Participatory Learning for Agricultural Extension and Future Development in Myanmar Khin Mar CHO and Hermann BOLAND Institute of Rural Sociology and Extension, University of Giessen, Germany Abstract The nature of the PEA process is increasing awareness between all participants of each person’s unique knowledge and contributing to “laying the playing field” between outside professionals and local expertise. Although the United Nations organizations and Nongovernmental Organizations in Myanmar have being introduced and implemented some participatory extension, none of the government extension services in Myanmar practice participatory methods still now. The governmental staffs that are working in agricultural extension and development are used to with centralized and top-down management in technology transfer process and this is the serious obstacle for the sustainable agricultural development. The governmental and non-governmental staff working in agricultural extension and development should begin integrating the PEA methods and activities for the future agricultural extension and development in Myanmar. Introduction Myanmar is one of the least developed countries in South-East Asia and agriculture is the basic economy of the country. Agricultural extension approaches and methods have been changing in a number of developing countries in recent years to reflect a new development paradigm that emphasizes sustainability, institutional change, and a participatory learning process leading to local capacity building and empowerment. The purpose of this paper is to describe the agricultural extension approaches and methods that have being practiced by Ministry of Agriculture and Irrigation, United Nations Organizations and international Nongovernmental Organizations in Myanmar and to suggest the participatory extension approaches and methods for the future agricultural development in Myanmar. The main directions of reform in international agricultural extension approaches and methods for a new development paradigm and the potential of Participatory Extension Approaches (PEA) for moving the extension profession towards a development paradigm that embraces learning rather than teaching processes were focused. History and Development of Agricultural Extension Approaches After a century of practice in the field of agricultural extension and development, it is time to reflect upon past approaches and practices and explore new ones. However, this should be analysed in the context of an emerging development paradigm that emphasizes participatory learning processes and sustainable development. Agricultural extension plays a crucial role in the field of development because most developing countries have rural based economies whose sustainability and productivity are directly linked to natural resources and their management. The traditional roles of transferring and disseminating agricultural technologies are proving insufficient in today’s global context. Particularly in the last ten years, both development and extension programs have been subject to scrutiny and questioning both within and without the field, in part because there has been a significant change in rhetoric but little change in the practice of rural development (CHAMBERS, 1994a; ROLING & PRETTY, 1997). Extension has diverse definitions but can be summarized as a field where agricultural professionals play a role in identifying, adapting and sharing technology that is appropriate to the needs of individual farmers within diverse agro-ecological and socioeconomic contexts (LANDON LANE & POWELL, 1996). In the 1950s and 1960s, it was

assumed that farmers were not as knowledgeable as educated agricultural extensionists about necessary changes for improving their farming practices. Programs were established based on the recommended technology packages without farmer input (LANDON LANE & POWELL, 1996; CHAMBERS, 1993). In the 1970s and 1980s, new hybrids and genotypes were introduced across agro-ecological and socio-economic conditions in an attempt to remove farm-level constraints and increase production through widespread adoption of the packages developed by outside agents. The environmental and socio-economic repercussions of this decade, known as the ‘green revolution’, brought the need for increased farmer input to the forefront of development and extension discussions. The participation of farmers in the extension process began to change in the mid-1980s with the new approach Farming System Research and Extension (FSR & E). FSR & E contributed to widespread understanding that farming systems are complex, farm-level constraints do limit adoption and the role of the farmers is key (LANDON LANE & POWELL, 1996). While paradigm shifts, particularly those involving changes in underlying values come slowly; experiences in agricultural extension and development have demonstrated that traditional approaches will need to change in order to move towards sustainability. A participatory learning process needs to be incorporated where farmers and other development beneficiaries have real decision-making power and are part of the problem analysis and solution generation (ROLING & PRETTY, 1997). Extension will need to involve farmers themselves in the process of research and development in such a way that their participation is highly interactive and empowering. This implies changes in values, attitudes, and behaviour in order to ensure that significant learning takes place among all actors: researchers, extensionists, and farmers (ROLING & PRETTY, 1997). They identifed three major lessons to be learned for extension from past experience: a) demonstrate the feasibility of sustainable practices through increased visibility and giving farmers the necessary tools for monitoring their own farm situation, b) utilize farmers’ knowledge for location-specific sustainable agriculture, and c) facilitate learning processes, instead of “transferring” technology (ROLING & PRETTY, 1997). In the 1990s, development programs worldwide have recognized that local participation is the key to the sustainable transfer and long-term adoption of new technologies and approaches. Interactive participation is the approach that facilitates this kind of learning environment (CHAMBERS, 1993; ADHIKARYA, 1994; LANDON LANE & POWELL, 1996; PRETTY & VODOUHE, 1997). The “sustainability” question is greatly effected by extension programs because environmental issues emerge directly from the human use of natural resources. A necessary condition for sustainable resource use is that large number of farming households must be motivated and willing to coordinate resource management. Facilitating group analysis and collective management requires new extension skills and tools. An approach that incorporates sustainability as a central principle therefore requires new ways of motivating collective action and learning, in addition to the skills and tools for working with individuals (ROLING & PRETTY, 1997). Teaching has long been the normal mode of educational programs and institutions where agricultural extension skills are learned, one that emphasizes the transfer of knowledge from one whom “knows” to someone who presumably does not “know”. Universities and agricultural training institutions reinforce this teaching paradigm by promoting themselves as the custodians of knowledge and students and/or farmers the recipients of that knowledge. Extension for sustainable agriculture systems must therefore emphasize helping individual farmers critically assess their situations and promote local cooperation and coordination of common resources. In order to move from a teaching paradigm towards a learning paradigm, highly participatory interaction and knowledge sharing among all actors is critical for extension institutions both in applied extension programs and at teaching institutions (ROLING & PRETTY, 1997).

