Phase 1 FSA training
6.1.
6.2.
6.3.
6.4.
6.5.
6.6.
Module 6: Participatory technology dissemination
Innovation of the Tanzanian agricultural sector: state of
affairs and challenges
Evolution in the perception of agricultural extension and
technology dissemination
The process of technology dissemination: linear and
participatory approaches
The social organisation of innovation processes: actors
and linkages
Future outlook of technology dissemination systems and
coalitions
Bridging the gap between research and extension in
Tanzania
0
Phase 1 FSA training
Module 6
Module 6: Participatory technology dissemination
Participatory technology dissemination,
networking and collaboration
Objectives
At the end of this module you will:
1. Have discussed why technology dissemination often fails, what problems are encountered
and what could be done improve the situation
2. Understand the origin of the terms extension and dissemination and the evolution in the
thinking about it.
3. Be able to distinguish linear and participatory approaches to extension and technology
dissemination.
4. Understand the 'beyond farmer first' discussion and know new terminologies used (PTDD,
scaling up, uptake pathways, entry points, AKIS and networking for innovation)
5. Have discussed the RAAKS toolbox that can be used to do actor, communication network
and dissemination impact analysis.
6. Be able to give an overview of the different actors in dissemination processes and to define
different kinds of functional linkages between these actors and the end users of technology.
7. Have discussed variations in service delivery in rural areas and have understood why this is
important to analyse and to take account of when preparing project proposals.
8. Have an overview of the major tendencies that will shape the future outlook of technology
dissemination systems and coalitions
9. Have a practical understanding of what research and extension could do in the current situation
to bridge the gap that separates them.
Contents
6.1. Innovation of the Tanzanian agricultural sector: state of affairs and challenges
6.2. Evolution in the perception of agricultural extension and technology dissemination
6.2. The process of technology dissemination: linear and participatory approaches
6.4. The social organisation of innovation processes: actors and linkages
6.5. Future outlook of technology dissemination systems and coalitions
6.6. Bridging the gap between research and extension in Tanzania
1
Phase 1 FSA training
6.1.
Module 6: Participatory technology dissemination
Innovation of the Tanzanian agricultural sector: state of affairs
and challenges
“Agriculture, the backbone of the economy, continues to be dependent mainly on
rainfall and backward technology. Thus agricultural productivity is low and erratic”
“Tanzanians have developed a propensity to prepare and pronounce plans and
programmes, and ambitions which are not accompanied by effective implementation,
monitoring and evaluation mechanisms. As a result, implementation has been weak.
This situation has given rise to the erosion of trust and confidence among the people
on their leaders. It is evident that the people are now less enthusiastic about
participating in national endeavours. Apathy has set in"
(The Tanzania Development Vision 2025, Planning Commission 1999 : 10-12)
Although off-farm employment is becoming more important, most of the rural households in
Tanzania still depend on agricultural production for their survival and income. Also district
authorities largely depend on the agricultural sector for revenue collection. Although the
conditions for agricultural production are generally quite favorable in Tanzania, average
production levels are well below potential production levels. Productivity per land or labour unit
has been more or less stagnant during the past decades. Rising prices for imported inputs, as
well as unreliable and generally declining prices for agricultural products partially explain this
state of affairs. Indeed, the socio-economic and institutional environment for agricultural
production is not ‘enabling’ smallholders to perform better. Price incentives are low and hardly
justify investments.
However, the vulnerability to international market fluctuations and the less favourable socioeconomic context do not entirely explain the persistence of rudimentary production techniques.
Many adequate and profitable technologies are available in Tanzania. The implementation of
improved practices is far below possible levels of adoption. For instance, we observe that:
 quality seeds and planting materials are not widely available;
 soil fertility management practices are hardly applied,
 levels of mechanization and irrigation are low,
 potentially profitable post-harvest techniques are not used;
 etc.
The examination of these and many other indicators suggests that the use of modern agricultural
technology is not a common practice (Limbu 1999). Apparently, the agricultural research and
development system has not been able to induce a process of change that improves productivity
and reduces rural poverty. We still witness the persistence of subsistence agriculture within an
ever more dynamic and competitive international environment. This bears the risk that the gap
between the performance of Tanzanian agriculture and international averages is getting wider.
A more ‘hostile’ environment therefore even asks for more vigorous action to innovate and
improve farming practices. The ambition to go beyond subsistence agriculture presents another
challenge. Successful penetration of markets, strongly advocated in the Agricultural Sector
Development Strategy, requires the continuous improvement of the quality of products.
The large gap between research, extension and farmers probably constitutes the single most
important barrier towards agricultural development in Tanzania.
2
Phase 1 FSA training
6.1.2.
Module 6: Participatory technology dissemination
Causes of insufficient technology dissemination
In most regions and districts, different actors have identified the major problems of farmers. The
analysis of lists of farmer problems would reveal that for many - if not most - of these problems
the potential solutions are already known. However, the agricultural development system
(which includes research, extension services, seed and input suppliers, animal health centres and
other providers of agricultural services) has not been able to deliver the messages and/or did not
succeed to facilitate farmers to implement the proposed technologies.
Imperfections in the technology dissemination system are generally the result of (a combination)
the following problems:

Information dissemination problem: farmers do not know about the technologies.

Training problem: farmers heard about or even saw the innovation but do not know how
to implement it.

Technology-fit or enabling environment problem: farmers cannot face the financial
and/or labour requirements of the proposed options.
If the dissemination of technology does not work, the following causes are generally put
forward (Bollinger et al., 1994; Limbu, 1999):
 Non-functional institutional set-up: formalities and regulations, lack of resources of
governmental bodies, failure of research to provide usable results, lack of co-ordination
among the organisations and institutions that form the agricultural knowledge and
information districts.
 Shortcomings of the extension service: bureaucratic procedures that lead to delays and
inflexibility, hierarchical relations that discourage initiatives, insufficient capacities and
motivation of extension staff, lack of backstopping of field staff and insufficient monitoring
and evaluation of field level activities.
 Role perceptions. Extension agents often consider themselves as an outsider and specialist.
This is reflected in the language they use and sometimes even a lack of respect for local
customs. This leads to a lack of trust and confidence of target populations.
Many government organisations as in Tanzania, base the choice of extension messages either on
national government policies or on research findings, which are considered to be important for
farmers. This does not necessarily lead to wrong choices, but for technologies to be really
relevant to locally felt needs, researchers, extension workers and farmers must effectively
communicate to identify the needs and to adapt recommendations to local conditions.
Farmers will always politely listen to listen to a researcher or extension agent. However, they
will only be more than superficially interested if they are convinced that the information
provided will help them to realise their goals. If not, farmers are free not to give any follow-up
to his instruction or advice (and many farmers make use of the freedom). This results in what
has been called the 'ineffective implementation syndrome' (cf. quote at the beginning of this
chapter).
