen here as private and public agricultural research and extension, and
capacity building for community development1) has led to a number of attempts to strengthen relationships between
public research and extension, and farmers’ organisations.
The main aim of this contribution is to demonstrate the ways in which the research on farmers’ organisation-researchextension linkages helps to unpack the policy, institutions and processes elements of the sustainable livelihoods
approach. Examples drawn from a multi-country study covering a range of West and Central African contexts show how
existing policies, institutions (organisations and legal frameworks) and processes related to agricultural research and
extension affect people’s access to resources, technology, assets and livelihood opportunities (link to Project Bio-Data
and to Research Problem/Research Issues). Lessons are drawn that can inform the development of policies that
support the strengthening of organisations, which should help to improve livelihoods in the region. Some of these relate
to adjusting national policy frameworks, others can be directly supported by external agencies such as DFID.
The key practical policy lessons from the study include (section 6 has an extended discussion of policy conclusions):
 while agricultural research is not usually a priority for farmers’ organisations, these organisations are often effective
in providing their members with better access to research, extension, inputs and marketing;
 strengthening the technical, economic and management capacities of farmers’ organisations is essential for them to
be able to establish linkages with research and extension;
 helping public research and extension services understand and take on board producer requests requires training in
participatory methods, existence of fora for sharing lessons on successful partnerships, field experience of working
with farmers’ organisations and new professional incentives that make researchers and extension workers keen to
make their work relevant to producer needs;
 the different actors often do not have the capacities required to successfully work in partnership. Hence capacity
building work for farmers’ organisations, public extension and research organisations and the private sector is
necessary to increase their use of participatory methodologies, increase technical skills and the ability to negotiate
and make proposals, and increase social science skills.
Based on the case studies, a number of recommendations were made (link to sections 6 and 7). These covered:
- building the capacities of farmers’ organisations
- helping public agricultural research and extension bodies to understand and respond to farmer requests
- encouraging formal, contractual linkages between farmers’ organisations, extension and research
LINKS TO KEY PAGES
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
1
SL Relevance of Research
The Research Problem
Key Research Issues
The Case Studies
Research Results
Policy Conclusions
Policy, Institutions and Processes and the SL Approach
Gaps and Questions
Further Reading
Relevant Websites
GLOSSARY entry : Agricultural service providers - which are seen here as private and public agricultural research and
extension, and capacity building for community development
1. SUSTAINABLE LIVELIHOODS RELEVANCE OF THE RESEARCH
The policy, institutions and processes aspects of SL
Gaining access to the assets needed to create a sustainable livelihood depends on policy measures (at the
local and national level), institutions (formal and informal organisations, customary rules such as resource
tenure and legislation) and processes (the dynamic relations between these) (link to DFID SL Guidance
Sheets 2.4). These operate at all levels, from the household to the international, and in public and private
spheres. They determine:
 access (to social, physical, financial, natural and human capital, to livelihood strategies and to decisionmaking bodies and sources of influence) (see SL Guidance Sheets 2.3)
 the terms of exchange between different types of capital; and
 the returns to a given livelihood strategy.
Policy, institutions and processes are key determinants of livelihood outcomes. The work presented here
illuminates and unpacks some aspects the “black box” of structures and processes in the livelihoods
framework, providing concrete examples of how these operate to help or hinder the improvement of rural
livelihoods, particularly with regard to agricultural production.
Relevance of this research to the policy, institutions and processes aspects of the SL approach
The case studies of the role of civil society organisations in general, and farmers’ organisations in
particular, in developing and disseminating agricultural technologies and providing agricultural
services to farmers, shows the importance of policy and institutions to livelihoods. These farmers’
organisations are defined here as groups of rural producers coming together to found organisations, based
on the principle of free membership, to pursue specific common interests of their members – developing
technical and economic activities that benefit their members and maintaining relations with partners
operating in their economic and institutional environment [GLOSSARY ENTRY]. Farmers’ organisations
and civil society organisations are clearly key in shaping livelihood opportunities and outcomes.
Legislation on freedom of association and the State’s legal recognition of farmers’ organisations are
also shown to be key factors affecting people’s livelihood opportunities.
This research was based on the premise that it is useful to compare diverse case studies of farmers’
organisations in order to identify factors that contribute to an increased downward accountability of service
providers in specific contexts. The comparison of case studies across contexts and countries contributes to
the unpacking of the policy, institutions and processes elements of the sustainable livelihoods (SL)
approach, providing some answers to the question of why farmers’ organisations are successful in achieving
downward accountability in certain settings and not in others (link to section 4 and section 5). The study
assessed of the role of the political context, history, legislative and economic reform in the process elements not explicit in the SL framework, but of key importance in shaping livelihood outcomes (link to
section 6).
[create link to definition of upward and downward accountability in section 2 and to glossary entries]
Further principles implicit in the SL approach guided this research:
- triangulation of different data sources (secondary literature review, key informant interviews,
participatory research methods with farmers, observation…);
- the central importance of designing and supporting policies and institutions that fit with rural people’s
diverse context-dependent livelihood strategies.
Eight main issues or lessons for the policy, institutions and processes aspects of the SL approach emerge
from these case studies [link to section 7].
2. THE RESEARCH PROBLEM
The research project
What is presented here is a multi-country study undertaken by a team of French, British and West African
researchers for CORAF (the Conference des Responsables de Recherche Agricole en Afrique de l’Ouest et
du Centre) - or WECARD2 in English - between 1998 and 1999. The study analysed the strengths and
weaknesses of research-extension-farmers’ organisation collaboration in the region and aimed to identify
lessons for best practice so as to assist the development of appropriate agricultural technologies and
improve their dissemination amongst farmers. For example: which types of organisations foster better
linkages? What legislative and policy environment supports the development of strong farmers’
organisations? Some sixteen cases of such collaboration were studied in five West and Central African
countries – Cameroon, Ghana, Guinea, Burkina Faso, The Gambia (an additional study was also carried out
by a consultant in Nigeria). Whilst the specific historical, political and economic context proved significant
to the successful development of fruitful linkages, a number of widely applicable practical lessons are
drawn to improve such linkages. For a summary discussion of the types of farmers’ organisations that
should be strengthened and some key characteristics of effective farmers’ organisations, click here (link to
Box 1 on separate page).