The Importance of Interactive Participation An increasing number of project analyses have shown that participation by local people is one of the critical components of the success in agriculture, irrigation and livestock projects (World Bank, 1994; PRETTY et al., 1995; PRETTY & VODOUHE, 1997). To illustrate one major study of 121 rural water supply projects in 49 countries of Africa, Asia and Latin America revealed that participation was the significant factor contributing to project effectiveness (NARAYAN, 1993). As a result, the term “participation” has now become part of the normal language of many development agencies, but the level of participation varies greatly. Seven categories describing participation in projects, from least to most participatory, have been developed (PRETTY & VODOUHE, 1997; PLA Notes 31, 1998): 1. Passive participation, where locals are told what is going to happen and are involved because they are being informed of the process. 2. Information giving, where locals answer questions to pre-formulated questionnaires or research questions and do not influence the formulation or interpretation of the questions. 3. Consultation, where locals are consulted by external agents who may define both problems and solutions according to responses, but are under no obligation to do so, or share in decision making. 4. Material Incentive, where locals provide resources such as labour or land, in return for other materials incentives. Locals often do not have a stake in continuing activities once the incentives end. 5. Functional participation, where locals form groups, usually initiated by and dependent on external facilitators, participate in project implementation. These groups are usually formed after major decisions have been made, but many become self-dependent. 6. Interactive participation, where locals participate in joint analysis that leads to action plans and the formation of new local institutions or the strengthening of existing ones. The groups take control over local decisions and have a stake in maintaining the structures or practices developed. 7. Self-Mobilization, where locals take initiative independent of external institutions and may develop contacts with external institutions for resources and technical advice, but retain control over how resources are used. Project effectiveness, usually measured by project sustainability, completion of project goals, and meeting needs of the local people, occur when people are involved in decision making during all stages of the project and the participation is interactive. The challenge is to find practical and applicable methods when working with communities that help move extension towards interactive participation. What are the Participatory Extension Approaches and Participatory Methods? Participatory extension approaches (PEA) are a way of improving the effectiveness of rural extension efforts by government agencies, NGOs and other organisations engaged in rural development. They have been successfully applied in Zimbabwe and many other countries in South and North Africa. If they are institutionalised in extension organisations, they can help to improve organisational performance at the interface between the service providers (the extensionists) and the clients (the farmers) (HAGMANN, J. et al., 1998). They expressed the characteristics of PEA as follows: 1. They integrate community mobilization for planning and action with rural development, agricultural extension and research 2. They are based on an equal partnership between farmers, researchers and extension agents who can all learn from each other and contribute their knowledge and skills