This situation has recently been recognized in national policy frameworks. Efforts are now
made to bring research, training and extension closer together and to improve the institutional
set-up. At District level, Agricultural Development Plans (DADP's), will elaborated for the first
time in 2003. These plans may become an important entry point for more widespread
dissemination of technologies. At the level of the Ministry of Agriculture and Food Security a
Client service charter was adopted in November 2002. Another encouraging development is that
during the past two decades, communities have been increasingly encouraged to participate in
planning, implementing and evaluating development activities. Government and nongovernmental institutions increasingly recognize the need to move away from top-down
approaches towards more participatory technology dissemination approaches. The main thrust
of this change is the recognition that rural people themselves are owners and shapers of their
economic and social well-being.
3
Phase 1 FSA training
6.2.
Module 6: Participatory technology dissemination
Evolution in the perception of agricultural extension and technology
dissemination
Around 1900, certain Universities in the North approached farmers and presented them new
technologies. The term 'extension' is derived from this practice (Farrington 1994). Extension
can be defined as reaching out to target groups. Dissemination, which is often used to describe
the same kind of activities, can be defined as the spreading of information. The objectives of
extension and dissemination were generally to reveal new insights to farmers, to solve practical
implementation problems, to provide adult training and to make means of production available.
Over the years, the modalities of conducting agricultural extension and dissemination have
changed. Progressively, new approaches and orientations were adopted. In practice, national
agricultural extension systems vary from one country to another. Differences are observed in the
following areas:
 Level of intervention: individual counselling, social groups and community level. It is clear
that the choice of the level of intervention not only has financial consequences, but also
affects to what extent different target groups can be reached.
 Methodological approaches: commodity approach, technical change approach, training and
visit system, participatory extension approaches, empowerment approaches.
 Orientation: on technical practices or people-centred
 Toolboxes: variety and types of tools used.
The gradual evolution of national agricultural extension services notwithstanding, the terms
'extension' and 'dissemination' are now often criticized for the linear, unidirectional flow of
information between research services and farmers that it implies. There are, critics argue,
multiple sources of new technologies. In addition to public sector services, we have private
commercial sector, non-profit and voluntary organisations and the farmers' own innovations.
Information comes from different sources and information flows are multi-directional: farmers
communicate among themselves, extension services meet and farmers give feedback to research
and extension.
In order to better capture the complexity of information flows and the pluralism of actors, many
authors now use another vocabulary. Observers of agricultural innovation processes now often
prefer to use other terms:

Participatory technology development and dissemination (PTDD). This term clearly
addresses the involvement of farmers.

Scaling up (ILEIA 2001). This term clearly indicates that the source of innovation comes
from 'below' and not from 'above'.

Agricultural Knowledge and Information Systems (AKIS) and networking for innovation
(Engel & Salomon 1997). This perspective is sensitive to the complementary roles and
collaboration between different agricultural service providers.

Uptake pathways and entry points (Rees et al 2000). This terminology raises awareness
about the multiplicity of actors that can be involved in technology dissemination.
Paragraph 6.3. will elaborate further on different approaches towards the process of technology
transfer. In paragraph 6.4, we will have a close look at actors and linkages, e.g. the social
organisation of the innovation process.
4
Phase 1 FSA training
Module 6: Participatory technology dissemination
6.3.
The process of technology dissemination:
linear and participatory approaches
6.3.1
Conventional Transfer of Technology Strategy (ToT)
In Tanzania and most developing countries this conventional Transfer of Technology (ToT)
model has been common practice for developing and disseminating innovations. The model is
based on the assumption that technologies developed by scientists and transferred to farmers
will trigger agricultural development (Figure 6.1). The model assumes that farmers' problems
identified by scientists can be solved by research organisations and their modern scientific
approaches. In this model, the role of agricultural research institutes and its researchers is to
generate knowledge and technologies. After receiving knowledge or information from formal
training or research institutes, the role of extension services is to handle the subsequent
dissemination of technologies and to provide a link between researchers, policy makers and
farmers.
Extension operated on the assumption that farmers are passive, illiterate (and therefore ignorant)
and unable to innovate or to integrate new cropping and livestock practices into their
agricultural production systems. Until recently most public sector extension agents actually just
told farmers what they should do. Farmers are regarded as a constraint to agricultural
development rather than potential initiators of solutions. In this conventional extension approach
researchers focus on technology development, extension agents transmit the messages and
farmers passively receive them.
Figure 6.1.
Conventional Transfer of Technology strategy
Researchers develop technology
Extension workers transfer technology
Innovative farmers adopt technology
Follower farmers “laggards” copy from
innovative farmers
'Us and them'
This linear top-down model creates a rigid hierarchy that discourages interaction and feedback
of information. 'We' determine priorities, generate technologies and these are transferred to
'them'. Farmers' participation is limited to passive or - at best - functional participation. The
model therefore does not really provide an opportunity for researchers, extension staff and
farmers to work together. Researchers focus on developing "blanket recommendations” and
extension staff are transfer agents who teach and demonstrate new technologies to innovative
farmers. In the context of ToT, extension messages tend to be prescriptive and uniform. They do
not pay attention to particular environments, conditions, opportunities and local knowledge. The
model assumes that once innovators adopt new technologies other farmers will learn from them
and progressively adopt as well. The training and attitudes of extension agents conventionally
leads them to expect unquestioning and universal acceptance of the technologies they promote.
5
Phase 1 FSA training
Module 6: Participatory technology dissemination
Training and Visit approach
The most well known example of the linearly modelled ToT strategy is the Training and Visit
approach (T&V). This approach had its origins in Israel in the 1950's, was subsequently tried in
a World Bank Project in Turkey and then introduced in South Asian rice-growing areas in the
late 1970's and is used in many countries, including Tanzania. Its main objective is to increase
agricultural productivity by providing information at regular intervals. Researchers train
extension workers in specific training sessions (e.g. quarterly training sessions in Tanzania).
They then visit contact farmers or contact groups. This approach is mainly used in government
extension systems. Even though criticism of the T&V system has been extensive, it has to be
admitted that most public extension systems have been subject to 'downsizing' operations and
were stripped of some of the additional functions they formerly had, such as input supply. What
remained was the provision of basic information transfer, advisory and training functions
(Christoplos et al., 2001).
Generally, observers agree that although ToT and T&V can potentially cover large geographical
areas, these approaches:
 insufficiently adapt the general recommendations to farm and farmer conditions,
leading to low adoption levels or poor performance of technologies;
 give too little interest in local knowledge and practices, cultural values and power
relations.