Box 1: Why strengthen farmers’ organisations?
Farmers’ organisations need to be strengthened where they represent farmers’ own interests and where they
have emerged as a result of their own, real expressed needs – not as an imposition of the State. They can
then become effective channels of communication between the member-farmers, otherwise easily isolated
and lacking power to affect the behaviour of agricultural service providers. However, where FO’s do not
have access to diverse sources of income, where there are no core cultural or economic activities that bind
their members, where the organisations do not have access to capacity-building support or where they
operate in an unfriendly institutional environment (lack of supportive legislation, no formal recognition etc)
they tend to be weak and unable to influence powerful actors with the needs of their members.
This is highly relevant to the SL approach to rural development, as the approach explicitly recognises the
key importance of institutions and organisations to rural people for achieving positive livelihood outcomes
– for example, increased livelihood security, levels of production, wealth, influence and power.
Recommendations for strengthening the processes of technology generation and dissemination in which
farmers’ organisations, civil society organisations, and national agricultural research and extension services
are engaged, focus on adapting policies, institutions and processes to better fit with FO members’ livelihood
needs. The ability of public service providers to respond to the needs expressed by farmers through their
organisations depends on the willingness of government, as well as public and private agricultural services,
to engage with them. However, in order to be effective, farmers’ organisations often need:
(i)
capacity building support in technical areas relating to agricultural production, and internal
management and organisation (programming, financial management….);
(ii)
some successful economic activities – as technology generation is not normally a sufficient
mobilising force for farmers’ groups – such as cash crop production or commodity marketing;
(iii)
access to funds from diverse sources (membership fees, access to development project and
international NGO funds etc.);
2
In 1999, CORAF took the name “the West and central African Council for Agricultural Research and Development
(WECARD)” in English.
(iv)
commonly accepted ethic for group interaction (either traditional modes of social organisation
(FUGN, Burkina Faso) or clearly stated statutes required by law (Cameroon), or clear rules for
group interaction and decision-making (sesame growers, The Gambia).
Upward and downward accountability
Much research has shown the need to develop effective mechanisms to make agricultural service providers
more accountable and demand led. This is seen as key to increasing the effectiveness and relevance of
agricultural services to farmers’ livelihood and development needs.
There are, broadly speaking, two main types of accountability: upward accountability and downward
accountability. Upward accountability involves the need of service providers to satisfy the demands of their
funders, and in the case of public services, the State. Currently, this usually involves meeting criteria such
as transparency, efficiency, cost-effectiveness, achievement of policy objectives, and being tied to market
forces of supply and demand. Downward accountability, however, implies accountability of service
providers to local populations and end users of agricultural services. It is the importance of strengthening
downward accountability and responsiveness to end user needs and demands – and particularly those of the
poorest groups - that was the central focus of the research discussed here. This research was particularly
interested in accountability accompanied by empowerment: examining different types of linkages between
agricultural service providers and farmers and their representatives and assessing which of these linkages
were most successful in empowering farmers in the process of agricultural technology development. In
general, the case studies showed that strong, federated farmers’ organisations were a more effective
mechanism for empowering farmers in technology development processes than, for example, simply using
participatory methods or working with small farmer contact groups. However, effective farmers’
organisations did not exist in all contexts.
Mechanisms for achieving downward accountability
Attempts to achieve downward accountability have involved the establishment of diverse mechanisms that
tie agricultural service providers to end users, notably:
i.
establishing contractual or collaborative linkages with civil society organisations (including local
and national farmers’ organisations) (e.g. Burkina Faso; Senegal);
ii.
strengthening the capacities of community based organisations and farmers’ organisations (e.g. The
Gambia; Cameroon);
iii.
creating incentives for the private sector to fund research and extension activities (e.g. Ghana;
Uganda);
iv.
promoting the use of participatory methodologies (e.g. PRA) in needs assessment, planning and
implementation, and less commonly in, in monitoring and evaluation (most of the study countries);
v.
inviting farmer representatives to participate in research and extension coordinating and decision
making bodies (Ghana; The Gambia);
vi.
creating of linkages between service providers and decentralised elected local authorities (Ghana;
Uganda…); and
vii.
establishing competitive research and technology partnership funds (Uganda; Kenya…)
Farmers’ organisations are defined here as groups of rural producers coming together to found
organisations, based on the principle of free membership, to pursue specific common interests of their
members – developing technical and economic activities that benefit their members and maintaining
relations with partners operating in their economic and institutional environment [GLOSSARY ENTRY].
Strong farmers’ organisations (the second mechanism cited above – and the focus of this research) can be
among the most effective mechanisms for achieving downward accountability. However, their effectiveness
in achieving this depends on their internal strength and cohesion, a clear set of objectives which normally
include agricultural and economic activities, and a favourable external (policy and legislative) environment.
Their existence can both encourage and at times enforce greater accountability of service providers. The
core theme of this research was to highlight the technical, economic and institutional conditions that
influence the development of collaborative linkages between national agricultural research systems,
farmers, farmers’ organisations and civil society to improve processes of agricultural technology
development.
3. KEY RESEARCH ISSUES
A number of case studies of more or less formal linkages between farmers’ organisations and agricultural
research and extension organisations in West and Central Africa were studied. These were identified in
collaboration with national agricultural research institutes and NGOs in each country. The research
questions and assumptions behind the research are summarised in Box 2.
Box 2: Key Research Issues
Key research issues
Assumptions
The main assumptions underpinning the study were that:
- Strong and active farmers’ organisations are key institutions that bridge the gap between farmers, public
research and extension bodies, government institutions and international donor organisations in making
agricultural technology development more effective and relevant to farmers
- Factors in each country’s policy environment can either contribute to or inhibit effective linkages between
farmers’ organisations
Questions
The research focused on the following key questions:
- What can we learn about the importance of farmers’ organisations in improving farmer access to
appropriate technologies?
