| Bachmann, Lorenz B. R.: Review of the Agricultural Knowledge System in Fiji - Opportunities and Limitations of Participatory Methods and Platforms to promote Innovation Development - |
Institut für Wirtschafts- und Sozialwissenschaften des Landbaus der Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin
zur Erlangung des akademischen Grades
Doctor rerum agriculturarum
(Dr. rer. agr.)
eingereicht an der
Landwirtschaftlich-Gärtnerischen Fakultät
der Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin
Präsident
Der Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin
Prof. Dr. Jürgen Mlynek
Dekan der
Landwirtschaftlich-Gärtnerischen Fakultät:
Prof. Dr. Dr. h. c. Ernst Lindemann.
Gutachter:
Prof. Dr. Uwe Jens Nagel
PD Dr. Andreas Nebelung
Tag der mündlichen Prüfung: 21.12.2000
Keywords:
Knowledge systems , Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA), plattforms, innovation development, research and extension priority setting
The small Island country Fiji has an articulated agricultural knowledge system with private and public institutions. The agricultural research and extension departments of the Ministry of Agriculture are the focus of this study. A participatory action research methodology was used to investigate the potential of participatory methods and to improve information flows between farmers and the Ministry in order to achieve a systematic Integration of farmers‘ problems into the knowledge system. Furthermore, the potential of platforms in improvement of the efficiency of work in the Ministry was studied.
Participatory methods proved suitable in improving the dialog with farmers and the analysis of their problems. Besides this, farmers potentials and their ideas for solutions could be assessed. As a result, a model for the systematic compilation of farmers‘ problems and respective research and extension priorities could be elaborated. The training course on participatory methods revealed the following strength of Ministry staff: organising surveys, field use of tools, presentation and visualisation of findings. Conceptual thinking, analytical skills, interpretation, and report writing skills were identified as weaknesses. These deficits restrict the problem solving potential of participatory methods in the Ministry. Further education of Ministry staff and revised curricula at the local agricultural colleges will be required, to raise the overall level of scientific education.
Four projects that were studied as cases for platforms, revealed that platforms were suitable means for promoting innovation development and somewhat less successful for the diffusion of findings. The most successful platform was characterised by a balanced contribution and participation of all actors involved. Strengths of the platform model were identified as such: better co-ordination, improved linkages, better interplay of actors, better means to reach goals, reduced duplication of efforts, and better use of resources. Weaknesses were seen in the need to achieve consensus and co-ordination, the weakening of hierarchical authority due to increased flexibility, and the fact that experienced-trained staff were not available in abundance in the Ministry.
Three years after the first introduction of participatory methods in the Ministry, a partial institutionalisation could be observed. For the further consolidation of participatory methods and platforms, a linkage unit for further promotion is recommended.
Schlagwörter:
Wissens Systeme, Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA) , Plattformen , Innovationsentwicklung, Prioritätensetzung für Forschung und Beratung
Der Inselstaat Fidschi im Südpazifik hat ein ausgeprägtes Landwirtschaftliches Wissenssystem mit einer Reihe privater und staatlicher Institutionen. Im Mittelpunkt der Untersuchung standen die staatlichen Agrarforschungs- und Beratungsabteilungen des Landwirtschaftsministeriums. Mit einem partizipativen Aktionsforschungsansatz wurde untersucht, welchen Beitrag partizipative Methoden zur Verbesserung des Informationsflusses zwischen Bauern und dem Ministerium leisten können, um damit eine systematische Integration der Probleme der Bauern im Wissenssystem zu erreichen. Weiterhin wurde erhoben, welchen Beitrag Plattformen für eine effizientere Arbeit im Ministerium leisten können.
Partizipative Methoden (PRA) erwiesen sich als sehr geeignet den Dialog mit den Bauern zu fördern und deren Probleme zu analysieren. Neben den Problemen konnten auch die Potenziale der Betriebe und bäuerliche Lösungsvorschläge gut erfasst werden. Als Ergebnis wurde eine Modell zur systematischen Problemerfassung und Bestimmung von Forschungs- und Beratungsprioritäten erarbeitet.
