Participatory problem analysis of crop activities in rural Tanzania with attention to gender and wealth: ‘setting the scene’ to enhance relevance and avoid exclusion in pro-poor innovation projects
- 167 Downloads
Many Agricultural Research for Development (AR4D) projects continue to treat smallholder farmers as a homogenous social group and ignore the de-facto exclusion of certain subgroups that are hard to reach due to a variety of social, economic or cultural factors. This study took place as a first step in an AR4D project (Trans-SEC) that focussed on innovation testing with smallholder farmers in Central Tanzania. A participatory problem analysis aimed to develop understanding by researchers of the farmers’ crop production system and the local context. A participatory approach was employed to identify the main problems from the perspectives of farmers, giving attention to socio-economic and gender-related differences. Extracting from a larger participatory situation analysis, this paper describes the approach, methods and results of the problem analysis and also incorporates results from a household survey of the key problems faced by different smallholder farmers across four case study sites in the Morogoro and Dodoma regions of Tanzania. Results from the participatory sessions contextualised the quantitative results derived from the concurrent household survey. The paper highlights the critical problematic circumstances of low-income households, which are suffering most from inter-connected problems across their crop activity system. Results point to the problem of a lack of labour and time available to women, especially those heading households or of lower economic status. We argue from these results that intersecting, socially differentiated problem situations are an important consideration in defining relevant points of entry for AR4D projects and for shaping subsequent stages of research design to foster more inclusive, pro-poor processes. We conclude by outlining the benefits and challenges of conducting a participatory situation analysis as a first step in an AR4D project.
KeywordsParticipatory research Tanzania Smallholder agriculture Socio-economic factors AR4D projects
This research took place in the frame of the GlobE project “Trans-SEC: Innovating pro-poor strategies to safeguard food security using technology and knowledge transfer: a people-centred approach” financed by the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research and the Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development. Authors would like to express thanks to all participants in the CSSs, translators (Shani, Nengi, Devotha and Davis), and local facilitators (particularly the support provided by the Agricultural Research Institutes of Tanzania and the National Network of Small-Scale Farmers’ Groups in Tanzania (MVIWATA). Special thanks also to Anja Faße and her team for providing access to the household survey data. We also thank Raul Fernandez for work on survey data preparation and to Markus Frank for formatting assistance. Authors gratefully acknowledge the detailed input of two anonymous reviewers.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
- Berdegué, J. A. (2005). Pro-poor innovation systems. IFAD, Rome, Italy: Background Paper.Google Scholar
- Bernard, T., & Gabre-Madhin, E. (2007). Smallholders’ commercialization through cooperatives. In IFPRI Discussion Paper, 00722. Washington DC: USA.Google Scholar
- Bryceson, D. F., & Mbilinyi, M. (1980). The changing role of Tanzanian women in production. Jipemoyo, 2, 85–116.Google Scholar
- Chambers, R., Pacey, A., & Thrupp, L. A. (1989b). Farmer first: Farmer innovation and agricultural research. In R. Chambers, A. Pacey, & L. A. Thrupp (Eds.), London. UK: IT Publications.Google Scholar
- Collinson, M. P. (1982). Farming systems research in eastern Africa: The experiences of CIMMYT and some National Agricultural Research Services, 1976-82. In MSU international development paper # 3. East Lansing, MI, USA: Michigan State University.Google Scholar
- Conroy, C. (2001). Participatory situation analysis with livestock keepers: A guide. Chatham Maritime, UK: NRI/Pune: BAIF Development Research Foundation.Google Scholar
- Cooke, B., & Kothari, U. (2001). Participation: The new tyranny? London, UK: Zed Books.Google Scholar
- Cornwall, A., & Fleming, S. (1995). Context and complexity: Anthropological reflections of PRA. PLA Notes, 8–12.Google Scholar
- Dinesh, D., Campbell, B. M., Bonilla-Findji, O., & Richards, M. (2017). 10 best bet innovations for adaptation in agriculture: A supplement to the UNFCCC NAP technical guidelines.Google Scholar
- Douthwaite, B. & Ashby, J. (2005). Innovation histories: a method for learning from experience. Institutional learning and change (ILAC) Brief 5. http://ageconsearch.umn.edu/bitstream/52515/2/ILAC_Brief05_Histories.pdf. Accessed 01.03.2017.