- In which contexts have farmers’ organisations been effective in making agricultural service providers more
demand driven and therefore making servcies more relevant to farmers’ felt needs and complex livelihoods?
- What factors in policy and institutional environment limit farmer participation and the degree to which
agricultural services respond to farmers’ expressed needs? Are certain features of these contexts essential to
achieving fruitful linkages? (e.g. free market economy; laws giving official recognition farmers’
organisation needs…)?
- Where have there been successful linkages between public research and extension services and farmers’
organisations?
- From these cases what can we learn about factors which contribute to the development of linkages
between research, extension, farmers’ organisations and their members, and about factors which work
against the development of linkages?
Case studies
Sixteen case studies were carried out in five countries (The Gambia, Ghana, Cameroon, Burkina Faso and
Guinea) by a multidisciplinary research team. These were identified through the National Agricultural
Research Institute in each country in most cases and sometimes through NGOs (for example, ActionAid
The Gambia) or through. An additional study was commissioned for Nigeria. The research methodology
was consultative, using semi-structured interviews at local and national level, with policymakers, farmer
representatives and farmers, in groups and as individual. Stakeholder workshops were held at local, national
and sub-regional level to discuss issues and results.
4. THE CASE STUDIES
The case studies recommended for study by the regional partners in the five countries show a very wide
diversity of situations. In six out of the sixteen studied, the forms of farmers’ organisation encountered were
in fact structures established by extension services (contact groups in Ghana and The Gambia) or localised
producer groups of a fairly informal type (Ghana, The Gambia and Burkina Faso [Diébougou]). The
remaining cases involved structured farmers’ organisations as defined here [link to Glossary entry] The
different forms of organisation studied are summarised in Table 1.
Table 1: Different forms of organisation studied in the case studies
Total no.
cases
16
Local
producer
groups
2
Farmers'
organisations
Contact
groups
Private
sector
3
1
9
Informal group
based around a
single family
1
The case studies revealed the diversity of situations and contexts within which agricultural service providers
and farmers’ organisations operate, and the conditions that permit them to form effective linkages. More
detailed reports can be accessed in the near future via the ODI web-site:
ODI:
www.oneworld.org/odi/rpeg
Summaries of six detailed case studies of stronger and weaker linkages can be found at:
World Bank:
http://wbln0018.worldbank.org/essd/essd.nsf/producer/casestudies
Box 3 summarises the cases studied as part of this research, giving an indication of the wide diversity in
types of organisation and depth of linkages that exists in West and Central Africa. (link to Box 3).
Box 3: The dynamics of collaboration between research and farmers' organisations
Burkina
Faso
Three case studies
• Two cases in which the dynamics of linkages strongly enhance research with, however, a
fundamental difference between the two situations: in one case, Diébougou (Burkina Faso),
producers are organised in groups, co-ordination being carried out by a third organisation (the
Diocese of Diébougou); in the second case, researchers have a formal, structured farmers’
organisation as a partner: the FUGN: Fédération des Groupements Naam (FUGN).
• The third case shows the dynamics of a group forming part of a structured organisation, the FUGN,
to which research responds positively when technical constraints are identified.
Guinea
Two case studies
• A situation presenting strong, structured farmers' organisation dynamics on at a regional level,
structured around several levels of farmers’ groups (Fédération des Paysans in Fouta Djallon).
•A situation where linkages with research are strongly shaped by the institutional environment, with
a farmers' organisation structured around one sector, grappling with technical recommendations not
well adapted to farmers’ livelihood needs (Fédération Nationale des Planteurs de Café de Guinée –
FNPCG).
Cameroon
Three case studies
•/# Situations where technical requests from producers are made by organisations whose core
motivation is to solve common marketing problems. Agricultural research institutions are situated in
a difficult institutional and financial context, hard-pushed to rise above simple individual initiatives
of researchers. These can be described as informal, ad hoc linkages.
Ghana
Six case studies
# Five cases correspond to conventional research processes connected with extension services; the
producer groups involved can be described either as contact groups, or as non-collective linkages
(individuals and families …); research is working with producers individually as a function of its
own research questions and research protocols that arise from these.
• Another case concerns an initiative of the privatised Ghana Cotton Company, which piloted the
formation of producer groups to take charge of certain economic functions before and after cotton
production. The regional agricultural research institute (SARI) and extension service are not
involved with this group, but research and extension support is provided by the Company.
The
Gambia
Two case studies
# A situation where research has collaborated in a conventional way with extension and mobilises a
very small number of "contact" farmers to test agricultural technologies thought to solve farmeridentified problems/constraints; no organisational dynamics exist beyond these actions (Stateinspired Village Development Committees exist, but are not yet strong partners for agricultural
service providers).
# Collaboration between a farmers’ organisation (ad hoc village development group) in the process
of formation and an international NGO – ActionaAid The Gambia.
# Another case is presented showing an emerging national farmers’ organisation based around
sesame production, without, as yet, any direct linkage with national agricultural research and
extension.
Key: # no research/FO linkages; • FO/research linkages
5. RESEARCH RESULTS
Introduction
Strong national federated farmers’ organisations have emerged in, for example, Senegal, Guinea and
Burkina Faso These have succeeded to some degree in challenging state service providers to respond to
farmer priorities and demands. They have also managed to establish contractual partnerships with public
sector service providers and, in some cases, raise sufficient resources to purchase their services. Farmers’
organisations (FO's) have been less successful, particularly in articulating with public service providers, in
Ghana. Ghanaian extension and agricultural research services have shied away from developing close
partnerships with FO's due to their perceived political partiality and lack of technical capacity. Ghanaian
extension services have been decentralised and are now subject to coordination by the new District
Assemblies, and fora have been created for the coordination of regional extension and research activities in which farmer representatives participate alongside research and extension workers (RELCs). However,
these mechanisms have been criticised as being dominated by research and extension representatives and
ineffective in making public service providers more demand led and downwardly accountable. Further, it is
unclear whether decentralisation has the effect of making authorities and services more upwardly or
downwardly accountable.
