Zita Seichter & Anita Tobies22
The demonstration plot (Campo de Demonstração de Resultados – CDR) is described in the manu- al for extensionists as a place where valuable and approved techniques and their results are ap- plied. It is a method of showing small-scale farmers the advantage of using certain practices on a collective field (Gaspar, 2013).
Practice has shown, however, that the CDR is interpreted and used differently by different asso- ciations and individuals in accordance with their specific needs. These range from testing, demonstrating and learning about innovations to joint production and income generation for the respective association and its members.
Objectives and functioning
Almost all associations cultivate at least one or two CDRs; these are generally located at a place central to the association or directly beside the association headquarters. 13 of 15 interviewed
association presidents stated using oral meetings and demonstration plots to disseminate infor- mation (17_P_MP). Information sharing, however, is not necessarily the primary objective:
▪
The ‘10 de Novembro’ association calls its relatively large CDR a ‘production field’ (campo deprodução) and focuses on quantity in order to support the income of farmers and the
association; the learning objective is secondary;
▪
The ‘Marcelina Chissano Zimpeto’ association has a small CDR with several patches on which they experiment with crops such as onions or pumpkin leaves;▪
The ‘Eduardo Mondlane’ association supported by the NGO ESSOR has a model demonstration plot (campo modelo) that demonstrates agro-ecological techniques and a wider variety of crops: model farmers receive a consultancy on their fields, while participants from nearby plots observe.CDR sessions usually take place once or twice a week. The target group is the association mem- bership, although external farmers are not strictly excluded. Participation is obligatory for associ- ation members and in some instances, fines are levied if the obligation is not met. In reality, however, this is not pursued consistently.
▪
The extensionist guides through the CDR session. NGO technical advisors occasionally assist or co-facilitate;▪
Sessions normally begin with a practical unit in the field accompanied by explanations and continue off-field where everyone can discuss different aspects – not all of them related to the training in the field;▪
The extensionist brings the seeds but participants must bring any other equipment required;▪
Changana is the working language, although Portuguese is also spoken, in which case theparticipants organise the translation;
▪
As a rule, the produce cultivated on CDRs is sold; earnings go to the association. Leftover products are distributed among the participating farmers.An evaluation system guarantees the functioning and quality of the CDR. It is based on monthly reports by extensionists and control visits by authorities from the casas agrárias, the Extension Directorate of the municipal council. Although the system is not adequately designed to improve the quality of the CDR day by day, it at least assesses its general functioning.
The research usually saw no apparent difference between CDRs and farmers’ fields, neither in the layout, the design nor the techniques applied (e.g., cover crops). The plants looked no better or worse than those in ordinary fields. There was nothing to indicate the existence of the CDR or its function as a training space.
Training or information material was not used during the training sessions under review. Exten- sion workers and farmers report that the material distributed by NGOs or the ministries con- cerned was occasionally used to help farmers identify pest and disease in their fields. During the interviews, only a few farmers mentioned the need for further training material.
Contents and didactic
The knowledge transfer on CDRs works first and foremost via observation, comparison, practical work in the field and group discussions. Depending on their experience and know-how, farmers intervene and share their opinions. That said, although the extensionist is in the teaching posi- tion, there is no one-way communication.
CDR sessions focus on production methods for various crops, e.g., green leafy vegetables, beans or beetroot, peppers and tomatoes. Participants learn how to organise a field correctly, how to prepare the soil, how to plant and space accurately, how to use manure and how to use fertilisers and pesticides safely.
Depending on the extensionist, methods of vegetable production with a more agro-ecological bias are transmitted. Yet, these are limited to certain techniques due to low producer ac- ceptance. Mulching, crop rotation, organic fertiliser production (compost, ash) and organic plant protection products (chilli, papaya leaves, soap) are some of the techniques that are given a more favourable reception.
CDRs pursue a different approach to that of Farmer Field Schools (FFS). FFS focus on farmer to farmer learning whereby the extension worker merely facilitates the exchange process, while CDRs see the extensionist as the teacher and chief provider of information. Depending on the experience and standing of the farmers, however, CDR sessions can greatly contribute to partici- patory and empowering farmer to farmer communication.
Participation
The participation rate at demonstration plots varies considerably, oscillating between 5% and 100% of association members despite the risk of fines for non-participation (18_CDR_MP).