Der Trainingskurs in partizipativen Methoden zeigte folgende Stärken der lokalen Mitarbeiter auf: Organisieren von Untersuchungen, Anwendung partizipativer Methoden im Feld, praktische Implementierung, Visualisierung und Präsentation von Untersuchungsergebnissen. Schwachpunkte wurden hingegen in folgenden Bereichen festgestellt: konzeptionelles Denken, Interpretation und Auswertung der Daten sowie der schriftlichen Abfassung von Ergebnissen. Diese Defizite im konzeptionellen Bereich schränken das mit den Methoden erreichbare Problemlösungspotenzial ein. Weiterbildung der Mitarbeiter und eine Verbesserung der lokalen Agrarausbildung werden benötigt, um das Niveau der wissenschaftlichen Ausbildung anzuheben.
Die Untersuchung von vier Projekten zeigte, dass diese als Plattformen gut zur Innovationsentwicklung und eingeschränkt zu deren Verbreitung geeignet waren. Eine ausgewogene Beteiligung aller Akteure zeichnete die erfolgreichste Plattform aus. Als Stärken des Plattformmodells konnten festgehalten werden: bessere Koordination, verbesserte Verbindungen und Schnittstellen, bessere Zusammenarbeit aller Akteure, bessere Aussichten gesetzte Ziele zu erreichen, Vermeidung von Doppelforschung und eine effiziente Ausnutzung der vorhandenen Ressourcen. Schwächen des Modells wurden in folgenden Punkten gesehen: Konsenserzielung, institutionelle Akzeptanz und Mangel an entsprechend ausgebildeten Fachkräften im Ministerium.
Drei Jahre nach Beginn der Trainingsmaßnahmen konnte eine teilweise Institutionalisierung von partizipativen Methoden im Ministerium festgestellt werden. Zur weiteren Konsolidierung partizipativer Methoden und Plattformen wird eine Linkage-Abteilung empfohlen.
Table of Contents | |
| Front page | Review of the Agricultural Knowledge System in Fiji - Opportunities and Limitations of Participatory Methods and Platforms to promote Innovation Development - |
| Acknowledgements | |
| Abbreviations | List of Abbreviations |
| 1 | Problem definition and research purpose |
| 1.1 | Background of the study |
| 1.2 | Fiji, a small Island Nation struggling to face the challenges of globalisation |
| 1.3 | Research design |
| 1.3.1 | Research objectives and research questions |
| 1.3.2 | Working hypotheses |
| 1.4 | Organisation of the study |
| 2 | Theory review: Agricultural Innovation and Agricultural Knowledge Systems |
| 2.1 | Comparison of innovation theories |
| 2.2 | Agricultural Knowledge Systems |
| 2.2.1 | Knowledge system functions |
| 2.2.2 | Controversies in systems thinking |
| 2.2.3 | Platforms or theatres of agricultural innovation |
| 2.2.4 | Viewing the Fiji AKIS |
| 2.2.5 | Some criticism put forward |
| 3 | Methodological framework |
| 3.1 | Participatory Action Research (PAR) |
| 3.2 | The role of the researcher |
| 3.3 | Chronology of research activities |
| 3.4 | Tools and data quality |
| 4 | Fiji: country and agricultural development |
| 4.1 | Basic facts |
| 4.1.1 | Geography |
| 4.1.2 | Population and ethnic groups |
| 4.1.3 | Climate |
| 4.1.4 | Topography, land use and major farming systems |
| 4.1.5 | Land tenure |
| 4.2 | Productivity development of selected crop enterprises |
| 5 | The Agricultural Knowledge and Information System in Fiji |
| 5.1 | Overview: organisations, institutions and actors within the Fijian Agricultural Knowledge and Information System |
| 5.2 | Ministry of Agriculture, central player in the Fijian Agricultural Knowledge and Information System |
| 5.2.1 | Goals and organisational structure |
| 5.2.2 | Economic Planning and Statistics Division |
| 5.3 | Research Division |
| 5.3.1 | Mission and goals |
| 5.3.2 | Organisational structure and tasks |
| 5.3.3 | Available resources and staff qualifications |