6.3.2
Participatory Extension Approaches (Farmer first)
The basic view underlying this linear model, whereby a technology is generated by research,
transferred by extension and utilised by farmers in a simple sequential manner, is now seriously
questioned. As we have seen in module 5, many innovations either originate from farmers or
are modified by farmers to adapt them better to their situation (participatory technology
development). In addition, it is recognized that farmers can play an important role in
technology dissemination (participatory technology dissemination.
Since the 1970's, efforts have been made to improve the impact of agricultural research and
extension. Among others, this resulted in farming system, participation in development and
gender and development approaches. These efforts were fuelled by a growing awareness that the
socio-economic and agro-ecological conditions of resource-poor farmers are complex, diverse
and risk-prone (Farrington, 1998). These efforts focused mostly on increasing the involvement
of farmers in technology development and transfer (see Table 6.1).
Table 6.1
Evolution of participatory extension approaches
Period
Reason given for
non-adoption
Solution
Role of extension
Role of
research
1950/60
Ignorance
Extension
Teach farmers
1970/80
Farm-level
constraints
Remove constraints
1990-95
Technology does not
fit
Participatory
technology
development
1995-
Technology does not
fit and farmers do not
have access to goods
and services.
Networking among
organisations and
empowerment of
farmers
Supply inputs. Get
more information
from farmers.
Facilitate farmer
participation and
identify solutions
together
Public-private
partnerships.
Farmer organisation
and empowerment
Develop
technology
Understand
farming systems
6
Understand rural
livelihoods
Understand rural
livelihoods,
policy context and
communication
networks
Phase 1 FSA training
Module 6: Participatory technology dissemination
During the 1980s, development practitioners increasingly perceived farmers as partners in
research and extension and as key players in technology development and transfer. An
enormous variety of participatory methodologies, generally put in the PRA framework, were
developed and thousands of professionals started to apply them. From 1985 onwards, growing
numbers of professionals have made personal changes and accepted risks by adopting the more
flexible and open-ended approach. It was then clearly realised that farmers have the capacity to
collaborate as partners in the development of technologies (participatory technology
development). It was also realised that farmers also have the capacity to diffuse new
technologies among themselves (farmer-to-farmer approaches). These insights culminated in
what is now known as the Farmer First approach (FF; Chambers 1989) or Participatory
Extension Approach (PEA; Hagmann et al. 1998).
The Farmer First and PEA approaches argue that the strategy and methods of Transfer of
Technology which have served industrial and green revolution agriculture, do not fit the
resource-poor farming systems of the third type of agriculture, which is complex, diverse
resource-poor and risk-prone (Chambers, Pacey & Thrupp 1989: 182), especially in Sub-Sahara
Africa. In contrast to technology-driven agriculture, with its standardizing package of practices,
the Farmer First approach proposes to offer baskets of options (flexible recommendations) to
enable farmers to vary and diversify their farming systems. It stresses the abilities of the
resource-poor farmers to experiment, adapt and innovate.
PEA/FF approaches are based on effective participation of rural communities. The focus of PEA
is to promote greater involvement of farmers in rural communities in planning and
implementing agricultural development activities. In PEA/FF, extension is understood to be a
support people's own iterative learning, based on their needs and problems. Farmers are
encouraged to take initiative and work with extension staff on equal terms, for testing and
implementing appropriate solutions. Capacity building, social mobilisation, experiential
learning and empowerment are major elements of these approaches.
In a relatively short time (1990-95) there has been a radical rethinking of the role of farmers and professionals - in agricultural research and extension, which has led to a virtual revolution
in the agricultural sciences; some have even termed it a 'paradigm shift' (Scoones & Thompson
1994: 2). This shift is in line with a broader movement towards a 'new professionalism' (cf.
module 2). In Table 6.2, we compare the conventional ToT model with PEA/FF approaches.
The focus of extension changes from teaching to learning; from hierarchical, top-down to
participatory bottom-up approaches; from centralised to decentralised decision making.
Table 6.2.
Conventional ToT model versus participatory extension approaches
Feature
Transfer of Technology (ToT)
Participatory Extension (PEA)
Farmer First (FF) approaches
Main objective
Analysis of needs and
priorities set by
Primary R&D location
Transfer technology
Outsiders (extension agents,
researchers)
Research station
Empowerment of farmers
Farmers facilitated by outsiders
Menu of technologies
Fixed (blanket recommendations)
Dissemination process
Linear transfer of precepts, messages
and technological packages.
Taught about the message: adopt or
reject
Widespread adoption
Baskets of options (flexible
recommendations)
Dynamic process based on joint
analysis and farmers' choices
Apply principals, use methods,
choose from basket and experiment
Wider choice for farmers and
enhanced adaptability
Farmer to farmer
Farmers behaviour
Outsiders desired
outcome
Main mode of
diffusion
Role of extension
agent
Extension workers to farmers
Provider of information, technical
supervisor, teacher
7
Farmers' fields and conditions
Facilitator, catalyst, advisor
Phase 1 FSA training
Module 6: Participatory technology dissemination
PEA/FF and the roles of extension agents
For agricultural extension agents this change implies changing the way they work and interact
with farmers in local communities. Instead of continuing to be agents for change, they now need
to become facilitators, helping communities achieve the goals they have defined for themselves.
The main role of outsiders / extension agents is to support farmers in their activities (Chambers,
Pacey & Thrupp 1989: 183):
Farmers' activities
Analysis
New roles for outsiders
Convenor, catalyst, adviser
Choice
Searcher, supplier, travel agent
Experiment / implementation
Supporter, consultant
Successful application of participatory technology dissemination and extension approaches
requires a radical shift in the role perception and attitudes of extension workers, who have to
become listeners and facilitators. Inevitably, this will take much time and effort. Many
scientists, teachers and extensionists are still 'trapped' in top-down, centre-outward institutions
and ToT thinking and not all of them are ready or able to change their attitudes and roleperception. However, experience shows that adequate training and facilitation could change an
extension service in a period of five to 10 years.
6.3.3.
Beyond farmer first approach
Reflections about processes of technology dissemination continue. Since 1994, the assumptions,
the roles of insiders and outsiders and the styles of investigation of PEA/FF approaches have
been criticized. Some observers call the PEA/FF approach a 'populist' paradigm that is rather
idealistic. Most critics agree that the participatory approaches are a big step in the right
direction, but argue that it is socio-politically naïve. They suggest that improvements have to be
made in relation to the following issues (Scoones & Thompson 1994):
Power and the pluralism of knowledge
Farming communities do not share common goals and it is therefore too simplistic to look for
consensus solutions. The search for solutions is a negotiation process in a power-laden context.