3. They aim to strengthen rural people’s problem-solving, planning and management abilities 4. They promote farmer’s capacity to adapt and develop new and appropriate technologies/innovations 5. They encourage smallholder farmers to learn through experimentation, building on their own knowledge and practices and blending them with new ideas. This takes place in a cycle of action and reflection which is called “action learning” 6. They recognise that communities are not homogenous but consists of various social groups with conflicts and differences in interests, power and capabilities. The goal is to achieve equitable and sustainable development through the negotiation of interests among these groups and by providing space for the poor and marginalized in collective decision-making The role of extension agents is to facilitate this process. Researchers assist farmers and extension agents in the joint experimentation and learning process and contribute their knowledge of technical options to find solutions to the problems identified by farmers (HAGMANN, J. et al., 1998). There are diverse participatory methods in use today, and they share certain assumptions. The participatory methods (sometimes called tools, techniques or instruments) used in the system of learning and action can be structured into four classes: methods for group and team dynamics, for sampling, for interviewing and dialogue, and for visualization and diagramming and shown in following table (PRETTY, 1995). Table: Participatory methods for alternative systems of learning and action Group and team dynamics Team contracts Team reviews and discussions Interview guides and checklists Rapid report writing Energizers Work sharing Villagers and shared presentations Process notes and personal diaries

Sampling Transect walks Wealth ranking and well-being ranking Social maps Interview maps

Interviewing and dialogue Semi-structured interviewing Direct observation Focus groups Key informants Ethno histories and biographies Oral histories Local stories, portraits and case studies

Visualization and diagramming Mapping and modelling Social maps and wealth rankings Transects, Mobility maps Seasonal calendars Daily routines and activity profiles Historical profiles Trend analyses and time lines Matrix scoring Preference or pair wise ranking Venn diagrams Network diagrams Systems diagrams Flow diagrams, Pie diagrams

Using Participatory Methods as a Learning Paradigm in Myanmar Some United Nations Organisations and international NGOs funded a number of projects in Myanmar. There are a total of 26 international NGOs, of which about three are actively involved with agriculture and forestry extension activities at grass roots level. They have being introduced a range of participatory techniques for problem identification, program planning, project implementation, grass roots training and project evaluation. These techniques have been applied to many aspects of rural development including agriculture, forestry, health, education, micro-finance, marketing, water supply and rural roads. NGOs often work in conjunction with government agencies, which provide technical and policy inputs, and have developed and implemented training programs in participatory methods for both NGOs and government staff. These NGOs have been instrumental in bringing to the extension scene of a greater emphasis on “bottom up” planning and action. As initiators of a

more participatory approach to extension, NGOs have found the need to carry out extensive training of their own staff in people-oriented extension, needs assessment, data collection and planning. These training programs are built into project budgets and provide opportunities, usually at township and village levels, for participation of government extension and technical officers. The emphasis of NGO extension training has been on community based techniques to identify needs, obtain local data and knowledge, plan appropriate projects, implement and evaluate projects. 1. Environmentally Sustainable Food Security and Micro Income Opportunities The human development initiative (HDIE) program that were being implemented in three different regions of Myanmar (Dry zone, Delta, Hilly) through participatory approach by United Nations Organisations (UNDP/FAO) since 1993 up to 2002. The “Environmentally Sustainable Food Security and Micro income opportunities” project was implemented under the HDI program at 10 townships: Kyaukpadaung, Magway, Chaung-Oo in Dry zone, Bogalay, Mawlamyine-gyun and Laputta in Delta and Kalaw, Nyaungshwe, Pindaya, Pinlaung and Ywangan in southern Shan State. The national cooperating agencies were Myanmar Agriculture Service (MAS), Forest Department and Livestock Breeding and Veterinary Department. 2. Capacity Building and Empowerment of Women Self-Help Groups through Microcredit and Social Mobilization The Center on Integrated Rural Development for Asia and the Pacific (CIRDAP) has initiated the project concerning “Capacity Building and Empowerment of Women Self-Help Groups through Micro-credit and Social Mobilization” and the Ministry of Agriculture and Irrigation has being implemented at two villages in Yangon and Ayeyarwady Divisions of Myanmar since 1999. The project covers more than 750 households with the population of 4216. This project funded by Japanese government. The main objectives of the project are: -Forming/promoting women self-help groups under social mobilization process, -Providing access to credit and mobilizing savings, -Providing portfolios of opportunities to generate additional income, -Providing women group’s access to basic social services. The following activities have being implemented in the project villages: -Provision of micro-credit to the women beneficiaries -Village road construction, school building construction, improved pond and safe water programme, provision of transport facilities, village road lighting and provision of fly-proof latrine facilities -Conducting the training for women beneficiaries in the area of agriculture, animal husbandry, health care, tailoring, leadership and accounting as the capacity building program -Provision of vitamin tablets for the pregnant women and nutrition promotion programme for school children. For implementation of the community development activities, subcommittees of each item were formed with the members of village peace and development council, village elders and members of the self-help groups. 3. Agricultural development in the Northern Rakhine State (NRS) GRET (Groupe de Recherche et D’Echanges Technologiques/ Group of Research and Technological Exchange) is a French NGO working in different fields (rural development, urban development, support to communication sector, support to small and micro Enterprise). In Myanmar, GRET has being working in two fields of agricultural development and micro