| 5.3.4 | Research priority setting |
| 5.3.5 | Main activities and working approaches |
| 5.3.6 | Summarising conclusions |
| 5.4 | Extension Division |
| 5.4.1 | Mission and goals |
| 5.4.2 | Organisational structure, available resources and staff qualifications |
| 5.4.3 | Priority setting, activities and working approach |
| 5.4.4 | Summarising conclusions |
| 5.5 | Farmers, the knowledge users |
| 5.5.1 | Towards user classification; some socio-economic characteristics of farms |
| 5.5.1.1 | Labour availability on farms |
| 5.5.1.2 | Farm income and expenditure |
| 5.5.1.3 | Cropping activities |
| 5.5.1.4 | Conclusions on farm classification |
| 5.5.2 | Farmers‘ ways to acquire skills and information and attitude towards innovation |
| 5.5.3 | Basic needs satisfaction and farming problems |
| 5.5.4 | A model for integration farmers‘ problems into the AKIS |
| 5.6 | Linkages and information flow between the main actors |
| 5.6.1 | Existing linkage problems |
| 5.6.2 | Information flow |
| 6 | Improvement of the AKIS: some possible solutions |
| 6.1 | Addressing linkage problems |
| 6.1.1 | Measures of various donor projects |
| 6.1.2 | Impact of the measures to reduce linkage problems |
| 6.2 | Training participatory methods |
| 6.2.1 | First training cycle |
| 6.2.2 | Second training cycle |
| 6.2.3 | Third training cycle |
| 6.2.4 | Review of the training process |
| 6.2.4.1 | Evaluation after the completion of the training course |
| 6.2.4.2 | Longer term training impact two years later |
| 6.2.5 | Institutionalisation of participatory methods |
| 6.3 | Comparison of working approaches: selected study cases |
| 6.3.1 | Sigatoka Valley Rural Development Programme (SVRDP) |
| 6.3.2 | Vegetable seed and planting material (PRAP P3) |
| 6.3.3 | Agroforestry and farming systems (PRAP P1) |
| 6.3.4 | Pineapple export production |
| 6.3.5 | Conclusions of these experiences |
| 6.4 | Outlook: platforms as means to promote innovations |
| 6.4.1 | Platforms as linkage mechanism |
| 6.4.2 | Leadership and co-ordination in platforms |
| 6.4.3 | Policy framework for platforms |
| 6.4.4 | Driving force for platforms |
| 6.4.5 | Ways to start-up platforms |
| 6.4.6 | Suitability of the platform model for Fiji |
| 7 | Discussion of results and recommendations |
| 7.1 | Integrating farmers‘ problems into the AKIS |
| 7.2 | Making better use of participatory methods |
| 7.3 | Ways to improve the organisation and performance of the Ministry |
| 7.4 | The potential role of platforms in the AKIS |
| 7.5 | Fields for further research |
| 8 | Summaries |
| 8.1 | English summary |
| 8.2 | Deutsche Zusammenfassung |
| Bibliography | Bibliography |
| Appendix A | Annex |
| Vita | |
| Declaration | |
Table of Tables | |
| Table 1: | Research design |
| Table 2: | Basic configurations |
| Table 3: | Functions of knowledge systems according to various authors |
| Table 4: | Characteristics of hard and soft systems |
| Table 5: | Composition of workshop participants |
| Table 6: | RRA and PRA cycle length in weeks |
| Table 7: | Questionnaire sample size |
| Table 8: | Fiji in global comparison. |
| Table 9: | EP&S staff resources |
| Table 10: | Allocated budget of EP&S in ’000 FJD |
| Table 11: | Development of Research Division staff and remuneration levels |
| Table 12: | Position and highest qualification of Research Division staff |
| Table 13: | Research Division‘s budget development |
| Table 14: | Actor influence in the formulation of research priorities |
| Table 15: | Main sources of information used by the Research Division |
| Table 16: | Steps before recommendations release |
| Table 17: | Development of staff in the Extension Division |