So, whose knowledge, criteria and priorities count? Which social categories put forward
suggestions for development activities? Where and with whom experiments are done? What
about the silent majority in the villages? For anyone working in the domain of agricultural
research and extension, these questions are highly relevant, because they make us more critical
to farmer answers and suggestions. Social differences (due to age, gender, status, wealth,
political influence and so on) not only influence perceptions and actions, but also access to and
control of resources. These differences have to be taken into account.
Quality of the implementation of participatory approaches
The 'beyond farmer first' approach is also not yet satisfied with the level of participation of
farmers because in reality PEA/FF practitioners have largely remained information collectors
and documenters of rural people's knowledge. They also often link up with the local
establishment (male, less poor, 'progressive farmers'), and do not sufficiently access to people
who are less influential. This leads to a situation that the local elite and the outsider/facilitator
define the agenda.
Institutions
The third major theme concerns institutions. Analysts observe that although working methods in
the field might have changed, the organisations involved in PTDD have not changed their own
procedures, style and culture. PEA/FF practitioners often still work in organisations that are
characterised by top-down hierarchies, supply-driven work programmes and a subservient
culture that does not value own initiatives. The institutions themselves still seem to be in the
ToT/T&V system.
8
Phase 1 FSA training
Module 6: Participatory technology dissemination
Changes in institutional set-ups and policies are needed to make sure that the shift from ToT to
PEA/FF is complete and will be sustained. Participatory approaches that are supposed to be led
by local demands need more devolved and decentralized arrangements. But transforming
organisations - and the individuals within them - is by no means an easy task. The ToT approach
is firmly entrenched in institutional cultures, and in management and financial procedures, and
is continuously reinforced by training in mainstream educational institutions (Farrington 1994:
9).
6.4.
The social organisation of the innovation process: actors and linkages
6.4.1.
Introduction
Actors disseminate technologies. 'Actor' can refer to an individual person, a group, an
organisation or a network: all interact, taking and implementing decisions on the basis of their
own perceptions, interests, agendas, understandings and the opportunities they perceive (Engel
& Salomon 1997: 72). Certain actors, especially public sector extension services and private
commercial organisations have been involved in providing extension services for a very long
time. The involvement of NGO's is more recent. Other actors clearly can and should incorporate
extension functions in their work, but they may not consider themselves to be extension
agencies as such (traders, producer organisations, credit providers; Christoplos et al., 2001).
The public sector, private commercial and non-profit organisations have different objectives,
capacities and resources. This gives rise to the situation that some organisations potentially
serve some clients better than others. But in general, all service providers face difficulties (or
are not that motivated) to reach resource-poor farmers. There is growing consensus that no
single actor or agency is able to offer the whole range of services to clients in the agricultural
sector. There is a need for a range of extension agencies. During the last decade, many analysts
have suggested that networking, pluralism and public-private partnerships are key to more
effective agricultural development. This standpoint is partially the result of the problems faced
by public sector extension services.
Farmers interact with a multitude of people of different backgrounds and organisations. Norman
Long (1989) calls the face-to-face encounters between farmers and these 'outsiders' (researchers,
extensionists, development and social workers) social 'interfaces'. In the next sections, we will
explore who these actors are and how farmers are linked to them.
6.4.2.
The actors: organisations and institutions involved in agricultural service delivery
The following overview is based on the review of several documents, including a recent study
conducted in four districts in Kenya (Rees et al. 2000).
Public sector
Poverty reduction and agricultural development are objectives that are high on the political
agenda of any African country. The main aim of the public sector has been to enhance the
efficiency of research and extension services in delivering adoptable and suitable technologies
to rural populations. In most rural areas, government departments and parastatals are active in
agriculture. These organisations are generally centralised (major decisions taken the national
capital) and fragmented (poor coordination between ministries and departments within districts).
Non-governmental organisations
NGO's often mandate themselves to concentrate substantial resources in a small number of
villages, often in difficult areas. This favours the development of innovative approaches and
gives NGO's an opportunity to focus on empowering types of participation. However, NGO's
capacity for wide-scale dissemination of technology options remains limited and levels of unit
costs are beyond the reach of the public sector (Farrington, 1998).
9
Phase 1 FSA training
Module 6: Participatory technology dissemination
Compared to government extension services NGO's can work through less bureaucracy and can
be more efficient. NGO staff is often also better trained to support group formation among
farmers. On the other hand NGO staff may lack the technical competence needed to advise
farmers on how they can increase their productivity. Some NGO's have been rather successful
in helping farmers to increase their income and/or in making their farming systems more
sustainable through the use of participatory approaches. So far, however, these approaches have
been most successful in small-scale projects (Van den Ban, 2000). It has yet to be shown how
such approaches can be scaled up to increase the productivity of millions of farmers.
Private commercial sector
With market liberalization, the private commercial sector is increasingly involved in the
provision of agricultural services. Organisations, institutions and individuals providing goods
and services to farming communities include individual traders, stockists, trading companies,
seed and livestock suppliers, agrochemical and veterinary goods suppliers, banks, transporters,
tractor and oxen rental suppliers, providers of artificial insemination and bull schemes, millers,
milk processors, local vet's, etc.
The involvement of agribusiness in technology development and dissemination is largely
limited to high-potential areas and cash crop production: commercial companies try to make a
profit through trade. They invest in extension only if they are convinced this will promote their
trade. For example, a pesticide will not work if it is used on the wrong disease or applied at the
wrong time. A farmer who uses a pesticide incorrectly may advise his or her colleagues against
the pesticide, thus decreasing the sales of the pesticide company. It is in the interest of
commercial companies to teach its customers how to use their products correctly. In
commercially oriented agricultural production it is in the interest of banks and commercial
companies that farmers are successful. The probability that a farmer will repay a loan from the
bank depends on whether or not the loan has been invested for a good return without too much
risk. Many banks have realised that it is profitable for them to advise their clients on investment
decisions and sometimes also on other aspects of farm management (Van den Ban, 2000).
Community based organisations
Community based organisations (CBO's) can be found in most rural areas, but more so in higher
potential areas (women's groups, youth groups, saving and credit groups, dip committees, water
committees, farmer cooperatives, farmer field schools, farmer research groups, farmer extension
groups, etc).
Churches
Religious organisations continue to play an influential role, both in urban and rural areas. Many
forms of association beyond the family are church based, and church leaders are often locally
influential. As such they offer entry points, especially to NGO's and CBO's. the long-term
commitment to development make church-based organisations potential partners for knowledge
dissemination. Some churches have agriculturally-oriented development wings. Ukiriguru
ARDI works together with the Mara Diocese (Buhemba farm and Mogabiri training centre).