finance. The NRS project was funded by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) and the embassy of Japan and implemented in four townships in northern Rakhine state of Myanmar namely, Maungdaw, Buthidaung and Rathedaung since 1996. The cooperated national agencies were MAS, Central Agricultural Research Institute (CARI) and Irrigation Department. The general objectives are to increase food security and to promote sustainable jobs and income generation opportunities for the poorest population. The following are the specific objectives of NRS; 1. Increase the global rice production in Northern Rakhine state, especially during summer season through promotion of appropriate water management system, input supply, community-based agricultural financing and extension services 2. Increase the cultivated area of summer crops through provision of irrigation equipment and agricultural inputs 3. Support other agricultural economic sectors such as livestock, bamboo and toddy The major activities of NRS are as follows: -Creation of a network of permanent Village Agricultural Inputs Store -Assistance to the creation of new irrigation schemes and extension of old ones by building temporary dams and providing water-pumps -Testing of new varieties for paddy and vegetables, demonstration and extension of the new species of vegetable that are most locally adapted -Training and extension through farmers to farmer visits, technical recommendations -3600 cattle and buffaloes were vaccinated and set up a network of animal health care agents -Analysing the understanding of the complex context of the region, assessment and evaluation of the on-going activities, surveys on the socio-economic environment -Undertaking the capacity building training for the staff through internal thematic workshops and methodological and technical back-up consultant missions 4. Farming System Research and Extension (FSR&E) in Chin State This project was started in Hakha, Tedim, Thantlang and Falam townships, which situated in northern Chin State of Myanmar since February 1995. The donor agencies were UNDP/UNOPS (CDRT-community development for remote townships areas) and Ministry of Foreign Affairs (France). The cooperated partner agency was MAS. The main objectives of FSR&E are improving the farming systems, increasing the agricultural production to sustain food security and developing new market-oriented opportunities for the farmers. The main activity of FSR & E was the experimentation and extension of new varieties in order to increase the genetic resources available in the Chin State for annual crops and perennial crops. From 1995-1998, the program tested different varieties on the station and on the farm (paddy, wheat, corn, pigeon pea, sunflower, potatoes, garlic, vegetables, apple, pear, cherry, walnut). Since 1999, the program has organized a network of farmers for the demonstration and the extension of the selected varieties. The intensification of the farming systems was done through introducing new technological packages in agricultural production and food processing in order to allow additional income and compensate the marketing and transportation bottlenecks. Since 1995 the program has implemented processing activities on apple jam and marmalade. In 1998, a group of small entrepreneurs women organized a small production and necessary marketing of their products. The main constraints are the availability of the packaging and the transportation of the products from Chin State to the market places. 5. Rural Credit Scheme in Chin State This project has being implemented in three townships of northern Chin State namely, Hakha, Tedim and Falam since February 1995 and funded by the UNDP/UNOPS (CDRT), Ministry

