6 Policies, Processes and Institutions
the beginning of projects, which are then assumed to represent the same condi-
tions for all farmers. These special project areas are much visited and reported on,
and again give the misleading impression that the same kinds of success are occur-
ring everywhere. Privileged water, supplied at the cost of other parts of a system, is
another special problem, appearing again to illustrate to unthinking professionals
that their projects are successful.
Part II: Participatory Processes
In the first article, drawn from the seminal 1989 book Farmer First, Robert Cham-
bers discusses the reversals necessary to put farmers’ knowledge and capacities at
the heart of agricultural transformations. For decades, agricultural research and
extension institutions have used a transfer-of-technology mode of working, with
farmers and their communities simply as recipients of technologies and practices
developed on research stations. A farmer first approach requires professionals to
adopt different attitudes and behaviour, becoming, for example, convenors, cata-
lysts, advisers, travel agents and supporters of farmers’ own analyses, choices and
experiments. The complex, diverse and risk-prone environments of many develop-
ing country contexts are not well-suited to homogenous technologies, however
effective they have been on research stations. They require that professionals reverse
past practices, and encourage farmers to conduct their own analyses and experi-
ments, thus adapting and fitting technologies to their own situations. Such reversals
of ‘normal practice’ also require institutional change, with policies and institutions
needing to facilitate such efforts. As Chambers said, the stakes are high, and a decade
and a half after this chapter was written, they remain disturbingly high for millions
of people and their environments.
There is a long history of participation in agricultural development; and a wide
range of development agencies, both national and international, have attempted to
involve people in some aspect of planning and implementation. Two overlapping
schools of thought and practice have evolved. One views participation as a means
to increase efficiency, the central notion being that if people are involved, then
they are more likely to agree with and support the new development or service.
The other sees participation as a fundamental right, in which the main aim is to
initiate mobilization for collective action, empowerment and institution building.
As a result, the terms ‘people’s participation’ and ‘popular participation’ are now
part of the normal language of many development agencies, including non-
governmental organizations (NGOs), government departments and banks. It is
such a fashion that almost everyone says that participation is part of their work.
This has created many paradoxes. The term ‘participation’ has been used to justify
the extension of control of the state as well as to build local capacity and self-reli-
ance; it has been used to justify external decisions as well as to devolve power and
decision making away from external agencies; it has been used for data collection