Mara Diocese, in collaboration with GO, NGO and other actors, has established a quarterly
'Mara Development Forum' during which information is shared. Among others, this led to a
joint seed multiplication project. Recently NZARDI has established a relationship with 'Sauti ya
Ingili' for the weekly transmission of a 15 minutes radio programme on agricultural
development and technologies.
10
Phase 1 FSA training
6.3.2.
Module 6: Participatory technology dissemination
Service delivery and interfaces
Rees et al. (2000) distinguish the following functional linkages (interfaces) that can exist
between actors:
Service linkages. These include veterinary services, tractor hire, artificial insemination, crop
spraying, supply of seeds and seedlings and supply of inputs.
Market linkages. These include crop marketing boards, farmer cooperatives, livestock and
commodity traders, vegetable and milk hawkers, private processing plants, and others.
Extension and training linkages. Extension and training activities are mainly carried out by
government services and NGO's. NGO's provide their services more intensively, but are
generally localized. The government extension has a more extensive coverage, but it's impact is
less felt. Representatives of the private sector occasionally give on-site advice. Neighbours,
friends, family members and CBO's play an important role in further dissemination of services.
In case, extension and training apply the training-of-trainers approach, the impact of farmer to
farmer training and dissemination can be significant.
Basic needs linkages. These are most often provided by NGO's and church-based organisations
(shelter, sanitation, food relief).
Information seeking linkages. Individual farmers, CBO's and certain private sector
representatives seek information from GO and NGO agencies on agricultural problems and
market situations.
6.3.3.
Variations in service delivery
Analysis of the number of actors and the intensity of service delivery reveals that the
dissemination of agricultural knowledge and information often varies with:

Type of enterprises. For instance an largely grown export commodity like coffee or cotton
may receive more attention than a crop cultivated by a small group of people for local use
such as Bambara groundnuts;

Agro-ecological conditions and rural infrastructure. Remote and low-potential areas with
poor infrastructure may receive less attention from extension than fertile areas close to the
tarmac road or major towns.

The administrative area. In certain districts governmental and one or two small NGO's may
be the only main actors, while in other districts private commercial companies play a major
role.
It's important to be aware of these variations because they determine the possible uptake
pathways or the 'dissemination potential' of technologies. Most often, district-specific and
commodity-specific strategies are needed. While preparing research proposals, it is important to
show sensitivity to the diverse options for technology dissemination, especially in a context
where sponsors attach a high priority to the potential impact of research results. The following
section presents some tools that may help to analyse knowledge systems and communication
networks.
6.3.4.
Appraisal of agricultural knowledge systems and communication networks
Recently, 'rapid' and participatory tools for the analysis of Agricultural Knowledge and
Information Systems (AKIS) have become available. These are known as Rapid (or relaxed)
appraisal of agricultural knowledge systems (RAAKS; Engel & Salomon 1997). The RAAKS
appraisal approach includes windows and tools. Windows are analytical perspectives on certain
issues that are relevant for the understanding the AKIS (actor analysis, knowledge network and
integration analysis, task analysis, influence/coordination analysis, communication analysis,
impact analysis). Tools help in gathering, organizing and interpreting information in a
participatory manner.
11
Phase 1 FSA training
Module 6: Participatory technology dissemination
Some of these tools are presented in table 6.3. A more detailed description of AKIS/RAAKS is
unfortunately beyond the scope of this module. The publications of Engel & Salomon (1997)
and of Rees et al. (2000) are highly recommended for further reading.
Table 6.3.
Tools
Actor
identification
Communication
networks
Linkage
matrices
Task analysis
Info-SourceUse (impact
analysis)
Basic
configurations
Prime mover
septagram
RAAKS tools and their expected outputs
Expected outputs
 Description of the relevant actors (individuals and organisations),
summarizing their most important features in relation to the way they
function within the knowledge system.
 A more profound understanding of the functioning of particular actors, from
their own point of view.
 Insight in the positions actors have within different communication networks,
as well as patterns of communication among them.
 Increased understanding of the relevance of actors to each other.
 Matrix summarizing information on the existence, frequency and intensity of
contacts between pairs of actors.
 Insights related to clusters of actors and segmentation within the knowledge
system.
 Insight into gaps and overlapping in the functions of actors in the system.
 Greater understanding of linkages between actors who perform different but
complementary tasks.
 Matrices showing most-used information sources, for each type of
information and actor; these suggest the comparative relevance of these
sources in providing information to clients.
 Indications of the relevance of the information available and the extent to
which each source reaches relevant users.
 A multiple system model, reflecting the mechanisms that are dominant in the
system.
 Identification, based on actors' perceptions, of the 'prime movers' - those who
give the leadership and have the most influence on whtat happens within the
system.
 A picture (in form of septagrams) of the influence and/or leadership of each
of the prime movers as seen by different sub-groups/actors.
In an AKIS/RAAKS survey in Kenya farmers indicated that the most serious constraints for
effective information flow were inadequate human resources for both government and nongovernmental organisations, and poor local leadership for CBO's. Extension staff stressed the
lack of resources to mobilise communities and poor communication with researchers leading to
information distortion (Rees et al., 2000). The same study revealed that farmers get most of
their information from their immediate surroundings (friends , neighbours and others) and also
from the radio.
12
Phase 1 FSA training
6.5.
Module 6: Participatory technology dissemination
Future outlook of technology dissemination systems and coalitions
Public sector agricultural extension: is there life after structural adjustment?
This provocative question is the title of paper of John Farrington (1994). It is based on an
assessment of the following factors:
 Fiscal crisis. Many governments have found it difficult to make adequate resources
available for agricultural extension. Structural adjustment programmes have
exacerbated the situation. Financial pressures led to the reduction of staff, less
facilitation and training.
 Poor (or unknown) performance. Although the impact of extension on production can
hardly be singled out from other factors, most evaluations indicate low or moderate
returns to extension expenditures.
 Changing contexts and opportunities. Opportunities for small farmers to acquire
technical information from sources other than the public sector have expanded.
Improved transport led to a larger presence of NGO's and the private sector in remote
areas and more farmers travel to other rural areas and towns. Radio, television and
(sometimes) internet are have improved access to information. Higher literacy levels
expanded the opportunities for the spread of technical information through printed
materials. Radio, video and written materials could be more innovatively used and
reduce the cost of field staff.
 Pressures towards participation and good governance led to the interrogation whether
it wouldn't be better if governments should restrict themselves to supporting other
actors.
 These organisations could focus more on farmer-to-farmer dissemination strategies and
could use para-professional' extensionists who are selected from farmer groups.
As we have seen in paragraph 6.1. for Tanzania, the 'track record' of national agricultural
extension services has so far not been very impressive. Van den Ban (2000) argues that the
public sector should invest in a government agricultural extension system only:
 when the general public benefits more from extension than the individual participant;
 for a type of extension that can be done better or cheaper by the government than by others;
 when government agricultural development programmes can be made more effective if they
are combined with extension;
 when necessary public benefits are not sufficiently provided by private enterprise.
