Agriculture Reference
In-Depth Information
options, allowing them to become ISFM connoisseurs and recognize potential
opportunities. This approach may not increase the likelihood that any particular
small farmers will decide to adopt particular improved soil management practices,
but the collaborative effort among the network partners ensures that a locally rele-
vant range of options is stimulated and ready for application under conducive market
and policy conditions stemming from the wider economy.
Research and agricultural extension have gradually shifted toward ISFM, which
places more value on promoting options that are in tune with localized knowledge
networks and perceptions (Corbeels et al. 2000; Vanlauwe et al. 2006). The World
Bank, after many years of supporting the Training and Visit System, has also come
to recognize the need for interaction among a diverse set of stakeholders to address
complex problems holistically and contextually (World Bank 2012). Engel (1997)
argues that, rather than seeking to unilinearily transfer science-based messages,
approaches to integrate indigenous knowledge with scientific knowledge should
create opportunities for sharing, joint learning, reflection, and mutual respect. This
requires participatory and collaborative approaches that promote quality interaction
between farmers and outside agents (Pretty 1995; Dawoe et al. 2012). Extension
should focus on improving knowledge and capacity to observe and experiment
while building on small-farmer knowledge as it relates to specific local conditions
of production (Deugd et al. 1998). Doing so allows for improved understanding of
the sociocultural conditions that shape choices and, consequently, farmer decisions.
Engaging the small farmer in the process of soil improvement requires researchers
and agricultural extension agents to recognize the importance of farmer perceptions
and knowledge of soil fertility (Corbeels et al. 2000; Marenya et al. 2008).
An illuminating example comes from the Ethiopian experience of moving from
an aggressive technology transfer approach that pushed a comprehensive package
of hybrid seeds, fertilizer, and credit in the late 1980s and early 1990s (Borlaug and
Dowswell 1994) toward the more recent, widespread, and gradual progress made by
the Integrated Nutrient Management Program (Corbeels et al. 2000). The revised
Integrated Nutrition Management Program and its Farmer Field School Network
have become a platform for facilitating the process of finding a common ground for
local and scientific knowledge. The farmer field school approach has been particu-
larly helpful in allowing for local agroecological problem solving and legitimizing
farmer knowledge of soils and their properties to enhance production of a range of
agricultural commodities. Moreover, encouraging farmers to experiment and share
their findings with others to make farmer-led choices about technology develop-
ment and adoption decisions mobilizes farmers' own frames of reference. Farmers
also observe and compare ecological outcomes of different methods to improve soil
fertility. For example, farmer trials demonstrated that organic manure keeps the
soil softer and is better for retaining moisture, while artificial fertilizer produces a
darker-colored leaf and improved grain yield (Kebebe et al. 2007). With such results,
many farmers opted for a 50/50 organic and artificial fertilizer regimen, an outcome
that allowed farmers to improve their yield, manage their short term risk, and invest
in the long-range productivity of their soils (Kebebe et al. 2007).
Essential to the incorporation and development of local knowledge is the net-
work through which it is transferred. Composed of farmers, farmer organizations,