The results from the case studies are presented below under the following headings
 type and size of collective structure involved in technology generation process;
 initiators of collaboration with agricultural research and extension;
 type of linkage;
 sources of funding;
 ways in which public agricultural service providers respond to farmers.
Types of farmers’ organisation
The case studies revealed four main types of farmers’ organisation:
-
-
farmers' organisations with several levels of organisation (at least three), from base groups (village or
district level) to Federation level; this can include one or several intermediate levels of representation
(in the case of the two Federations in Guinea and the Fédération des Unions des Groupements Naam in
Burkina Faso);
FO’s that assemble representatives from a number of village groups in and area or district (the case of
Nyameng Kunda Apex Organisation in The Gambia);
farmers’ organisations comprising more or less numerous structures operating solely at village level (the
three cases in Cameroon)
forms of organisation similar to base groups at village level, with no clearly defined structure (small
localised producer groups, contact groups) nor collectively defined aims (case of contact groups, the
aim of which is defined by extension structures). The numerical size of these groups varies considerably
(from three producers in an example in The Gambia to 58 groups in Ghana in the case of Asuoyeboa cooperative, then contact groups of about a dozen members formed by extension structures in a seed
production programme). The common denominator among these forms of organisation continues to be
atomisation, absence of knowledge-sharing frameworks between local grassroots groups, a limited
range of activities in functions defined by development intervention structures and, consequently, a very
low capacity for collective action.
InitiatorsOrigins of collaboration with agricultural research and extension
In four cases out of the sixteen, requests came from a farmers' organisation, or in approximately a quarter of
the organisations in our sample. In other cases that involved farmers’ organisations, linkages with research
lead to another actor being involved, playing the role of making contacts and expressing technical needs.
That actor could be a project (Relance-café (RC2 ) in Guinea, Développement Paysannal et Gestion de
Terroir (DPGT) in Cameroon, Projet de Diversification des Exportations Agricoles (PDEA) in Cameroon,
Lowland Agricultural Development Project (LADEP) in The Gambia) or a private company (Ghana Cotton
Company). In the case of Nyameng Kunda Apex in The Gambia, the farmers’ organisation is in contact
with NGO’s, but at present linkages with research are non-existent. In other cases, diverse actors intervene
in the linkages and these tend to call upon informal groups and contact groups: private firms (Ghana in two
cases), religious organisations (Diébougou, Burkina Faso) or extension services (Ghana in two cases).
Type of linkage between farmers’ organisations and research and extension
The most significant and successful institutional linkages tend to be formalised and established through
direct bilateral contractual linkages (FUGN3-INERA in Burkina Faso, FPFD4-IRAG in Guinea, FUGN-IBE
in Burkina Faso) or involve a third partner which is frequently a development project (RC2 in Guinea in the
case of FNPCG 5, DPGT in Cameroon in the case of APROSTOC or PDEA in the other cases).
In other cases, these linkages are less direct: via the Church - the Diocèse in Diébougou; through a
development project, PDEA6, in the case of Tignéré Co-operative in Cameroon. The linkages are actually
very indirect in the case of the research, development and extension project LADEP in The Gambia,
because in this case the contract is signed between research and the project “in the name of the farmers”
who are at this stage of the project far too few in numbers for such a process to have much impact on
livelihoods.
In all the other cases studied there is no formalised linkage between research and farmers' organisations due
to the weakness of the institutions concerned: severe weakness of organisational dynamics in Ghana; an
approach to providing support to farmers that favours the development of "loose" structures of the "contact
group" type in Ghana and The Gambia; and a difficult institutional context for national agricultural research
in Cameroon, which finds itself weak and unable to respond to farmers’ organisations that are in the process
of strengthening and structuring their movement.
Main sources of funding
Sources of funding were diverse in each context:
-
most frequently, NGO’s or development projects finance collaboration between research and
farmers' organisations: a private foundation and development project in Burkina Faso in the case of
the Diocèse of Diébougou; an internationally funded development project (PDEA7) in the three
cases in Cameroon; development projects in Guinea (RC2) and in Cameroon (DPGT8);
-
one case, where the farmers' organisation has achieved some real degree of autonomy in
commanding agricultural services, and is able to finance agricultural research activities from
external funds allocated directly to the organisation by donors (Fédération des Paysans of Fouta
Djallon);
-
two cases where collaboration with research is financed partially by projects or NGO’s as well as
through the direct contribution of producers via their organisation (FUGN in Ouahigouya, Burkina
Faso).
Ways in which agricultural research institutions respond to farmers
3
4
5
FUGN: Fédération des Groupements Naam
FPFD: Fédération des Paysans du Fouta Djallon
FNPCG: Fédération Nationale des Producteurs de Café de Guinée
6
This project intervenes to support the intervening parties of the whole system, we meet this again in the three cases
studied in the Cameroon
7
PDEA: Projet de Diversification des Exportations Agricoles
8
DPGT: Projet Développement Paysannal de Gestion de Terroirs
There are two principal types of collaboration between research and organised producers:
-
an institutional type, where research institutions explicitly take into account the requests of farmers'
organisations in programming and implementing activities (Guinea and Burkina Faso);
-
an individual type, more or less formalised, which is very dependent on idiosyncratic variables
such as the personality and motivation of the researchers and the leaders of farmers’ organisations
involved (this is particularly the case in Cameroon).
In the other case studies, it is difficult to speak of modalities of collaboration between agricultural research
and farmers' organisations because FO's are in some cases virtually non-existent at village level, and
therefore in a weak position at the national level (Ghana), or in the process of emerging (The Gambia).
Further, in these cases institutional approaches to working in rural areas tend to remain very conventional
and “top-down”.
In the majority of cases, demands for research (when the initiative comes from producers) often relate to
relatively precise technical questions (case of drying fruit in Burkina Faso; wild rice with sorghum
production in Cameroon; new cowpea varieties in Burkina Faso).