If this is not the case, extension services should be left to other actors / agencies. The extension
services of the future will most probably significantly differ from the public ToT blanket
recommendation type of organisations we had in the past. Some tendencies are evolving:
Pluralism and coalitions. The different objectives and working styles of GO, NGO's, the
commercial private sector, CBO's and church-based organisation provide opportunities for
improved collaboration. So far, public-private collaboration has most often been ad hoc and
short-lived. However, the involvement of NGO's and farmer organisations in participatory
technology dissemination could be more effective and better sustained.
Sub-contracting and output related rewarding systems. In a number of countries extension tasks
are contracted out to NGO's and farmer associations, especially where these organisations are
strong (Whiteside, 1998). In other countries, extension workers receive a basic salary and will
only get topping up allowances (the second part of their salary) or promotion when objectively
verifiable results have been obtained or when the farmers have indicated that they are satisfied.
13
Phase 1 FSA training
Module 6: Participatory technology dissemination
Private sector involvement. Partnerships with the private commercial sector, e.g. outgrower
schemes, are increasingly introduced, also in Tanzania (URT/MAFS, 2001). There are many
opportunities in this collaboration, but also a number of dangers. For example, in Zimbabwe,
private sector sponsored demonstration plots led to demonstrations of high-input techniques, but
not of low-input alternatives. Another danger is that the free flow of information might be
threatened: farmers who have paid for information may be less likely to share it with others.
Improvement of enabling environment. Instead of direct contacts with farmers, governments
may instead focus on indirect measures: rural roads, telecommunications, literacy training, rural
banks, administrative and fiscal decentralisation, democratisation, promotion of farmer
organisations.
Although it seems clear that far-reaching change is imminent, it is clear that the public sector
will always have a role to play. Instead of direct involvement, this might become a
predominantly facilitating role. Although, the public sector faces serious financial constraints,
there is considerable scope to diversify sources of funding of research and extension through
selective privatisation, diversification of sources of funding, joint competitive bids, user
contributions and the levying of fees (Beynon 1996). Some of these possibilities are mentioned
in 6.6.3. The public sector will still have an important role to play in areas where natural
resource management problems are severe, where the majority of farmers are small and lowresource, or where the institutional and physical infrastructure conditions do not favour private
sector involvement.
In an overview paper, Farrington (1998) indicates that lessons from the past decade suggest the
following policy conclusions:
 A wide range of participatory approaches have been developed. The need now is not for
yet more of these, but for support to governments to implement even the most
functional types of participation on a wide scale.
 To facilitate this, substantial reform is needed within the government, to stimulate the
market provision of technology services to better off farmers, and allow public sector
resources to be switched into dealing with the multi-faceted problems of difficult areas.
 NGO's mandate themselves to concentrate substantial resources in a small number of
villages, often in difficult areas. This favours the development of innovative,
empowering approaches, but at levels of unit cost beyond the reach of the public sector.
Wide-scale replicability should be a key design criterion for any future approaches
developed by NGO's of 'special projects'.
 Stronger participation of poor, marginalized groups also depends on widespread basic
literacy and numeracy skills, and these remain the responsibility of government.
However, incomes have to rise first before the very poor can afford to let children go to
school.
 The strength of NGO's is mainly in the domain of participation and empowerment. The
private sector scores high on efficiency and cost effectiveness. The government is
relatively good at developing sound technology. There is a high potential for successful
partnerships between NGO's, private sector and government, which draws on the
strengths of both sides. But this can only happen if each moderates its prejudices.
 Such partnerships also rely on agreed and transparent monitoring of the process of
interaction.
 Donors can usefully help in testing a range of approaches to multi-agency partnership.
14
Phase 1 FSA training
6.6.
Module 6: Participatory technology dissemination
Bridging the gap between research and extension in Tanzania
Having examined the possible future outlook of extension and technology dissemination
systems, this last paragraph returns to the reality of today and suggests some practical
possibilities to bridge the gap between research and extension in Tanzania. But first we look at
the different realities of research and extension.
6.6.1.
Different worlds
Even though research institutes do not have an explicit extension mandate they have an
important role in the dissemination of research results. However, there are several problems that
have to be overcome, because in many countries - and Tanzania is one of them - a large gap
separates research and extension. It is as if research and extension live in different worlds.
Different cultures and languages
Researchers and extension workers are not necessarily sharing the same values. Researchers
look for scientific evidence and have their peer researchers as their reference group. Articles in
international scientific publications sometimes seem to be more valued than leaflets for farmers.
Scientists may come up with technically sound recommendations, which are not sufficiently
disseminated or which have not been demonstrated to be practically feasible, e.g. adapted to
local situations. Extension workers often have their intervention zone as their area of reference.
They may not grasp scientific language and are sometimes not even interested in what happens
outside their area. Extension workers may suggest practical solutions to farmers, which are not
technically sound. Also, extension workers may lack the latest information on agronomic
practices, pest and disease control, post-harvest technologies, potential new crops and varieties,
etc.
Different ministries
Agricultural research was under the Ministry of Agriculture and Co-operatives, which was split
into MAFS, MWLD and MMCD in 2000. Since 1998, extension is no longer under the Ministry
of Agriculture. Since then, it is under the Ministry of Regional Administration and Local
Governance (MRALG), as part of the ongoing decentralization process. This has created a
bigger distance between the search for agricultural innovation on the one hand and the
implementation of agricultural innovations on the other hand. Experience shows that it is now
more difficult to bring research and extension together. Often, the question "who is funding
what?" already distorts the contacts.
Different budget years
The budget year of MRALG is January – December. For all other Ministries, including MAFS,
the budget year is July-June. This makes planning, harmonisation and synchronisation of
activities more difficult.
These different worlds have to be brought together, but what can be done?
6.6.2.
What research and extension could do to reach out and bridge the gap
In the current institutional set-up, research and extension are obliged to make efforts to reach
out and join hands. The overview presented on the next pages suggests several activities, in the
areas of linkage and collaboration, research planning, monitoring & evaluation, output
production and information sharing.
15
Phase 1 FSA training
Module 6: Participatory technology dissemination
Linkage and collaboration
What research could do
Self-promotion through public relations (logo,
business cards, flyers, calendar, seasonal
greetings)
Better understanding of stakeholder needs
through establishment of liaison teams
(ZRELO, Linkage Monitoring Committee and
nomination of liaison officers)
Make extensive stakeholder inventory and/or
AKIS analysis.