▪
The determining factor seems to be the size of the association, with higher participationrates in smaller associations of 10 to 20 members;
▪
The individual functioning of the CDR and its compliance with the needs of the farmers concerned likewise affects participation rates. Most producers seem eager to learn, others consider their participation a means of keeping abreast with recent association proceedings;▪
A key motivation to attend CDRs is the distribution of the produce among the participantfarmers, which is seen as a contribution to their income. One farmer reports: “I like it [the CDR] because it gives me a bit of food, right? So I like the school” (18_CDR_MP).
Urban producers are not a homogeneous group of people who share the same – positive – opin- ion on extension services. Some producers seem highly disillusioned by the public extension ser- vice and its extension officers: “We respect what they teach us, but they don’t acknowledge our concerns, they listen but don’t incorporate them in the field. There is this barrier […]” (18_CDR_MP). This is the main reason why farmers are reluctant to participate in CDR training. Their knowledge comes from informal knowledge exchange, which is hugely important and widely practised among urban producers.
Application
Just as farmer participation at CDRs fluctuates from one association to another, so does the ap- plication of the production techniques trained. Extension workers have gained the impression from field visits that most participants apply the methods discussed and tested. Given the lack of systematic monitoring of these new techniques, a robust statement on their application, on the drop-out rate (farmers who abandon new techniques after a trial phase) or on secondary uptake (non-participant farmers who learn from their peers) cannot be made. According to the inter- views, many of the participants apply techniques such as mulching, soil fertilisation with manure and the appropriate and secure use of pesticides after their attendance.
The adoption of new techniques depends on a variety of factors:
▪
Economic advantage: The selling price is determined by the appearance of the bed as a whole and not by the size and appearance of each individual plant, an argument that defeats giving priority to a greater (crop specific) distance between seedlings or plants. Proper plant spacing allows for the healthy development of individual plants but is not in the economic interest of the producers;▪
Proven applicability of innovation: The success of the experiments and the feasibility of what is learned for individual farmers is crucial, a factor primarily contingent on the extensionist’s own knowledge. Numerous extension workers considered their knowledge insufficiently updated and recognised that the urban context and agro-ecological methods and marketing techniques were not the focus of attention;▪
Trust: Trust in the public extension service and the extension officer has a huge influence on the acceptance and application of the training content. Moreover, it encourages the farmers when the association leadership takes part in a training session and lends an ear and a helping hand when it comes to farming problems;▪
Age and experience of farmers: Contradictory answers were heard in terms of the receptiveness of different age groups. That senior producers are the least likely to incorporate newly introduced techniques since the methods they use have proved effective over decades in the field was a common statement from farmers and a number of extension officers. It is also the reason why young extension workers are sometimes not accepted: “She [the extension worker] teaches, yes. But she is still a child, a poor girl. And she’s still studying” (18_CDR_MP). Some extension workers argued, on the other hand, that young producers were less likely to adapt to new technologies.Conclusion
A key advantage of CDR is the ability to reach a large group of people in a relatively short space of time in comparison to complementary on-field visits and the forthcoming Farmer Field Schools. The existing networks between the public extension service and NGOs involved in tech- nical assistance and between extension workers and producers are another valuable asset. These actors meet regularly and despite their disparate backgrounds and objectives, they all have the desire to improve the work in the green zones and back the advancement of agro-ecological pro- duction with varying degrees of commitment.
It has also emerged that information not only flows in one direction. It circulates, with extension workers and farmers alike describing their work as a collaborative knowledge transfer: “When we’re at the school, we’re all studying. There’s no professor, there’s no student, all of us study. Well, we exchange knowledge, there is a good relationship” (18_CDR_MP). Moreover, the shar- ing and discussion of techniques is highly valued.
The shift towards more sustainable and healthier, partly even agro-ecological, production meth- ods is a slow process for all age groups and across all associations. Deep-rooted habits have to be broken and the weak economic base of most producers makes them cautious about new meth- ods. At the same time, producers value the exchange of knowledge and the learning experience offered at the CDR and by extension workers. Some of the newer producers obtained most of their agricultural knowledge from extension workers. The fact that participation at CDRs increas- es individual incomes is a further incentive.
CDRs are the most established form of communal training. Its success is highly individual be- cause it relies heavily on the work of the extension officer involved, producer needs, the dynamic of the association concerned, the training group itself and the availability of resources. In order to roll out good agricultural practices, conditions pertaining to availability of the appropriate equipment (e.g., seeds) and regular updates of extensionist knowledge must be ensured.