Conference on Hunger and Poverty.- Discussion
Paper 2.- (September 1995)
Technology Generation and Diffusion
Technology Generation and
Diffusion through an Active Partnership between Research and Extension Institutions, NGOs
and Rural Communities
... to take better account of the
needs of the poorest
in planning agricultural research;
to involve rural producers and the organizations they form
in the execution of research;
and to improve the diffusion of their innovations
... building bridges between people's knowledge systems and aspirations,
and the national and international research and extension systems...
1. To eradicate hunger and poverty, improvements in such areas as infrastructure (e.g.,
water availability and distribution), communication and education, and health are needed.
At the same time, agricultural innovations remain critical too. For these reasons, this
Discussion Paper, as well as the Workshop and the Conference, will focus on agricultural
innovations and their diffusion.
2. Agricultural innovations and diffusion of new technologies are important factors in
developing countries' quests for food security. Public agricultural research, both
national and international, like much of development strategy, has bypassed the needs of
small and marginal farmers and concentrated primarily on better endowed regions,
commodity-intensive production systems, and commercial crops. Small producers,
particularly those operating in resource-poor areas, have benefitted much less from the
recent technological breakthroughs in agriculture. In order to attack poverty and hunger,
it is critical to redirect and augment resources devoted to agricultural research to the
farming and livelihood systems of poor rural communities. Some institutions, like IFAD,
have long advocated the critical need of extending research to the low- potential areas
and the traditional crops grown by the marginal farmers, women and indigenous populations,
building on their local knowledge and cultural practices.
3. Small farming in resource-poor areas must be sustainable, economical, and intensive
in order to provide dependable, long-term support for rural households:
(i) sustainable: the small size of farms, the lack of operating capital, and the
need to meet household food and monetary requirements, all increase the risk of
over-exploitation of the land's production capacity, especially as these micro-farms are
usually located in marginal or fragile ecological zones, and are often complex, combining
a number of crops, arable and livestock farming, and agroforestry. Conservation of soil
fertility using techniques involving agroforestry and plants and animal organic matter as
fertilizer should be the primary consideration of small farmers and those who wish to help
(ii) economical: poverty dictates several constraints on the choice of
techniques. Investment favours labour rather than capital, and biological methods are
preferred to mechanical techniques; and
(iii) intensive: micro-farms must often feed large families. They should
therefore be productive and diversified.
4. To achieve these three capabilities, small farmers must have access to sustainable
technology in agronomy, livestock, forestry, and fisheries. These techniques should also
be diversified, adapted (or adaptable) to the specific characteristics and constraints of
farming households, as well as appropriate to their different socio-economic and
agro-ecological environments. They must also protect the environment, and provide for
renewal of natural resources.
5. Agricultural research, both by the Consultative Group for International Agricultural
Research (CGIAR) and most other institutions, has not always done well in this respect. It
tended to neglect (i) small-scale, rainfed agriculture in resource-poor areas (where most
of the poor live) and the crops produced there; (ii) the specific needs, constraints, and
survival strategies of poor farmers; and (iii) the traditional knowledge and innovative
capacity of the poor farmers themselves. A final, closely related bias concerns the
functioning of extension systems, which were top-down, standardized, and based on one-way
communication (see Overview Paper, par. 57-65).
Evolution of the Global International Agricultural Research System
6. In order to respond to some of the above-mentioned problems, steps to reorganize the
global international agricultural research system and to develop new experimental
procedures of research and development are currently under way. Four trends can be
discerned: (i) a shift in research agenda to cater more to the rainfed and resource-poor
areas; (ii) the creation of regional research coalitions, to exploit the comparative
advantages of different actors, particularly the developing-country national agricultural
research systems (NARS) and the northern research organizations (labelled Advanced
Research Organizations -- AROs), and to make considerable economies of scale; (iii) the
development of links between the research system and NGOs and community organizations, to
put research more at the service of the producers; and (iv) the recognition of a
subsidiarity principle, to bring research as close as possible to farmers.