Produce publication list and order forms
Have an up-to-date mailing list and
systematically share information
(Co-)organize stakeholder meetings and
facilitation of participation of research
Stakeholder tours
Receive stakeholder teams at research station
Establish FRG-FEG or FFS system per district
Organisation of open day at station
Active participation in farmer field day and,
eventually, cost-sharing
Preparation of exposition materials and
participation in agricultural shows
What extension could do
React Get to know research better
Explain research needs and other
problems to research, eventually through
specific District Research-Extension
Liaison officers
Provide information needed for inventory
and mailing list
Consult publication list and order
documents
Announcement of documents received to
subject matter specialists and extension
staff
(Co-)organize stakeholder meetings and
facilitation of participation of extension
Receive teams and discuss with them
Visit to research stations
Establish FRG-FEG or FFS system per
district
Facilitate extension officers and farmers
to attend open day
Organisation of farmer field days
Organisation of agricultural shows
Research planning, monitoring and evaluation
What research could do
Give feedback to extension on research results
that were obtained (sept-oct)
Elaborate strategic plans per commodity
and/or discipline
Develop farming system zonation map
Distribute FSZ map to stakeholders
Develop social stratification and gender
analysis
Write joint research proposals (in
collaboration with client)
Look for funding opportunities
Organise M&E of on-going field trials
Participate in M&E of extension programme
Adoptability and adoption studies
16
What extension could do
Indicate level of satisfaction and bring up
(researchable) problems (sept-oct)
Provide input for and give feedback on
strategic plans
Provide input for and give feedback on
FSZ map
Provide input for and give feedback on
social stratification analysis
Participate in research proposal writing
Look for funding opportunities
Participate in M&E tours
Organise M&E of extension programme
React on results: facilitate adoption
Phase 1 FSA training
Module 6: Participatory technology dissemination
Output production and information sharing
What research could do
Set-up of attractive publication series (field
notes including fact sheets) and send at least
one copy to stakeholders
Production of leaflets and posters
Develop training modules
Integrate research and training better
Production of radio programmes
Editing of newsletter (quarterly, bi-annual)
Accessible library and literature search
facilities (internet)
Participate in the development of statistical
database
6.6.3
What extension could do
Set-up of district information centres and
NGO office libraries where publications
are displayed and can be consulted.
Participate in review of leaflets and
posters. Multiply and disseminate to
farmers.
Participate in review of modules
Organise training programmes for district
staff, VEO’s and farmers
Establish district training centers (Cf.
Mogabiri Centre in Tarime District)
Facilitate air time
Subscribe and contribute to newsletter
Visit to library and internet services. Use
of literature and latest information
Organisation of data gathering system at
village and farm level.
Funding arrangements that could improve links between research and extension
Local funding
Activities that are not too costly and that have a direct benefit can be directly funded by
stakeholders (districts, NGO’s):
 Production of leaflets, posters, training modules requested by client
 Multiplication and distribution of documents, brochures, leaflets, posters and
newsletters
 Training of district staff, VEO’s and farmers, including fees for trainers
 District specific adaptive research or survey
 Participation in seminars and meetings
 Organisation of farmer field days and agricultural shows
 ….
Zonal Agricultural Research Funds
For most research activities, districts and NGO’s may not be able or willing to pay for research.
The importance of a subject of a trial often goes well beyond district level. Concluding results
are generally not obtained in one budget year. These two characteristics of trials obviously
hamper local funding. For stakeholder-induced subjects for adaptive research, ZARF's can
possibly become the most important source of funding. However, ZARF started off as
‘something from research’. In most zones, they are not yet sufficiently well known by
stakeholders and local governments. Steps have to be taken in order to make sure that ZARF is
‘owned’ by the stakeholders: redefinition of the constitution of ZARF, professional management
of the fund and diversification of the sources of funding.
The ZARF management committee should represent the stakeholders, who could elect the MCmembers. Possibly, MC membership has to be revised in order to make it more representative.
For instance, two members per region and two members from research could be considered.
Those members of the ‘Assembly’ can bring in the issues for ZARF. ZARF then calls for
proposals to be submitted. In that case, ZARF is setting the agenda, instead of passively waiting
for proposals that are submitted by scientists.
17
Phase 1 FSA training
Module 6: Participatory technology dissemination
Attracting funds (and maintain funding) heavily depends on the quality of management. It
seems important to recruit administrative/financial officers (ZARF executive secretaries), who
are not a member of the management committee. An important challenge for the zonal funds is
to have various local contributions from different zonal stakeholders (both GO and NGO).
Local commitment as shown through financial contributions may convince resource-rich
sponsors to commit themselves to this research funding system.
Another issue to consider is the option to broaden the scope of ZARF projects; in addition to
adaptive research, also innovative dissemination projects might be considered for funding
(NARO/DFID 1999). ZARF may also label funds for joint research-extension proposals.
National and international sources
Increasing, research and extension have to seek funds from other sources than government
funds. It is widely accepted that joint research proposals (joint bids), elaborated by research and
extension, build up a stronger case when competing for funds, because the implication of
extension gives some indication that research results will be used. The same holds true for
development activities (for instance seed multiplication, mechanization, soil fertility
management). If research is participating, the proposal may be better appraised.
Some final remarks and questions
To bridge the gap, it is important that the coordination of agricultural development activities is
improved. Platforms are needed that coordinate and guide both research and extension at zonal,
regional and district level. The different worlds have to meet somewhere, otherwise the
possible actions from research and extension will not be related to each other and the
‘ineffective implementation’ will persist.
Some challenging questions to end with:
 Do managers have a firm grasp of the new visions on extension and developments
related to technology dissemination (participatory approaches, coalitions and
partnerships)?
 How will the recently adopted client service charter (URT 2002) affect the performance
and impact of research?
 Can the Zonal Executive Committee be transformed in a Zonal Agricultural
Development Authority?
 What about the linkage of research and extension at regional and district levels?
 Should field officers not be in the field, for instance one per district, and then act as
research-extension liaison officers?
 What role and which organisational set-up for the ZIMO and ZRELO offices?
 How can the public sector and the private sector work together better?
 Do extension agents (both GO and NGO) have the background training, flexibility,
resources and incentives to facilitate innovation processes? If not, what are alternatives?
 Shouldn't we use mass media and ICT more widely?
18
Phase 1 FSA training
Module 6: Participatory technology dissemination
References (and suggestions for further reading)
Ban, A.W. van den (2000). Different ways of financing agricultural extension. AgREN
Network Paper No. 106b. ODI, London. (Downloadable from the ODI web-site:
www.odi.org.uk/agren)
Beynon, J. (1996). Financing of agricultural research and extension for smallholder farmers in
sub-saharan Africa. ODI Natural resource perspectives, number 15, November 1996.