In certain situations, a technical inquiry is combined with a clear economic concern: in Burkina Faso, for
women wanting to increase their income through producing better quality dried fruit; in North Cameroon,
where groups want to increase their income by selling onions throughout the year; in Fouta Djallon, Guinea,
where the farmers' organisations make requests to research that are focused on increasing the profitability of
agricultural production; and finally, in forest Guinea, where coffee producers demonstrate concern for the
"cost-effectiveness" of the technical model proposed to them by agricultural service providers (a model that
is not relevant to their own livelihood strategies).
However, in Guinea (Fouta Djallon) a significant overlap between technical and organisational issues is
noted: production is not developed within the organisation unless a connected and coherent bundle of
actions can be undertaken that operate at each stage of the production chain (credit, input supply, technical
information and marketing). In this case we can see an extension of actions undertaken at the institutional
and policy levels into actions that defend producer interests, such as preserving access to national markets
when this can be supplied by local production, all while maintaining a concern for competitiveness in
relation to external markets (FPFD).
Section 6 presents the lessons for policy: how can external development actors support the farmers’ own
organisations to become effective development partners? (link to section 6)
6. POLICY CONCLUSIONS
Introduction
Here, a number of lessons and alternative policies and institutions that support strong FO-researchextension linkages for technology development and dissemination are highlighted. Given the importance of
FO’s in achieving concrete livelihood outcomes for their members, addressing these issues will most likely
translate into improvements in livelihoods.
Institutional Context encouraging Linkages between the Public Sector, the Private Sector and Civil
Society
In all the countries studied there were important political, economic and institutional changes occurring
linked to the disengagement of the state, economic liberalisation and decentralisation: At the same time, in
many contexts farmers’ organisations are gaining more autonomy and increasing their economic and
technical capacities. The combination of these processes has had the effect of encouraging a re-think of the
division of responsibilities between public sector research and extension bodies, farmers’ organisations and
civil society organisations such as international NGOs. The latter actors have taken on a bigger role in the
financing and provision of services, while the public sector bodies have retreated to performing a smaller
range of functions (quality control, provision of technical expertise….) - but they typically suffer from
severe funding constraints limiting even these roles. FO’s and other civil society organisations have taken
on critical responsibilities once seen to be reserved for States – for example, provision of extension and
research advice, community development support, direct provision of agricultural inputs etc. In this context
linkages between public and private sector and civil society have become essential to ensure farmers have
access to agricultural services
The Important Role of Farmers’ Organisations for Technology Development
Fostering strong relationships between agricultural research institutions, extension bodies and farmers’
organisations seems to be an important means by which appropriate and participatory technology
development can be encouraged and assisted in rural areas. Strong relationships tend to involve contractual
arrangements for the provision of services, representation on decision making bodies of research and
extension, and FO access to funds to pay for these services. This is the case both for the development of
appropriate technologies and their dissemination among farmers.
Characteristics of Farmers’ Organisations that make Successful Partnerships
This study revealed that the FO’s that were most successful in expressing and satisfying their needs in the
areas of technology generation and dissemination had one or many of the following characteristics:
 possessing several organisational levels (at least three) from base groups (villages or districts) to
Federation level; this can include one or several intermediate levels of representation (in the case of the
two Federations in Guinea and the Fédération des Unions des Groupements Naam in Burkina Faso)
 based on free membership around common interests
 access to diverse sources of funding. It is recognised that in order to gain the power to demand specific
services suited to their members needs’, farmers’ organisations need to have access to resources that
enable them to commission and finance agricultural research and extension. In order for FO’s to be able
to do this they either need to build up their own income (through membership fees, economic activities
which are sustainable and yield clear material benefits to members, and relationships with government
or international donors) or gain access to research funds, via such mechanisms as competitive research
grants or jointly managed research and extension funds.
 based around successful and remunerative economic activities (sesame production in The Gambia; fruit
and vegetable production, storage and marketing in Cameroon)
 benefiting from the animation, capacity-building (training, business management etc) and
input/marketing support of external organisations
 based on traditional modes of organisation, respecting agreed social rules on interaction and authority
(FUGN, Burkina Faso) or based on legally recognised rules and responsibilities for associations (e.g.
1990 law of association in Cameroon and subsequent legislation)
Small, disparate and unorganised groups of farmers created to serve a specific concern of international
projects and extension services (e.g. contact groups to pass on extension messages or to carry out on-farm
trials), and which do not benefit from national legislation recognising the role of farmers’ organisations in
the economy, were generally much less sustainable without outside resources and much less capable of
effectively expressing the needs and demands of their members. People come together in these groups
willingly however as they are seen as a way of accessing external resources – whether that be agricultural
equipment, technical knowledge or inputs (cf Ghana and the Gambia cases).
Capacity Building: Strengthening Farmers’ Organisations
The existence of strong organisations, backed by their members and federated to some degree (regional or
national level) so as to give them more weight with public bodies, is critical if agricultural services are to
become demand led and downwardly accountable. Hence strengthening the capacities of farmers’
organisations is a pre-requisite for balanced and productive partnerships between research and farmers’
organisations. Particular attention needs to be paid to the following points.
First, institutional support for farmers’ organisations (information, training, use of participatory
methodologies, equipment and finance.) is required so that they will have the physical, financial and
technical capacities to ensure that the requests of their members rise from the grassroots to the top of the
organisation, and that they will possess the ability to formalise these requests and disseminate the results
obtained. This support could strengthen internal communication and the links between farmers’
representatives and the grassroots, thus improving the representativity, legitimacy, and hence effectiveness
of farmers’ organisations. Donors should be prepared to consider proposals aiming to facilitate the access of
farmers’ organisations to funds reserved for capacity building and making competitive research funds
accessible to them.
Second, financing mechanisms should be established which allow farmers’ organisations to commission
research programmes. Such funding could not come solely from farmers/members of farmers’ organisations.
It could include, for example, State resources made available to farmers’ organisations and used by them as
a function of their needs, or through competitive research funds.
