104 Participatory Processes
projects, NGOs and producers’ organizations have been ‘intermediate users’ of
technology, exercising demands on the formal research organization on behalf of
farmers. There and elsewhere, both organizational links and staff careers are becom-
ing more varied and plural. Projects provide resources for scientists to travel and
for fieldwork with farmers. NGOs arrange visits for farmers to other areas. NGOs
overcome their lack of agricultural competence by recruiting staff who leave gov-
ernment service, or, as in the Sudan, by paying them supplements while they
remain on the government payroll.
A pluralist strategy, involving a variety of large and small organizations, partly
answers questions of cost-effectiveness in the use of scientists’ time. Sometimes the
opportunity costs of scientists working on CDR agriculture may appear high, for
instance if an African country has only a few scientists to work on an industrial
crop of national importance. Further, there are usually far fewer scientists per
farming system in CDR than in Green Revolution agriculture. A case could be put
that scientists’ impact working on CDR agriculture will be low. This has been
evident so far. Concern is expressed that so much of the output of research is not
adopted by farmers, with the rate of rejection in India informally estimated at 80
per cent or more, with probably a higher figure for rainfed agriculture.
The farmer-first mode promises greater cost-effectiveness. Where NGOs or
extension agents are the convenors, catalysts and communicators, scientists can be
used sparingly as consultants. When farmers play a full part, they themselves take
account of local diversity in a manner that makes low demands on scarce scientific
staff. When scientists spend more time searching for genetic material, technologies
and principles for farmers to try, adapt and choose between, they may have more
impact. Above all, putting farmers’ agendas first and helping them to meet their
priorities should be a sure path to good use of time. In a plural farmer-first
approach, farmers, NGO workers, extensionists and agricultural researchers can
specialize and support each other, with farmers and their groups and networks
doing most, and the others serving them. In making the most of scarce staff, plu-
ralism should pay off.
Practical Action: Starting and Sustaining Change
Professionals concerned with agricultural innovation, research and extension –
whether they are farmers, or physical, biological or social scientists, and whether
they are independent or working in universities, training institutes, government
departments or NGOs – will have found in this book many ideas for what they
might do. Non-farming agricultural professionals, just like resource-poor farmers,
are faced with diversity and complexity, and similarly need a repertoire of methods
so that they can be versatile and adaptable.
At a personal level, it is tempting to say that nothing can be done until a whole
bureaucratic and professional system changes. Usually, though, there is room for