98 Participatory Processes
it comes more from diversifying enterprises and multiplying linkages. Green Revo-
lution agriculture has been convergent, evolving towards common practices; the
third agriculture often needs to be divergent, evolving towards a greater variety of
differing enterprises and practices.
At first sight, then, the farmer-first approach appears incompatible with nor-
mal bureaucracy. But as contributors to this book have shown, reversals in govern-
ment research organizations, though difficult to start and to sustain, are not
impossible. Some contributors were working in special projects linked with NARSs;
others were working in more normal conditions, as with the innovator workshops
in Bangladesh (Abedin and Haque, 1987) and the distribution to farmers of
advanced lines of rice in India (Maurya and Bottrall, 1987).
For the future, to achieve farmer-first reversals in national bureaucracies, espe-
cially NARSs, three aspects of management merit special attention: decentraliza-
tion and resources; search and supply; and incentives.
(i) Decentralization and resources. Central controls need loosening if local actions
are to fit diverse conditions. Centralized permissions for expenditures constrain
flexibility. Centrally coordinated trials limit discretion and the ability to serve local
priorities. When resources such as transport and money for travel are scarce, local
discretion and control become more important than ever. The essence of farmer-
first approaches is to serve and support local diversity, with a reversal of demands
on staff, the demands to come from farmers below more than from seniors above.
Decentralization is difficult in normal bureaucracies. Central accountants fear
loss of control over expenditures. Central officials fear loss of power and prestige.
Reports are harder to collate and present, and work harder to supervise, when
activities are varied. Methods are needed, perhaps easier now with microcomput-
ers, for valuing local diversity in staff activities in place of counting reported
achievements of standard targets. For NARSs, the practical implications are to
devolve resources and discretion more to the local level.
Freedom and means for staff to visit and spend time with farmers are crucial.
For travel, something can usually be done quite simply. In the joint trek in Nepal,
scientists walk together for days (Mathema and Galt, 1987). Foot, bicycle, horse
and public transport can, variously, be used. For cost-effectiveness, though, other
means of travel can be important, especially when distances are great and environ-
ments diverse. Unfortunately, access to transport and permission to use it are fre-
quent problems, though less so with foreign-funded programmes. Travel and
allowances can be high-profile privileges for which staff compete, jealously guarded
and sparingly allocated by directors of institutes and heads of units. Worse, when
revenue shortfalls or national policy reforms force cuts in recurrent budgets, staff
are usually protected and it is other votes that suffer. Fuel, vehicles and nights out
allowances are favourite victims. In Zambia, the Ministry of Agriculture’s vote for
petrol and maintenance had been reduced by 1980 to only one fifth of its 1973 level
despite an increase in vehicles and staff (ILO, 1981, pxxvi). Scientists can usually
work with farmers close to their research stations and residences; but without