- Faße, A., Kissoly, L., Brüssow, K. & Grote, U. (2014). Household Survey Wave 1: Baseline. Trans-SEC Deliverable 3.2.1. Institute for Environmental Economics and World Trade (IUW) Leibniz University of Hannover (LUH), Germany. Unpublished project document.Google Scholar
- Fernandez, R. (2016). Social capital and community based organization’s functionality in innovation processes: perspectives from three case studies in Tanzania. Master thesis in development economics: Georg-august University of Göttingen / University of Kassel, Germany.Google Scholar
- Graef, F. et al. (2013). Innovating Strategies to safeguard Food Security using Technology and Knowledge Transfer: A people-centred Approach. Trans-sec proposal, Unpublished project report.Google Scholar
- Graef, F., Uckert, G., Schindler, J., König, H. J., Mbwana, H. A., Fasse, A., Mwinuka, L., Mahoo, H., Kaburire, L. N., Saidia, P., Yustas, Y. M., Silayo, V., Makoko, B., Kissoly, L., Lambert, C., Kimaro, A., Sieber, S., Hoffmann, H., Kahimba, F. C., & Mutabazi, K. D. (2017). Expert-based ex-ante assessments of potential social, ecological, and economic impacts of upgrading strategies for improving food security in rural Tanzania using the ScalA-FS approach. Food Security, 9(6), 1255–1270. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12571-016-0639-x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Hocdé, H., Vasquez, J. I., Holt, E., & Braun, A. R. (2000). Towards a social movement of farmer innovation: campesino a campesino. ILEIA Newsletter, July 2000, 26–27. http://lib.icimod.org/record/10426/files/3805.pdf. Accessed 18.01.2016.
- Höhne, M. (2015). A participatory situation analysis of Tanzanian smallholder farming systems: Identifying points of entry for innovation from the farmer's perspective. In MSc thesis, in sustainable international agriculture; Georg-august-university of Göttingen. Germany: University of Kassel.Google Scholar
- International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) (n.d.) Situation analysis – an approach and method for analyzing the context of projects and programmes. http://cmsdata.iucn.org/downloads/approach_and_method.pdf, Accessed 18.11.2015.
- Kaufmann, B., Arpke, H. & Christinck, A. (2013). From assessing knowledge to joint learning. In A. Christinck and M. Padmanabhan (eds): Cultivate diversity! A handbook on transdisciplinary approaches to agrobiodiversity research (pp. 114–141). Weikersheim, Germany: Margraf Publishers, Scientific Books.Google Scholar
- Knoema. (2006). Dodoma – Life expectancy at birth. http://knoema.de/atlas/Vereinigte-Republik-Tansania/Dodoma/Life-Expectancy-at-Birth. Accessed 18.11.2015.
- Krummacher, A. (2004). Der Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA)-Ansatz aus ethnologischer Sicht. Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz, Department of Anthropology and African Studies, Mainz, Germany. Working Paper No. 36.Google Scholar
- Kummer, S., Ninio, R., Leitgeb, F., & Vogl, C.R. (2008). How do farmers research and learn? The example of organic farmers’ experiments and innovations: A research concept. 16th IFOAM Organic World Congress, Modena, Italy, June 16–20, 2008, Archived at http://orgprints.org/view/projects/conference.html. Accessed 19.02.2016.
- Mbilinyi, M. (1994). Restructuring gender and Agriculture in Tanzania. In U. Himmelstrand, K. Kinyanjui and E. Mburugu (eds.): African perspectives on development: Controversies, dilemmas and openings (pp.166–182.). London, UK: James Currey Publisher.Google Scholar
- Mieves, E. (2016). Farmers’ views on innovation outcomes: Multiple tools for participatory impact assessment with smallholder farmer groups in Tanzania. In MSc thesis in sustainable international agriculture: Georg-august university of Göttingen. Germany: University of Kassel.Google Scholar
- Mnimbo, T. S., Lyimo-Macha, J., Urassa, J. K., Mahoo, H. F., Tumbo, S. D., & Graef, F. (2017). Influence of gender on roles, choices of crop types and value chain upgrading strategies in semi-arid and sub-humid Tanzania. Food Security, 9(6), 1173–1187. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12571-017-0682-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Mwinuka, L., Mutabazi, K. D., Graef, F., Sieber, S., Makindara, J., Kimaro, A., & Uckert, G. (2017). Simulated willingness of farmers to adopt fertilizer micro-dosing and rainwater harvesting technologies in semi-arid and sub-humid farming systems in Tanzania. Food Security, 9(6), 1237–1253. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12571-017-0691-1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Nightingale, A. (2002). Participating or just sitting in? The dynamics of gender and caste in community forestry. Journal of Forest and Livelihood, 2(1), 17–24.Google Scholar