Third, the establishment of frameworks or fora for collaboration and co-ordination (at the local, regional
and national levels) should strengthen the capacities of farmers’ organisations to make propositions and to
negotiate with, agricultural service providers in the public an private sector - as long as representation is
sufficient.
Finally, it is evident that initiatives to strengthen farmers’ organisations must be based on a secure sociopolitical and legal context, where there is guaranteed freedom of association and legislation explicitly
recognising the economic and social roles of FO’s..
Public Agricultural Research Services
In a context where partnerships with a range of actors have become a practical (and financial) imperative,
national agricultural research institutions have to create conditions that encourage dialogue with other
actors as they are in a pivotal position. The ability to do this depends on:
 the regionalisation of agricultural research institutes so as to improve its orientation towards operational
research;
 the development of systems approaches to agricultural research (e.g. FSR);
 strengthening capacities for socio-economic analysis;
 participation in a collaborative definition of regional development priorities;
 implementation of participatory methodologies and approaches which results in the establishment of a
real and continuous dialogue with farmers (e.g. using PRA, PAR, Delta etc);
 the creation of conditions and incentives (career and remuneration packages) which encourage
researchers to collaborate with farmers’ organisations (e.g. CAMES)
 the development of national action plans for promoting research-extension-farmers’ organisation
partnerships.
.
Public Agricultural Extension Services
Extension services have to be involved in this process more than they have been involved in agricultural
research in the past, so that the agricultural research linkage with development objectives becomes serious
and effective. These linkages need to be defined in a flexible way according to specific contexts, but taking
into account:
 the reorganisation of agricultural support services that is currently taking place in most countries in the
region;
 the technical advisory and support role for farmers that has already been taken up by some farmers’
organisations.
Establishing Effective Fora for Co-ordination and Co-operation
Co-ordination and collaboration bodies that link representatives of agricultural research, extension and
farmers’ organisations (e.g. regional Research-Extension-Liaison Committees in Ghana) at the regional and
national level seem to be indispensable for promoting closer research-extension-farmer collaboration.
However, these bodies have often not functioned so well as a channel for farmers to express their needs and
requests in practice.
In order to improve the ways in which these fora function, they require specific material support to enable
them to cover the costs of holding meetings etc. Donors can provide funding for such measures. For
example, the World Bank has historically supported these structures through its national level agricultural
service support projects (ASP – e.g. in The Gambia) – although these tend to be projects funded for a
defined period. Once the funding ceases, the actors find it difficult to cover the costs of regular meetings.
Hence, the sustainability of fora for collaboration must be sought through the establishment of appropriate
mechanisms for national/endogenous funding as project funding tends to be time limited.
Jointly Managed Funds for Research and Extension
Regional agricultural research and extension funds should be created, governed by a council of
representatives from civil society, FO’s and public research and extension bodies. These can be used to
support agricultural research on topics relevant to farmers and assist civil society and farmers’ organisations
in drafting requests for agricultural research. They could be established as competitive research funds
(following the example of the Hill Agriculture Research Project in Nepal, or the World Bank’s numerous
competitive funds in Africa and Asia), but in this case farmers’ organisations may need technical assistance
in preparing successful research proposals.
The Role of NGO’s
International NGO’s (e.g. Catholic Relief Services and ActionAid in The Gambia) and civil society
organisations (e.g. the Diocèse de Diébougou in Burkina Faso) have played, and continue to play, an
important role in the strengthening of farmers’ organisations. However, while their role as intermediaries is
useful and sometimes indispensable, it is important to avoid their intervention acting as an obstacle to the
establishment of direct relations between organised producers and other economic and institutional
stakeholders. It is also necessary to address the problem of the sustainability of farmers’ organisations after
NGO’s cease to provide financial support.
The Role of the Private Sector
Private sector organisations can play a critical and positive role in both building the technical capacities of
farmers’ organisations (extension advice and access to inputs/markets) and giving them a voice in setting
prices of commodities (as with the Ghana Cotton Company in northern Ghana). However the case studies
revealed that private sector companies were usually unlikely to form direct partnerships with remote
farmers’ organisations. They tend to prefer establishing linkages with larger, regional or national, federated
farmers’ movements (e.g. FUGN, Burkina Faso), or meet farmers’ demand through an existing
intermediary – such as an international NGO (e.g. Catholic Relief Services and ActionAid The Gambia) or
State department (Ghana seed production programme), or an internationally supported national NGO such
as AGROCOM in Cameroon . This tendency is often due to factors such as the risky and unreliable nature
of peasant agricultural production in the Sahel, poor infrastructure and communications links. Hence in the
case of thee production of cowpea in Burkina Faso, Nestlé decided not to continue with a contract to
purchase cowpea produced by farmers’ groups in Diébougou.
Private sector involvement in developing new technologies for agricultural production, and direct linkages
with research (commissioning research) has gone further in Ghana. However, this case illustrates the care
required in the way private sector engagement is promoted. Here it is not farmers’ that create the agenda
and constitute the “demand” for new appropriate technologies, but rather it is the companies, research or
extension services that define needs and who then engage farmers in the production process. This limited
degree of farmer participation, in the context of a weak national farmers’ movement, does not help to ensure
that agricultural services serve the livelihood priorities of poor farmers.
Sharing Lessons from Successful Partnerships
Lessons from case studies of successful partnerships need to be shared and disseminated widely. This can
be done through national stakeholder workshops, WECARD sub-regional workshops, and through working
directly with farmers’ organisations and their members. Other initiatives at an international level, such as
the World Bank and IFAP’s (International Federation of Agricultural Producers) initiative to disseminate
lessons through electronic media, should also be supported (see www.worldbank.org and search under
producer organisations). WECARD could itself contribute much to this process at the sub-regional level by
increasing its own expertise in: the development and implementation of training modules on effective
mechanisms for research-extension-farmers’ organisation collaboration; capacity to provide advice on
reorienting national agricultural research to make it client led and demand driven, and training in
participatory research and extension methodologies; and establishing effective sub-regional information
sharing networks – including wider availability of information, reports and training materials on Internet.