7. Research agenda are shifting to cater more to those rainfed and resource-poor areas
as well as to the conditions facing women farmers. This shift is necessary to promote
household food security for the rural poor. The CGIAR has recently decided to incorporate
the objectives of poverty reduction and environmental sustainability in the
identification of its future research priorities. IFAD is spearheading a collaborative
effort to strengthen the partnership arrangements between NARS and the CG-system with a
view to ensuring that future research programmes are more responsive to the requirements
of small producers and women farmers.
8. Based on the monitoring of regional agricultural resources and needs, the CGIAR,
NARS, and AROs could assign resources to Regional Action Programmes such as those
conceived within the Special Programme for African Agricultural Research (SPAAR). Such a
strategy of alliance between the different research institutions, through the creation of
eco-regional action programmes or inter-institute activities, will allow more diversified
technological solutions that are better adapted to very different socio-economic and
9. Having learnt from the insufficiency of the results obtained from the previous
programmes to control hunger and poverty, the World Bank seeks to mobilize traditional
bilateral and multilateral donors into a more participatory strategy. Such strategy
reserves a leading role for Southern NGOs, with the aim of drawing on their
"culture" of participatory intervention in the field, and their capacity for
community mobilization. In this strategy, an essential role should also be given to the
farmers' own organizations, including women's organizations. The development of a real
dialogue between farmers' organizations and national and international research
institutions would: (i) increase the relevance of research programmes chosen by national
and international institutions; and (ii) optimize the diffusion of new technologies by
continually involving farmers' organizations and NGOs in testing the new or improved
technologies under real conditions.
10. Many NGOs have stressed that the global international agricultural research system
should not be a monolithic knowledge structure characterized by centralization, remoteness
of decision- making and execution, exclusion of local actors in the process, and poor
distribution of resources to farmers' organizations. Rather, they should share a vision of
a pluralistic research system, in which multiple sources of innovation co-exist, according
to a subsidiarity principle. This means that research should be performed as
closely as possible to users and as much as possible by farmers. Research that can be
performed by farmers should be undertaken by farmers' organizations, programmes that can
be performed at the national level should be undertaken by NARS, and only those research
programmes that require CGIAR involvement should be performed at that level. Concurrently,
there is a need to promote knowledge-sharing in order to ensure that local innovations are
widely disseminated and to gain maximum economy of scale (see par. 46).
11. To conclude: the new framework of consultation and planning activities for the
global international agricultural research system should be organized around four key
(i) a "pluralistic view" of technology generation and diffusion, based on a
recognition of the multiplicity of actors and disciplines;
(ii) the goal of developing links with NGOs and community-based organizations (CBOs)
putting research at the service of the producer;
(iii) the regionalization of research programmes, to exploit the comparative advantages
of the different actors, particularly the NARS, and to make considerable economies of
(iv) the need to be cost-effective; the economics of the participatory approach must be
addressed in order to minimize its bureaucratic and transaction costs so that they will
not be as high as those of the so-called conventional research and extension approaches.
Towards a New Participatory Approach
12. There is now a general realization that the relation between research and
development should be modified. Since the seventies, a number of researchers and
extension institutions have become aware of the limits of the previous approach and begun
to promote more diversified innovation-diffusion procedures -- "research and
development" approaches. In these approaches, more attention is paid to user
expectations, with a substantial proportion of the experimental work transferred to the
real environment. Extension of the results is achieved by using advisory methods,
participatory monitoring and evaluation, or by assigning responsibility for diffusing
innovations to producers' organizations (farmers' organizations, NGOs, etc.).
13. These procedures have several major features. First, researchers consider that the
rural producers are partners in the innovation; they operate on the basis of
desires or interests expressed during exchanges with these partners. Thus their research
is embedded in real environments and development operations.
14. Second, partnership in the diffusion of innovations requires two-way
communication. As researchers deal with more partners and an increased diversity of
development operations, they have to attach increasing importance to farmers'
organizations or interprofessional bodies that can serve as effective mediators. Farmers,
and the organizations they form, participate in the diagnosis and the drawing-up of
research questions, in the testing of innovations, in diffusion tests and monitoring, etc.
Communication methods that permit true exchanges between researchers and development
partners are of major importance.
