Document(s) 16 of 39

Introduction

Participatory development communication (PDC) aims to establish two-way horizontal communication processes. However, in a situation where there is a need to introduce new information, communication processes can hardly be horizontal if the tools used to communicate with farmers remain in the hands of experts and professionals. This is what the research team of the National Banana Research Project in Uganda had in mind when it established a farmer-to-farmer training programme. Indeed, farmers were so empowered by the process and enthusiastic about sharing their new knowledge with other farmers that they soon wanted to produce their own communication material. After pushing aside the material that had been initially produced for them, they assessed their communication needs, established objectives, defined activities, produced their own material and even selected indicators to measure their success. In other words, they took control of the communication process from beginning to end.

Farmer-to-farmer communication

Quiet reigned inside the sub-county headquarters building as farmers of Ddwaniro, within the south-western district of Rakai in Uganda, looked with apprehension at Nora and Moses, the research team's communication resource staff. Nora and Moses fidgeted with the television screen and video deck while Fred, the driver, fixed the power generator. As farmers peeked at the TV screen, they all seemed to be saying the same thing in their hearts: 'Let nothing go wrong now with this video. This is our chance to show other farmers what we have learned after all these months of learning and practising.'

The loud blast from the electric gadgets signalled that all was well and ready with the machines. Moses turned down the television volume as Nora began:

We can now settle down and watch what we recorded last time. Remember, this is the video we are going to use to share knowledge about proper banana management with other farmers. We are nearing the launching day of our farmer-to-farmer teaching programme when we shall invite other farmers, district leaders, researchers and all members of our community and neighbouring communities to show them the results of our endeavours.

The farmers smiled at the thought of moving from the production stage onto the next stage when they would show other farmers what they had been doing during these past months.

The video began rolling. Farmers were visibly excited as they recognized themselves in the film:

That, indeed, is Mr Kubo talking. We saw him doing that. . . That is, indeed, his well-kept banana garden. . . But why is he talking from far away? It would be better if he were talking while standing near us [in the foreground]. . . Moreover, he is not looking at us from the screen. . . The pictures are not flowing well. We should not have used Mr Muganda to illustrate the mulching technology. We could have used Mrs Muganda instead. . . She is better at explaining issues. But where is the good banana bunch to show the result of a well-kept banana garden?

The video continued to a stop just in time as numerous hands shot up simultaneously. Mr Kubo began the barrage of remarks that followed the viewing of the video clip: 'Madame, we have seen the video; but I for myself am not convinced that it will deliver our message.' The farmers unanimously rejected the video, agreeing with Mr Kubo and adding that they could produce a better video than that, but that this time they were going to make a more thorough plan of action. This marked the end of the farmers' meeting with Nora and Moses. The farmers immediately reconvened their own meeting and chose a chairman for the session. The agenda was how to produce a better video than the one they had just watched.

The farmers chose Mr Sebulime to be the overall presenter of their farmer-to-farmer teaching video. Mr Kubo was selected to demonstrate organic manure-making; Mr Lubwamira would demonstrate the digging of trenches in order to guard against soil erosion; and Mrs Muganda would explain the proper mulching of a banana garden. They fixed a date for the next video recording session and informed Nora and Moses about their decision.

On the day preceding the video recording, Nora and Moses arrived in Ddwaniro, together with a professional cameraman. They made contact with the farmers, who took them around the banana gardens that were going to be used for the video illustrations. A mini rehearsal was organized to determine what was going to take place the next day.

Farmers took the lead on recording day. They guided the team of researchers and the cameraman to the different banana gardens that were going to be used for demonstration purposes. They had prepared so well that they knew exactly what sequence the recording would follow. Consequently, the recording process took only a short time, and there was little footage to cut out during the editing of the video. Although this last phase took place in Kampala, away from the farmers, they unanimously accepted the video the next time that it was shown to them. They agreed that other farmers would understand and probably make use of the message contained in the video. This was confirmed later when they showed the video to other farmers of Ddwaniro.

Using photography

Slowly shaking his head with a sneer, Mr Sebulime examined the photographs that Moses had brought back from Kampala.

'These pictures cannot do. Look, the women appear as if they are going to a wedding feast. How can a farmer working in a garden dress up smartly like this?'

'That is exactly what was recorded last time', Moses replied.

'But it is not right,' Mr Sebulime retorted. 'Look at Mr Bazanya. He is looking directly into the camera; he is actually posing for the photograph. Look, this photograph is so crowded with people that its educative intention is completely lost. No, we cannot use this photograph to teach other farmers. A good photograph should have few people, at least not more than three, and the pictures should be big enough to be seen', Mr Sebulime confidently asserted.

From the side, Nora, who had only recently joined the participatory development communication research team, looked on in disbelief. The farmer was describing a good photograph as if he had attended a photography class. He was only missing the accompanying jargon of 'centre of visual interest' and 'foreground'.

'They always change what they last said', Moses explained. 'We have spent many months on these photographs and sometimes I wonder whether the production process will ever end. It seems as if we are only going round in circles. Farmers photograph what they wish to appear on their brochures; you take the film to Kampala for developing and printing and by the time you bring the photographs back, the farmers have changed their mind and they would like another type of shot.'