7. POLICY, INSTITUTIONS AND PROCESSES AND THE SL APPROACH
At least eight main issues or lessons for the policy, institutions and processes aspects of the SL approach
and framework emerge from these case studies
(i) Research-extension-farmers’ organisation linkages can be informal (e.g. through individuals) or
formalised (e.g. through binding contracts for the provision of services). The most effective linkages tend to
be those that are formalised. These also tend to be the strongest mechanisms for ensuring downward
accountability of agricultural service providers to farmers.
(ii) Farmers’ livelihood opportunities are shaped by the wider policy environment (legislation, history,
political parties and their policies, international organisations and their policies….), but also by the strength
of their own organisations. Effective farmers’ organisations have demonstrated their success in drawing
down agricultural services (research and extension). FO’s and NGO’s play a critical role in improving
economic and livelihood opportunities of their members – conditioning and securing access to resources
and opportunities, and to technical services (such as agricultural research and extension). Civil society
institutions of various types (CBO's, FO’s and NGO’s) are critically important to farmers in the construction
of their livelihoods in West and Central Africa. Where such organisations are weak or non-existent the
poor’s access to external resources and knowledge tends to be more limited, having a direct impact on
livelihood opportunities. Support for farmers’ organisations therefore remains critical to the achievement of
sustainable livelihoods.
(iii) Many different types of FO exist (membership, non-membership, project inspired or traditional
groups…) – strongest seem to be those of voluntary association with strong economic activities or a strong
and diversified funding base (e.g. FUGN). When they have a solid membership base, and a coherent set of
objectives derived from members core interests, and usually a set of successful economic activities, they can
increase the voice of farmers and their influence on public and private sector organisations – and even
improve their influence on agricultural policy.
(iv) Farmers’ organisations are usually successful advocates for their members and effective intermediaries
where there is an enabling political and institutional environment, including:
 legislation guaranteeing freedom of association and encouraging the formation of groups for economic
and social activities and giving them legal recognition;
 decentralisation of political authorities and central technical ministries (agriculture, research,
extension);
 effective local, regional and national coordination bodies - perhaps linked to regional level
decentralised local government authorities - that bring together, and give equal voice to,
representatives of all the actors concerned with rural development. The ways in which farmers’
organisations are represented in these structures must be clarified, however (e.g. farmers’ chosen
representatives participating at all stages of decision-making processes) and sustainable funding
arrangements that allow them to work properly need to be established;
 availability of donor funding to facilitate capacity building, the construction of national farmers’
movements, access to technical inputs and credit, and improved marketing networks;
 development-oriented agricultural service organisations committed to a consultative approach, and
experienced in participatory methodologies, sociological analysis, systemic approaches and bottom-up
approaches to priority setting;
 public agricultural research organisations that are stable and financially secure, with an ability and
willingness to respond to farmer demands and rapidly disseminate research results through farmers’
organisations. This may depend on secure international or private sector funding for public agricultural
services given the reality of reduced availability of State funds.
(v) Strong local organisations are key to building sustainable livelihoods. Farmers’ organisations have,
when the conditions are right, been able to ensure that farmers have a voice in agricultural service delivery.
They can be effective vehicles for empowerment of their members, where empowerment refers to people
taking control of the development process. FO’s have the potential to empower individuals (FO members)
and strengthen a community in its relations with outsiders and the wider society (including international
agencies, political authorities and central government). However, this study showed the critical importance
of supportive policies and an institutional environment to strengthen farmers’ organisations and their
capacity to work together for common objectives, to enable them to effectively draw down services from
agricultural service providers. Also, it showed that FO’s need to be federated at a regional or national level
to gain influence or “a voice”.
(vi) Relationships between policy makers, development organisations and development processes. Effective
mechanisms for collaboration between actors is essential. Nevertheless, power relationships between the
actors are complex. Farmers’ organisations that develop their own objectives and dynamic, gaining access
to secure and diverse funds, often gain the power to request or demand agricultural services that are
appropriate to their needs. However, government may sense a threat to its authority from overtly political
farmers’ organisations and in this case public sector bodies may not wish to work in collaboration with
them.
(vii) The political context defines, to a large extent the depth of participation and downward accountability
that can be achieved. In analysing the effectiveness of different policies and institutions that should increase
downward accountability of agricultural service providers, care must be taken to remember that
participation, participatory methodologies, farmers’ organisations and decentralisation can be used to
opposing ends: to enfranchise rural populations, or to administer and control rural populations. The political
context and political culture are central to understanding the effectiveness of different approaches. The idea
of addressing the principle and practice of accountability introduces a specifically political component into
discussions on agricultural service delivery that more often than not focus on largely functional and
technocratic approaches.
(viii) Farmers’ organisations and local organisations are part of the social and institutional context within
which rural individuals and families construct and adapt their livelihoods. They are at the same time “social
capital” for rural people and can constitute a political resource, or “political capital”. They are a resource in
themselves and also institutions that mediate access to resources (such as physical capital – mills, presses
etc).
(ix) In summary, this research shows that the analysis of policy, institutions and processes is critical for the
development of the SL approach because it is these that shape the environment within which people gain
access to assets and knowledge. They can also build the required capacity among rural people to find ways
of transforming these into positive livelihood outcomes.
8. GAPS AND QUESTIONS
The research presented here left a few key questions unanswered and these merit further investigation
within the context of the policy, institutions and processes aspects of SL.
 What is the impact of politics and power relations on the performance of farmers’ organisations? Who
benefits and who loses from farmers’ organisations?
 Should the ability to command political weight at a local, regional or national level be included in the
SL framework as “political capital” – given that this can be key in gaining access to and building assets
and income?
 How can the analysis of inequalities (e.g. of gender, class, race, assets/income) and power imbalances
within organisations be linked to assessments of their potential for linkages with agricultural services?
 How can we know or predict when and where farmers’ organisations are, or are not, likely to be
effective partners for agricultural research and technology development?
 What is the place and role of the private sector in relation to local community based organisations in
partnerships for extension and research?