15. Many recent projects that include these elements of participation have produced extremely
encouraging results in terms of feasibility and sustainability. It is now known that
researchers can perform -- with perfect experimental rigour -- on-farm research, involving
users, that is directly related to the diffusion process 1/. These
successes permit better understanding of the general conditions necessary for the success
of participatory procedures, allowing to lay the foundations for their generalization --
even though there is no single, universal mode of farmer participation but different modes
of varying intensity according to the socio-cultural, institutional, and political
context, the type of innovation, the resources available, and the degree of awareness of
the persons concerned 2/. In the CGIAR system there are also
examples of integration of a bottom-up approach with farmer-extension-research linkages.
For instance, the successful International Institute of Tropical Agriculture (IITA)
cassava research programme increased outputs at farmer and national levels with consequent
improvements in food security, poverty reduction, and land savings through steeply
16. However, this new participatory orientation still presents many outstanding issues
and unresolved problems. One relates to the type and nature of the organizations
that will enter into research partnerships. In many regions, poor farmers' associations,
especially women's organizations, are few, young, and unprepared to work with research
institutions. If small farmers' organizations are to take their place in the global
research system and balance the more prevalent associations for export crops and wealthier
farmers, they must be promoted and strengthened (see the discussion of scaling-up in the
Empowerment Discussion Paper, par. 30-35). The research institutions' modes of functioning
must also be modified, to make meaningful interaction with small farmers' organizations
possible. Both sides in the partnership will have to reform structures and procedures to
take on new tasks.
17. Moreover, while research is an important element in achieving rural development,
its potential contribution can only be realized when other elements are in place. For
example, it is doubtful that many farmers will invest in developing land resources without
ownership. The incentive framework for the creation and adoption of valuable
innovation is also vital. Again, the degree of poor farmers' organizations is crucial
here. Only strong farmers' organizations can ensure the adoption and implementation of
government policies that reflect their needs and concerns, and create an enabling
environment for sustainable production and development.
18. The challenges ahead are many, and civil society will play a major role in
resolving them. The rest of this Discussion Paper will focus on three major challenges:
(i) to make the present system of research and technology development at the
international, national, and local levels more responsive and relevant to the needs and
potential of the poor; in part, by fostering a reciprocal farmer-researcher partnership,
in which research integrates the needs and interests, as well as the traditional
technologies and common knowledge of farmers;
(ii) to recognize, encourage, and reward local innovation and creativity and
disseminate its findings and products; and
(iii) to promote systems of extension and dissemination that are effective and
responsive to farmers' needs and capacities.
Reforms of the Agricultural Research Practices
19. Research systems must be people-centred, demand-driven and relevant and appropriate
for the poor small producers. The technology and accompanying support structures must be
within easy reach of, and affordable by, the intended clients with low risk-tolerance
threshold. Improving the responsiveness of agricultural research to the needs of the poor
and hungry will mainly be done through small farmers' participation in the identification
and planning of research projects. There is also need to evolve mechanisms for
transmitting problems to researchers who are willing to work in inter-disciplinary teams
with the farmers to find solutions to such problems within given socio-economic and
Identification Phase and Participatory Diagnosis
20. Incorporating small farmers' needs in planning research begins with better
knowledge of farming systems, the processes of change they underwent, and the
socio-economic development constraints. For example, farmers and especially women are
almost always part-time, engaged in non-agricultural activities, and this affects
decisions to innovate or adopt new technology. Such knowledge can best be gained through
concerted diagnosis by researchers and farmers. Understanding small farming systems also
permits to identify effective partners for the subsequent creation and diffusion phases.
This choice is essential, but a weak point in many projects 3/.
21. On the part of the agricultural research sector, this implies the need to:
(i) determine the object of research by drawing up typologies of the various
environments. Small farms can be identified and analysed according to characteristics that
cannot be reduced to their small size. Poverty -- and frequently precariousness of living
conditions -- impose a set of constraints, and result in the use of particular strategies
by small farmers, especially with regard to innovation and risk- taking; and
(ii) undertake specific research on technology generated by farmers themselves,
understand local modes of knowledge transmission, and adapt conventional research to the
specific conditions of small farms. The objective is sustainable, economic intensification
of the various categories of small farms.
22. Farmers' specific needs can then be defined with the rural participants, as
illustrated in the Nordeste of Brazil 4/, where rapid diagnosis of
research needs is successfully performed with farmers' cooperation.