(Downloadable from the ODI web-site: www.odi.org.uk/nrp/15)
Bolliger, E., P. Reinhardt and T. Zwellweger (1994). Agricultural Extension: Guidelines for
extension workers in rural areas. SKAT, Swiss Centre for Development Co-operation in
Technology and Management, Switzerland.
Chambers, R. A. Pacey & LA Thrupp (1989) Farmer first. Farmer innovation and agricultural
research. London: Intermediate Technology Publications.
Christoplos, I., J. Farrington and A.D. Kidd (2001). Extension, Poverty and Vulnerability:
Inception report of a study for the Neuchatel Initiative. Working Paper No. 144. ODI, London.
(Downloadable from the ODI web-site: www.odi.org.uk)
DFID/ODI, 1997. Agricultural extension fact sheet.
Engel, P.G.H. (1997) Facilitation innovation for development. A RAAKS resource box.
Amsterdam: KIT Publications.
Eponou, T. (1993). Partners in Agricultural Technology: Linking research and technology transfer
to serve farmers. ISNAR Research Report No. 1. International Service for Agricultural Research,
The Hague, The Netherlands.
Farington, J. (1994). Public sector agricultural extension: is there life after structural
adjustment? ODI Natural resource perspectives, number 2, November 1994.
Farrington, J. (1998). Organisational roles in farmer participatory research and extension:
lessons from the last decade. Natural Resource Perspectives No. 27, January 1998. ODI,
London. (Downloadable from the ODI web-site)
Hagmann, J. E. Chuma, M. Conolly & K. Murwira (1998). Client-driven change and institutional
reform in agricultural extension: an action learning experience from Zimbabwe. AgREN Network
Paper No. 78. ODI, London. (Downloadable from the ODI web-site: www.odi.org.uk/agren)
ILEIA (2001). Scaling Up. ILEIA newsletter.
International Federation of Agricultural Producers (1990). Sustainable Farming and the role of
Farmers' Organisations. CTA Technical Centre for Agricultural and Rural Co-operation, The
Netherlands.
ISNAR (1997). Managing Linkages between research and technology users. Training Module.
International Services for National Agricultural Research, The Hague, The Netherlands.
Kirway, T.N. (1995). Linkages between agricultural research and various technology users. Paper
presented at the First National Workshop between Agricultural Research and Technology Users.
Held at AICC Arusha, April 5-7, 1995.
19
Phase 1 FSA training
Module 6: Participatory technology dissemination
Long, N. (1989). Encounters at the interface: a perspective on social discontinuities in rural
development. Wageningen studies in sociology 27. Wageningen agricultural university:,the
Netherlands.
Limbu, F. (1999). Agricultural technology: economic viability and poverty alleviation in Tanzania.
Paper presented at the Structural transformation policy workshop. Nairobi: ECAPAPA. Tegemeo
Institute and Michigan State University.
Lyimo, S.D, A.S. Nyaki and N.F. Massawe (1996). Proceedings of the first sensitisation meeting
on research, extension and farmers/NGO representatives linkages in the Northern Zone of
Tanzania. Held at Hotel Manor, Arusha, 10-12 April 1996.
Merrill-Sands, D, P. Ewell, S. Biggs and J. McAllister (1989). Issues in institutionalising On-Farm
Client Oriented Research: A review of experiences from nine National Agricultural Research
Systems. Staff Notes No. 89-57. ISNAR, The Hague, The Netherlands.
Merrill-Sands, D. and D. Kaimowitz with K. Sayce and S. Chater (1989). The Technology
Triangle: Linking farmers, technology transfer agents and agricultural researchers. Summary
Report of an International Workshop held at ISNAR, The Hague 20-25th Nov. 1989. ISNAR, The
Hague, The Netherlands.
Rees, D. et al. (2000). Agricultural knowledge and information systems in Kenya - implications for
technology dissemination and development. Network paper no. 107. ODI: Agricultural research &
extension network. (Downloadable from the ODI web-site: www.odi.org.uk/agren)
Roling, N. (1990). The Agricultural Research-Technology Transfer Interface: A Knowledge
Systems Perspective. In: Kaimowitz, D. (ed.). Making the Link: Agricultural research and
technology transfer in developing countries. ISNAR, The Hague, The Netherlands.
Rwenyagira, B.W. (1997). Linkages and Co-ordination during the National Agricultural Extension
Programme (NAEP II) Implementation. Paper Presented at the Zonal NAEP II Start Up
Workshops, on 13th January - 4th February 1997.
Sands, C.M. (1988). The theoretical and empirical basis for analysing agricultural technology
systems. Ph.D. thesis. University of Illinois, Champaign-Urbana, USA.
Scoones, I. & J. Thompson (1994). Beyond farmer first. Rural people's knowledge, agricultural
research and extension practice. London: Intermediate Technology Publications (IIED).
United Republic of Tanzania (1991). National Agricultural and Livestock Research Masterplan
1991. Annex I Part B, Reference Document No. 15.
United Republic of Tanzania/ Ministry of Agriculture and Food Security (2001). Agricultural
Sector Development Strategy. MAFS, Tanzania. (Downloadable from the web-site at
www.tzonline.org/policies.htm )
United Republic of Tanzania/ Ministry of Agriculture and Food Security (2002) Client service
charter. MAFS, Tanzania.
Whiteside, Martin (1998). Encouraging sustainable smallholder agriculture in southern Africa in
the context of agricultural services reform. Natural Resource Perspectives No. 36, July 1998.
ODI, London. (Downloadable from the ODI web-site: www.odi.org.uk/nrp/36)
20
Phase 1 FSA training
Module 6: Participatory technology dissemination
From original linkage module:
….. (1992). A National Farming Systems Research Strategy for Tanzania: Report of a Task Force.
….. (1992). Ways and means of fostering the institutionalisation of Research - Extension - Farmer
Linkages. Draft.
Anonymous (1988). Proceedings of the National Workshop on National Agricultural and Livestock
Research in Tanzania. Held at AICC Arusha April 25-30, 1988.
Anonymous (1995). A Draft Project Proposal for a linkage Plan and Strategy involving research,
extension and farmers. Paper presented to the second National Workshop on Linkages held at
AICC Arusha, November 1995.
Ministry of Agriculture (1995). National Agriculture and Livestock Extension Policy and
Implementation Guidelines. United Republic of Tanzania.
Ministry of Agriculture and Co-operatives (1997). Paper on implementation arrangements
presented to the NAEP II Start Up Workshop. MoAC, Tanzania.
Ministry of Agriculture and Co-operatives (1998). Tanzania Agricultural Research Project, Phase
Two (TARP II). Project Implementation Plan (PIP). MoAC, Department of Research and Training,
Tanzania.
21