 Are organisations as important for urban development and urban communities as they are for rural
development as a whole, and agricultural research and technology development in particular?
 Are sector-based organisations more successful in achieving positive livelihood outcomes for their
members than organisations with multiple activities and interests?
 What are the reasons that may explain why experiences of strong FO / agricultural service provider
relations seem more common in francophone than in anglophone countries in the region?
9. FURTHER READING
Bosc, P.M.B., et al, , 1999. CORAF Initiative: Strengthening Research-Extension-Farmers’ Organisation
Linkages in West and Central Africa. Overview Paper, CORAF/ODI/CIRAD/ITAD. June
Bosc, P.M.B., et al, , 1999. CORAF Initiative: Strengthening Research-Extension-Farmers’ Organisation
Linkages in West and Central Africa. Annotated Bibliography, CORAF/ODI/CIRAD/ITAD. June
Bourdel, C., Hussein, K., Oyep, J.E., Zoundi, J. 1999. Renforcer la collaboration entre la recherche, la
vulgarisation et les organisations paysannes en Afrique de l’ouest et du centre - Etude de terrain
Burkina-Faso, CORAF/ODI/CIRAD/ITAD. Mai.
Dulcire, M., Hussein, K., and Oyep, J.E., 1999. Initiative CORAF : Renforcer la collaboration entre la
recherche, la vulgarisation et les organisations paysannes en Afrique de l’ouest et du centre –
Etudes de terrain Cameroun. A study prepared for CORAF, UK DFID and the French Ministère de
la Coopération. CORAF/ODI/CIRAD/ITAD. Mai.
Dulcire, M., Hussein, K., Oyep, J.E., and Zoundi, J. 1999. CORAF Initiative: Strengthening ResearchExtension-Farmers’ Organisation Linkages in West and Central Africa. Field Studies: Ghana. A
study prepared for CORAF, UK DFID and the French Ministère de la Coopération.
CORAF/ODI/CIRAD/ITAD. May.
Hussein, K., Sibelet, N., Oyep, J.E., and Zoundi, J. 1999. CORAF Initiative: Strengthening ResearchExtension-Farmers’ Organisation Linkages in West and Central Africa. Field Studies: The Gambia.
A study prepared for CORAF, UK DFID and the French Ministère de la Coopération.
CORAF/ODI/CIRAD/ITAD. May.
Eponou, T., 1996. Partners in Technology Generation and Transfer: Linkages between Research and
Farmers’ Organizations in Three Selected African Countries. ISNAR, Research Report 9.
Gill, G. and Carney, D., 1999. Competitive Agricultural Technology Funds in Developing Countries. ODI.
Ribot, J.C., 1999a. Decentralisation, Participation and Accountability in Sahelian Forestry: Legal
mechanisms of political-administrative control in Africa 69 (1)
Ribot, J.C., 1999b. Integral Local Development: Authority, Accountability and Entrustment in Natural
Resource Management. RPTES Working Paper. AFT, The World Bank.
10. RELEVANT WEB-SITES
CIRAD:
http://www.cirad.fr/presentation/programmes/agri-fam/org.shtml
Cirad-Tera (Dept Territoires, environnement et acteurs), Programme Agricultures Familiales presents its
work programme and key researchers. Pierre-Marie Bosc is the contact point for work on farmers’
organisations, and partnerships between FO’s and agricultural service providers. CIRAD provided 4 team
members for the CORAF Initiative study presented above.
ODI:
www.oneworld.org/odi/rpeg
ODI coordinated and provided several team members for the CORAF Initiative study presented above. The
full set of CORAF Initiative reports will soon be available on this site.
WECARD/CORAF: www.coraf.org
WECARD/CORAF requested the research presented here and financed part of the study (alongside UK
DFID and the French Ministere des Affaires Etrangeres). A member of the research team was provided by
CORAF and it organised a stakeholder workshop to discuss the study’s results in Dakar in January 1999.
World Bank:
http://wbln0018.worldbank.org/essd/essd.nsf/producer/casestudies
Extensive web-site on “empowering producer organisations” highlights the results and proceedings of an
international workshop held in Washington DC in June 1999. It provides numerous case studies of
partnerships between agricultural service providers and producer organisations across the developing world.
Six case studies are drawn from the CORAF Initiative study presented above.
Other useful sites to consult:
Club du Sahel (OECD):www.oecd.org/sah
Fondation Rurale de L’Afrique de l’Ouest / West Africa Rural Foundation (FRAO/WARF):
www.frao.org
IFAP:
www.ifap.org
The International Federation of Agricultural Producers – which jointly hosted the Washington workshop on
producer organisations with the World Bank in 1999.
Inter-Réseaux:
www.rio.net/Inter-Reseaux
An organisations supported by the French Government to carry out networking and information sharing
between rural development actors, including farmers organisations, in developing countries.
ISNAR:
www.isnar.org/publications
International Service for National Agricultural Research which has a number of publications on the theme
of linkages between farmers’ organisations, research and extension in Africa.
World Resources
Institute:
www.igc.org/wri/sustag/npsa-hom.html
Publications of research on farmer empowerment and expansion of partnerships between farmers,
communities, NGO’s and other actors to achieve sustainable agriculture (Thrupp). Work on accountability
and decentralisation in West Africa (Ribot).
GLOSSARY ENTRIES
Farmers’ organisations:
groups of rural producers coming together to found organisations, based on the principle of free
membership, to pursue specific common interests of their members – developing technical and economic
activities that benefit their members and maintaining relations with partners operating in their economic and
institutional environment.
Upward accountability:
The need of service providers to satisfy the demands of their funders, and in the case of public services, the
State. This usually involves meeting criteria such as transparency, efficiency, cost-effectiveness,
achievement of policy objectives, and being tied to market forces of supply and demand.
Downward accountability:
Accountability of service providers to local populations and end users of agricultural services. Here it also
referes to accountability with empowerment: for example, linkages between agricultural service providers,
farmers and their representatives that are successful in empowering farmers to control the process of
agricultural technology development.