23. During the identification phase of local needs, analysis of farmers' strategies
allows for assessment of farmers' initiatives and innovative capacities, and better
preparation for subsequent phases 5/.
24. Participation of small farmers' organizations, including women's organizations, is
essential. Experience in countries as varied as Senegal and Colombia has shown that these
organizations are effective in dialogue and that their involvement permits considerable
reduction in organizational costs 6/. These cases illustrate both
the effectiveness of the method and the precautions to be taken to ensure that the farming
world is satisfactorily represented -- in particular by including women. It is also noted
that in both cases the role of youth in production and sustainable development was
25. Diagnosis must take into account factors that surround local farmers' conditions,
such as national and regional market conditions and their synergy and complementarity with
food security, as well as the group dynamics at work in rural zones.
26. Once identified, farmers' requirements are converted into research programmes.
Farmers' participation in this phase is essential for their subsequent involvement 7/. According to the requirements and technical constraints, farmers --
supported by researchers and extension agents -- define priorities and development
strategies that can be developed at the national level by NARS.
27. Researchers then determine the research fields: basic research or adaptive research
under controlled or on-farm conditions. A pragmatic approach to planning and budgeting
permits identification of projects and operations that can be regrouped into priority
28. At this stage, the institutional set-up for management of the implementation phase
is determined. Farmers' organizations also participate in this decision, along with the
research institutions, development agencies, and representatives of the public
administration -- whose support is an all-important factor. The Institut d'Economie Rurale
in Mali is an excellent illustration of ongoing progress in institutional organization.
Another example comes from Senegal, where farmers' organizations in Casamance have
successfully signed contracts for the design of innovations with the Institut Sénégalais
de Recherche Agricole 9/.
29. Funding for the implementation phase is also vital. It is interesting that an
increasing number of farmers' organizations, and women's organizations in particular, are
arranging to participate in and sometimes to handle the funding for the research they
need, as illustrated in Central America 10/.
Recognition of Farmers' Knowledge and Innovative Capacities
30. Farmers have not waited for the creation of research institutes before improving
their farming systems through innovation. All societies have long traditions of inquiry
about human-nature interactions. This intricate knowledge about ecology and sustainable
ways of using natural resources is embedded in day- to-day practice, and also in folk
traditions, symbolic language, and cultural artifacts: sustainable solutions have both
rational/utilitarian aspects and cultural/"irrational" ones. Whenever new
constraints appear as a result of human or natural processes, new solutions have to be,
and often are, devised. Even the pressures and exclusion experienced by the poor have
often forced them to adopt survival strategies that include experimentation and
innovation. Hence, communities may be economically poor, but also knowledge-rich . 11/ It is this constantly evolving knowledge system which has helped
people to survive with more or less success.
31. With few exceptions, these knowledge systems, and their capacity for innovation,
have been downplayed and neglected by scientists, especially since colonization. The
curiosity to learn from indigenous knowledge has almost totally -- but not fully -- been
32. The challenge before the national and international research centres is to find
ways to strengthen or revive these indigenous knowledge systems. This is not easy, for
these indigenous systems of knowledge and creativity have a very different nature and
functioning than western systems of technology generation and transfer.
33. Much of the traditional knowledge, and the innovations developed in response to new
constraints, are very location- and culture-specific. The same constraint is not
necessarily resolved the same way across cultures, even within the same ecological region.
This diversity of solutions is rooted in the diversity of culture, language, and social
structure. As a result, indigenous mechanisms for the use and creation of innovations have
low compatibility with the western rules of scientific validation for capitalizing
34. Great difficulties can arise when exchange and diffusion are attempted between
cultures. The institutional dimension of these knowledge and innovation systems is an
integral part of their functioning . This implies that a sustainable search for an
alternative way of practising agriculture and related practices of managing human and
animal health is unlikely to be sustainable unless western science and external actors,
wanting to learn from and strengthen these systems, accept the difficult challenge of
modifying their own methods and ways of thinking.