| Table 18: | Qualification and position of Extension Division staff |
| Table 19: | Extension Division‘s budget development |
| Table 20: | Actor influence in the formulation of extension priorities |
| Table 21: | Main sources of information used by the Extension Division |
| Table 22: | Ratio of farmers to extension officers |
| Table 23: | Main reasons for farm visits |
| Table 24: | RRA/PRA exercises and specific variables investigated |
| Table 25: | Daily labour activity profile for farmers in lowland settlements Serua |
| Table 26: | Farmers‘ ranking of tomato variety characteristics |
| Table 27: | Farmers‘ problem ranking in selected settlements |
| Table 28: | Problems related to vegetable production by farmer group and location |
| Table 29: | Problems, their causes and solutions |
| Table 30: | Linkage problems: Improvement 1997 versus 1994 |
| Table 31: | Improvement of technology development and dissemination |
| Table 32: | Improvement of abilities during the training course |
| Table 33: | Rating of abilities of MAFF staff in PRA principles |
| Table 34: | Use of participatory methods |
| Table 35: | Use of participatory methods in selected application fields |
| Table 36: | Framework conditions for participatory methods |
| Table 37: | Potential of different actors for platform leadership |
| Table 38: | Strengths and weaknesses of the platform model |
| Annex 1: | Daily labour activity profile for farmers in an upland settlement |
| Annex 2: | Development of production for major crop enterprises |
| Annex 3: | General staff abilities rated by different groups |
Table of Figures | |
| Figure 1: | Knowledge system functions |
| Figure 2: | Composition of platforms |
| Figure 3: | Platform model |
| Figure 4: | The action research spiral |
| Figure 5: | Multiple-loop learning in action research |
| Figure 6: | Time chart of research activities |
| Figure 7: | Triangulation of tools and research topics |
| Figure 8: | Land use and economic structure |
| Figure 9: | Crop and livestock enterprises in relation to rainfall |
| Figure 10: | Partition of land |
| Figure 11: | Production development for major crops |
| Figure 12: | Yield development for selected crops 1976-1998 |
| Figure 13: | Average area and yield growth in % per year for selected crops 1976-1998 |
| Figure 14: | Simplified model of the Fijian AKIS |
| Figure 15: | MAFF organisational chart |
| Figure 16: | Research Division, organisational chart and station locations |
| Figure 17: | Time allocation of Research Division staff |
| Figure 18: | Time allocation of Extension Division staff |
| Figure 19: | Cropping pattern by area and farm type |
| Figure 20: | Basic needs satisfaction in selected locations |
| Figure 21: | Model for feeding farmers‘ problems into the AKIS |
| Figure 22: | Model of information flow at MAFF |
| Figure 23: | MAFF and organisational interaction: management group view |
| Figure 24: | MAFF and organisational interaction: cross sectional group view |
| Figure 25: | Relative influence of selected actors in the case studies |
| Figure 26: | New platform model |
© Die inhaltliche Zusammenstellung und Aufmachung dieser Publikation sowie die elektronische Verarbeitung sind urheberrechtlich geschützt. Jede Verwertung, die nicht ausdrücklich vom Urheberrechtsgesetz zugelassen ist, bedarf der vorherigen Zustimmung. Das gilt insbesondere für die Vervielfältigung, die Bearbeitung und Einspeicherung und Verarbeitung in elektronische Systeme.
|
DiML DTD Version 2.0 |
Zertifizierter Dokumentenserver der Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin |
HTML - Version erstellt am: Thu Mar 29 16:23:51 2001 |