- Nightingale, A. (2003). A feminist in the forest: Situated knowledges and mixing methods in natural resource management. ACME: an International E-journal for Critical Geographies, 2(1), 77–90.Google Scholar
- Norman, D., & Collinson, M. (1985). Farming systems research in theory and practice. In Agricultural systems research for developing countries. Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research proceedings 11, pp. 16–30.Google Scholar
- Pound, B., van Dijk, M., Waarts, Y. R., & Apenteng, E. (2011). Making ARD more pro-poor; improving accessibility and relevance of results to the poorest. Natural resources institute, University of Greenwich, UK/LEI–part of Wageningen UR, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
- Reij, C., & Waters-Bayer, A. (Eds.). (2001). Farmer innovation in Africa: A source of inspiration for agricultural development. London, UK: Earthscan.Google Scholar
- Restrepo, M. J., Lelea, M. A., Christinck, A., Hülsebusch, C., & Kaufmann, B. A. (2014). Collaborative learning for fostering change in complex social-ecological systems: A transdisciplinary perspective on food and farming systems. Knowledge Management for Development Journal, 10(3), 38–59.Google Scholar
- Schönhuth, M. (1998). Mit den Augen des Ethnographen: Ethnologinnen und ihre Begegnung mit partizipativen Planungsmethoden – Drei Erfahrungsberichte. https://www.uni-trier.de/fileadmin/fb4/ETH/Aufsaetze/Mit_den_Augen_Ethno.pdf. Accessed 21.01.2016.
- Schulz, K. (2016). Participatory Scenario Building to assess possible implications of gender and socio-cultural factors for innovation uptake decisions in Tanzanian farming communities. Master thesis in development economics: Georg-august-University of Göttingen / University of Kassel, Germany.Google Scholar
- Scott, J. C. (1998). Seeing like a state: how certain schemes to improve the human condition have failed. New haven, USA. London, UK: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
- Sieber, S., Graef, F., Amjath-Babu, T. S., Mutabazi, K. D., Tumbo, S. D., Faße, A., Paloma, S. G. Y., Rybak, C., Lana, M., Ndah, T. H., & Uckert, G. (2017). Introduction to a special issue: Regional food and nutritional security in Tanzania–methods, tools and applications. Food Security, 9(6), 1143–1145. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12571-017-0744-5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Sumberg, J., & Okali, C. (1997). Farmers' experiments: Creating local knowledge. Boulder, CO, USA: Lynne Rienner Publishers Inc..Google Scholar
- Thapa, P. (2016). Facilitation and assessment of Participatory Monitoring and Evaluation systems for innovation processes with Tanzanian smallholder farmer groups. MSc thesis, sustainable international agriculture: Georg-august University of Göttingen / University of Kassel, Germany.Google Scholar
- Thapa, P., Ngwenya, P., & Kaufmann, B. (2017). Participatory monitoring and evaluation: A tool for making farmer groups function better. Appropriate Technology, 44(4), 40–45.Google Scholar
- The World Bank (2015). World development indicators. Washington, D.C., USA. http://data.worldbank.org/data-catalog/world-development-indicators. Accessed 21.01.2016.
- URT (2012a). National Sample Census of Agriculture 2007/2008. Volume Va: Regional Report: Dodoma Region, Tanzania. http://www.instepp.umn.edu/sites/default/files/product/downloadable/Tanzania_2007-8_Vol_5a.pdf. Accessed 18.01.2016.
- URT (2012b). National Sample Census of Agriculture 2007/08. Volume Ve: Regional Report: Morogoro Region. Tanzania. http://harvestchoice.org/publications/tanzania-national-sample-census-agriculture-20072008-regional-report-morogoro-region-vo Accessed 18.01.2016.
- Van Veldhuizen, L., Waters-Bayer, A., & de Zeeuw, H. (1997). Developing technology with farmers: A trainer's guide for participatory learning. London, UK: Zed Books.Google Scholar
- Van Veldhuizen, L., Waters-Bayer, A., Wettasinha, C. & Hiemstra, W. (eds) (2012). Farmer-led documentation: Learning from Prolinnova experiences. Silang, Cavite, Philippines: International Institute of Rural Reconstruction (IIRR) / Leusden: Prolinnova international secretariat, ETC AgriCulture.Google Scholar
- Waters-Bayer, A., van Veldhuizen, L., Wongtschowski, M., & Killough, S. (2005). Innovation support funds for farmer-led research and development. IK. Notes, 85, 1–4.Google Scholar
- Ziervogel, G., & Ericksen, P. (2010). Adapting to climate change to sustain food security. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, 1(4), 525–540.Google Scholar