35. Methods of horizontal, farmer-to-farmer learning and exchange must be developed. A
limited number of examples show that this can be done. The Innovator Workshops run in
Bangladesh are an excellent illustration 13/. They are organized by
researchers, but the participants are the most innovative farmers, who present their
innovations to their colleagues and the researchers. Forty-three innovations have been
presented here since 1982. Elsewhere, NGOs have invested in transporting farmers to
neighbouring villages, regions and even countries, to first-hand see and discuss
innovations with their peers. In India, a regular newsletter "Honeybee"
describes in several languages farmers' innovations, specifying name and address of the
36. In a time of growing economic liberalization at the national and international
levels, of expansion and monetization of commercial channels, technology must be supported
by trading channels to serve farmers. Therefore, critical issues are how to strengthen the
market context, ensure the marketability of innovations - among others through food
processing -- and promote the involvement of private companies and trading partners.
37. Almost all these examples are developed by civil society organizations, and tend to
be on a small scale. Can these experiences of horizontal farmer- to-farmer learning be
scaled-up, and become part of the ordinary behaviour of national and international
agricultural research and extension systems, or of local government structures? How should
that be done? Are there other ways, using written communications, radio or television in
local languages and respectful of local cultures, that would allow farmers' innovations to
spread widely? How can scientists be included in these processes of lateral learning in a
way to strengthens rather than overtake or denigrate them?
Reform of Extension Practices
38. Like the research system, extension systems must be people-centred, demand-driven
and relevant and appropriate for poor small producers. Therefore, extension systems must
respond to farmers' organizations as well as local government.
39. Farmers' participation in research planning and the creation/identification of
innovations generates the potential for their diffusion and is thus an essential component
of the diffusion process. The participation of extension agents in agricultural research
is equally important for the diffusion of innovations, and is a feature unfortunately
lacking in many projects 14/.
40. Analysis with the farmers of newly-created innovations in their technical and
socio-cultural context is the first stage in actual diffusion 15/.
This analysis is used to assemble technological packages that are tested by farmers to
identify the most relevant and to assemble sets of technical references, as shown by the
World Bank project "Mali - Sud". At this stage, researchers and extension agents
should demonstrate the appropriate technological packages to farmers and provide advice 16/.
41. Finally, partnership between researchers and farmers should not cease with farmers'
adoption of an innovation; this simply marks the end of a creation-and-diffusion phase.
The innovation must be followed up, after a set period of time, by an impact assessment
leading to new planning that starts the next improvement cycle. Unfortunately, few
projects illustrate the latter point because auditing with the users is rarely or poorly
integrated in projects.
42. Generally, extension systems should become more flexible, at the service of farmers
and their specific needs, and not the contrary. More specifically, the organization and
management of extension systems have to undergo the following transformations:
(i) from one-way to two-way communication systems;
(ii) from routinized schedules to flexible operations;
(iii) from a procedure orientation to a learning-opportunities orientation;
(iv) from top-down, vertical hierarchies to flatter, network organizations;
(v) from bureaucracy and scientist-driven to farmers' organizations and informal
(vi) from a production increase focus to a sustainable production management focus; and
(vii) from a transfer on technology transfer to a focus on the transfer of scientific
knowledge, incorporating more information on the environmental, biodiversity, and
bio-safety implications of new technologies, to enhance farmers' capacities for autonomous
43. It should be noted that while the extension machinery has grown greatly in
crop-related fields in most countries, extension improvements are urgently needed in the
livestock sector, horticulture, aquatic resources, forestry, and off-farm employment. All
are essential aspects of poor farmers' strategies of diversification and
44. Access to technology -- improved seeds, livestock, trees, agricultural, animal
husbandry and other farm techniques, and information -- is a basic element of any strategy
to promote food security and eradicate poverty. The technology generated should be adapted
to the requirements of small farmers in resource-poor areas -- to their specific needs,
survival strategies, and agro-ecological and cultural environments. This will only happen
if small farmers are much more closely involved in the generation and diffusion of
technology. Thus there is a need to rethink the structures, approach, and method of
agricultural research and extension systems throughout the world. Progress is being made,
but more needs to be done. Any positive change must necessarily give greater importance to
civil society organizations representing the interests of the poor and the hungry or
working with them.