In another corner of the same room, Enock, the agricultural extension worker, looked on as the farmer described the picture he had wanted to capture in the photograph. The group of farmers also listened as Bazanya narrated how a good banana crop should be illustrated:

There should be a mother plant with a good banana bunch, a daughter who will take over from the mother, and a granddaughter. The picture should show good mulching practice where you do not put the grass right up to the banana plants. If you put the mulch very near the banana stem, the insects living in the grass will be able to attack the banana plants also.

Listening to the dialogue, Nora realized that the farmer was doing the extension work instead of Enock, who was only listening. At the end of Bazanya's description, Enock asked him why he had not photographed exactly that. In fact, Bazanya had photographed what he had explained. But when the pictures were brought back for the farmers to choose from, the person who had appeared in that particular photograph had taken it for keeps! So it was no longer available for use in the brochure.

Making posters and brochures

Farmers turned up to make corrections on brochures and posters. It was a good gathering considering the long distances, the difficult terrain and the heavy dust on the roads due to the dry season. Although the farmers had previously been divided into three groups according to their different natural resource management problems, work on the brochures went smoothly, with farmers sharing photos when necessary. For example, if a group's photos did not depict what the farmers wanted to illustrate, the group approached other members for a more suitable photograph. This indicated that the farmers appreciated the fact that the exercise was not intended for competition amongst themselves, but for the purpose of sharing information with other farmers who had not yet taken up the new farming practices. It also suggested that the three initial working groups were slowly merging into one group.

The poster was not as easily constructed as the brochure, partly because farmers said that they did not know what posters look like. This was a challenge considering the fact that the community hall in which we were working had a poster on its wall. There were also several posters in the entrance of the community hall. Upon asking the farmers whether they had seen them, some said no, while others said yes – but that they had not examined them closely enough to know what they were about. When examining one poster that depicted proper water and sanitation practices, some farmers actually said that its aim was to teach people how to write. The concept of poster-making was difficult for the farmers to understand since they were expected to put several photos on one chart, which together would tell a story. They finally agreed to make posters with a limited number of pictures. Initially, the plan was to use still photography, with subjects that the farmers themselves photographed. But certain illustrations proved difficult to capture, such as a hole in the ground that was to be used in the making of organic manure and the trenches that capture soil erosion. In the end, farmers settled for artistic illustrations.

During the material production stage, despite time constraints, the production process appeared to have no end in sight. Facilitators then made it possible for farmers to work with a professional video cameraman and an illustrator in order to finalize the process. This arrangement also solved the problem of farmers taking the photographs for keeps and the limited expertise in the farmer-researcher team regarding the making of posters and brochures.

After the production stage, farmers devised a plan of how they were going to use the communication materials. In a workshop setting, farmers agreed on the geographical scope of their intended farmer-to-farmer information sharing. They confessed that, on their own, they could only manage to share information within their villages. This is because farmers can either walk on foot or ride bicycles to cover the relatively short distances in the villages. They also agreed that in order to be credible to other farmers, they had to make sure that their own banana gardens illustrated the recommended soil management techniques. They identified the different categories of people who needed to be informed about the three modes of soil and water management. These included fellow farmers like themselves, vulnerable groups such as women, as well as the disabled and orphans heading households. In order to get support for their farmer-to-farmer information sharing, farmers included local leaders, politicians and non-governmental organizations (NGOs). They identified institutions and channels through which they could share the information with other farmers. Farmers agreed to make use of radio, a farmers' newsletter and drama to supplement their information sharing through brochures and posters. In addition to one-to-one information sharing, farmers identified village meetings, churches and market days as possible fora. As a way of concretizing their plan of action, they made a time framework within which to accomplish specific activities related to the information-sharing objective. They also agreed on monitoring indicators and mechanisms.

Getting more specific

As we witnessed this participatory material-making process, we realized that there is another possibility regarding material production for the purpose of farmer-to-farmer information sharing. Three sets of communication materials may be produced. One set is intended for the 'teacher farmers' – the farmers who are going to share information with others. This set of communication materials should be illustrative and should enable interaction between the farmers on the identified subject. The teacher farmers should use this illustrative material to explain to the other farmer(s) the recommended soil management practices. This communication material should be produced in fewer numbers and should be durable since it is going to be used over and over again.

After sharing information with the other farmers, the teacher farmer should leave some material with the learner farmer for reference purposes. This communication material should be produced in larger numbers and need not be as durable as the material for the teacher farmers.

There could also be a third set of communication materials that would act as a back-up for the information-sharing activity by providing brief, general information on the subject at hand. For example, this could be a poster that would hang on the walls of farmers' houses, in shops or in churches; it could also be a radio programme.

In the end, it is important to remember that these materials will always be more effective and appropriate if farmers are closely associated with their production or, even better, if they end up taking charge of their production.

Note

¹ This chapter was written in consultation with the other members of the research team: Wilberforce Tushemereirwe, Drake N. Mubiru, Dezi Ngambeki, Carol N. Nankinga, Moses Buregyeya, Enoch Lwabulanga and Esther Lwanga.

Document(s) 16 of 39