45. Farming communities possess technological knowledge, as well as the capacity to
innovate by themselves. These capacities have usually been neglected by the formal
research and extension systems. Such links, however, must travel upwards from the national
systems to the international research centres and the Consultative Group system as a
whole. This was the sense of the extensive recommendations which emanated from the NARS
Consultation which was hosted by IFAD in Rome in December 1994. It is a matter of
satisfaction that the CGIAR in its renewal exercise has recently adopted as the future
vision of international public research the objective of integrating poverty, food
security and environmental concerns with the need to increase productivity and production
efficiency of agriculture. The success of this vision depends upon building close
partnerships between the international and national research systems, and other main
actors in the forward and backward linkages, particularly the farming communities which
constitute the ultimate rationale and justification in the research superstructure.
46. The table below synthesizes the priority policy objectives identified in this
Discussion Paper and the instruments proposed to achieve them.
|Promote NGOs and farmers' organizations involvement to act as interface
between poor farmers and research institutions.
Increase the administrative capacities
of farmers' organizations and NGOs for research activities while avoiding
|Focused policy guidelines regarding the mission, role, responsibilities,
funding and coordination mechanisms involving the parties in a technology-generation and
|Participation of NGOs and farmers' organizations -- especially of women
-- in the definition of the research agenda at the local, national, and regional levels
||Representation of farmers' organizations in the institutional bodies that
define the agenda and its various budgets
|Stimulate participation of poor farmers in the:
- identification and
creation of innovations
- evaluation of innovations
- demonstration of innovations to other
|Contracts between farmers' organizations and national and international
research institutions and extension services
Special Funds to promote, protect,
and compensate local individual and collective creativity, innovations, and property
Fiscal decentralization to provide both authority and resources for farmers'
|Improve the spread of farmers' own innovations through farmer-to-farmer
||Recognize farmers' innovative capacity as a source of technological innovation;
promote lateral, farmer-to-farmer horizontal learning through workshops, visits,
and the use of methods of mass communication
|Improve the collection of information, knowledge generation and sharing.
of farmers, researchers, and extension agents in the new participatory methodologies
|International and National Knowledge Network for dissemination of information
|Mobilize a coalition of donors, NGOs, farmers' organizations, and
research institutions to create and diffuse innovations for small-scale farms
||An International Coalition of Partners
1/ See Ewell, P.T. 1989. Linkages between On-Farm Research and Extension in Nine
Countries. OFCOR Comparative Study Paper N .4. The Hagues: ISNAR; Jamin, J.Y. 1993.
Expérimenter avec les paysans:Quelques Exemples des Actions du Projet RETAIL à l'Office
du Niger (Mali). CIRAD-SAR n 93/75, Montpellier.
2/ Of particular interest is Merrill-Sands D. and Kaimowitz D. 1990. The Technology
Triangle: Linking Farmers, Technology Transfer Agents, and Agricultural Researchers .
Summary Report of an International Workshop. The Hague: ISNAR, Nov. 1989. See also Ashby,
J. 1990. Small Farmers' Participation in the Design of Technologies. In Altieri, M.A. and
Hecht, S.B. Agroecology and Small Farm Development. Boca Raton, Florida: CRC Press, and
Biggs S.D. 1989. Resources-Poor Farmer Participation in Research: A Synthesis of
Experiences from Nine National Agricultural Research Systems. OFCOR Comparative Study
Paper N .3. The Hague: ISNAR. Likewise, projects led by EMBRAPA and CIRAD in Brazil
demonstrate the effectiveness of a participatory approach: see Tonneau, JP, Poudevigne, J.
Ferreira Lima, A. 1988. Recherche et Développement local dans le Nordeste Brésilien:
l'expérience de Massaroca. Cahiers de la Recherche Développement (FRA), n 19.
3/ See Merrill-Sands, D., Ewell, P., Biggs, S., Bingen, R.J., McAliister, J., and
Poats, S. 1990. Management of Key Institutional Linkages in On-Farm Client-Oriented
Research: Lesson from Nine National Agricultural Research Systems. OFCOR Synthesis Paper N
.1. The Hague: ISNAR.
4/ See Tonneau, JP, Lima, A.F., Poudevigne, J. 1990. A pesquisa em Sistema de
Produçào no CPATSA Orientaçào Metodologica. Petrolina (BRE), EMBRAPA-CPATSA, Circular
Técnica (BRE) n 24.
5/ See Losch, B, Fusiller, J.L., Dupraz, P. 1991. Stratégies des Producteurs en Zone
Caféière et Cacaoyère du Cameroun - Quelles Adaptations à la Crise? Coll. Documents
Systèmes Agraires, n 12. Montpellier, CIRAD-SAR.
6/ See Mercoiret M.R. 1994. L'Appui aux Producteurs Rureaux. Mini. Coop Karthala;
Asbhy, J. 1990. Small Farmers' Participation in the Design of Technologies. In Altieri,
M.A. and Hect, S.B. Agroecology and Small Farm Development. Boca Raton, Florida: CRC
7/ See Ashby, J. 1990. Small Farmers' Participation in the Design of Technologies. In
Altieri, M.A. and Hecht, S.B. Agroecology and Small Farm Development. Boca Raton, Florida:
CRC Press. See Röling, N. 1989. Why Farmers Matter: The Role of User Participation in
Technology Development and Delivery. The Hague: ISNAR.
8/ See Dollé, V., Ameur, C. 1994. Projet de Recherche et de Vulgarisation Agricole en
Tunisie. World Bank Project.
9/ See the success story on CADEF initiative in Senegal presented in the Conference
10/ See Trigo, E. 1993. Research & Development. in " Support Services to
Agriculture" International Symposium. San José, Costa Rica. World Bank - IICA -
11/ See Verma, M.R. and Singh, Y.P. A Plea for Studies in Traditional Animal Husbandry.
Farmer, 1969, vol. XLIII (2): 93-98; Richards, P. Africulture as a Performance, in Farmer
First, edited by Chambers, R. et.al., Intermediate Technology Publications, 1985: 39-43.
12/ See Gupta, A.K. Patel., N.K., Rekha, S. 1988. Matching Farmers' Concerns with
Technologists' Objectives in Dry Regions: An Explanatory Study of Scientific Goal Setting.
Indian Institute of Managament, Islamabad. Gupta, A.K., Patel, K.K., Pastakia, A.R.,
Chand, V.S., Empowerment for Sustainable Development: Building Upon Local Creativity and
Entrepreneurship in Vulnerable Environments, paper presented at the International Workshop
on Empowerment for Sustainable Development organized by the International Institute for
Sustainable Development, Winnipeg, Canada, Nov. 1-2, 193.
13/ See Abedin, M.Z. and Haque M.F. 1987. Learning from Farmer Innovations and
Innovator Workshops: Experience from Farmer Bangldesh. Paper prepared for the workshop on
Farmers and Agricultural Research: Complementary Methods held at IDS, University of
Sussex, Brighton, UK.
14/ See Ewell, P.T. 1989. Linkages between On-Farm Research and Extension in Nine
Countries. OFCOR Comparative Study Paper N .4. The Hague: ISNAR.
15/ See Séguy, L., Bouzinac, S., Pieri, C. 1991. An Approach to the Development of
Sustainable Farming Systems. International Workshop on Evaluation for Sustainable Land
Management in the Developing World Chiangrai, Thailand. Le Gal, P.Y., Havard, M.H. 1994.
Aide à l'Organization Collective du Travail en Riziculture Motorisée: Application d'une
Démarche de Conseil au Sénégal. International Symposium " Research System in
Agriculture and Rural Development " CIRAD, Montpellier.
16/ See Ouedraogo, S., Kleene, P., Faure, G., Djiguemde, A. 1991. Le Conseil de gestion
comme méthode de gestion de la Recherche Participative pour une Agriculture Durable -
Expérience du Burkina. Symposium Général Connaissance paysanne et Recherche
Participative pour une gestion durable des Ressources Naturelles et Agriculture Durable.
Discussion Paper 1: Empowerment of the poor
Discussion Paper 2: Enhancing technology generation and diffusion
Discussion Paper 3: Combating environmental degradation
Discussion Paper 4: Preventing disaster and reducing its impact on
IFAD Home Page
on Hunger and Poverty Home Page
Back to Top
Back to Overview