of Foreign Affairs (France) and the embassy of Japan. The partner agencies were MAS and Myanmar Agricultural Development Bank (MADB). The main objectives of the Micro-credit Program are giving access to credit to poor families with no collateral, implementing a sustainable credit institution to ensure a long term financing system and increasing the economic activities of households by lending the necessary investment capital. The village credit schemes (VCS) was implemented in three townships of northern Chin State according to the following principles: access to credit through a mutual guarantee or social collateral, payment of a monthly interest rate of 4% and management of the funds at the village level. Institutional set up of a network of Village Credit Schemes based on three main objectives: 1. The legalization of the credit structures at the village, township and state levels 2. The financial sustainability of the credit program, operational self-sufficiency at the different levels of the organisations 3. The capacity building of the credit staff and the credit committees to achieve the selfmanagement of the program The program has implemented different training modules, a specific Accounting system, a management Information system and an Auditing system. 6. Rural Credit Scheme in Shan State The project has being implemented in five townships of southern Shan State (Kalaw, Pinlaung, Pindaya, Ywangan, Naungshwe) since 1997 and funded by UNDP/UNOPS under the HDI project. The partner agencies were Cottage industries under the Ministry of Cooperative, MADB, and Vocational Department of Technical Agriculture and Vocational Education. The main objectives are making credit facilities accessible to poor families with no collateral, creating self-employment through self-managed projects, strengthening local capacity to achieve self-reliance by supporting self-managed micro-credit schemes and implementing a sustainable credit institution to ensure a long-term financing system. The VCS was implemented in five townships according to the following principles: -Free organization of the borrowers in solidarity groups of 4-6 members -Reasonable amount of loan (+/- 20 US$) with interest rate (3.75%/month) -Repayment schedule adapted to the local conditions: interest for every month, capital at the end of each loan cycle (6-12 months) -Local management through an elected village credit committee in charge of all daily activities, under supervision of the professional staff The program was provided the capacity building trainings for the project implementing staff in order to sustain the whole program and for the members to insure their adhesion and active participation in the methodology. Conclusion and Recommendations A review of literature shows that the main direction of reform in international agricultural extension and development is towards a learning rather than teaching paradigm and towards the incorporation of new methodology and approaches that increase the real, interactive participation of local people in all levels of decision making. These methods require that the roles of researcher, extensionist, and local people be shared. The new participatory methods have great potential for moving the extension profession towards a development paradigm that embraces learning rather than teaching processes due to its versatility and wide applicability. The nature of the PEA process is increasing awareness between all participants of each person’s unique knowledge and contributing to “laying the playing field” between outside professionals and local expertise. Although the United Nations organizations and Non-governmental Organizations have being introduced and implemented some participatory extension approaches in Myanmar, none of the Agricultural Training Institutions in Myanmar

such as Agricultural University and State Agricultural Institutes (SAI), extension division of Myanmar Agriculture Service practice participatory methods still now. The governmental staff who are working in agricultural extension and development are used to with centralized and top-down management in technology transfer process and this is the serious obstacle for the sustainable agriculture development in Myanmar. The governmental and nongovernmental staff working in agricultural extension and development should begin integrating the PEA methods and activities, particularly as they strive to meet the challenge of a new development paradigm that emphasizes sustainability and new learning processes. For future agricultural development in Myanmar the following participatory extension programs are recommended. 1. Including PEA philosophy at University and SAI to their curriculum in order that professionals enter the field with a greater understanding of the underlying principles and applicability of the methods 2. Providing the PEA training for in-service extension agents by the Central Agricultural Research and Development Training Centre 3. Conducting research at central and state and divisional research stations on PEA, its impact, effectiveness, diversity, use, and applicability in order to gain greater insight and knowledge about participatory methods 4. Creating pilot projects in existing or new agricultural extension programs to test PEA methods in diverse settings 5. Participation/ involvement of farmers in extension activities (problem identification, extension program planning, decision making process, meetings, training sessions) 6. Implementation of community projects and active farmer experimentation with ideas and innovations 7. Providing the PEA training for government extension agents by United Nations Organizations and NGOs References Adhikarya, R. (1994). Strategic Extension Campaign: A Participatory-oriented Method of Agricultural Extension. Rome, Italy: FAO. Bunch, R. (1991). People-centred agricultural improvement. In: B. Haverkort, van der Kamp & A. Waters-Bayer (eds.), Joining Farmers’ Experiments: Experiences in Participatory Development. London: IT Publications. Chambers, R. (1993). Methods for analysis by farmers: the professional challenge. Journal for Farming Systems Research and Extension, 4(1), 87-101. Kerr, J. (1994). How subsidies distort incentives and undermine watershed development projects in India. The social, economic, and environmental impacts of participatory watershed development, London: IIED. Hagmann, J.; Chuma, E.; Murwira, K; Connolly, M. (1998). Learning together through participatory extension: A guide to an approach developed in Zimbabwe. Landon Lane, C. & Powell, A. P. (1996). Participatory rural appraisal concepts applied to agricultural extension: a case study in Sumatra. Quarterly Bulletin of IAALD, 41(1), 100-103. Narayan, D. (1993). Focus on participation: Evidence from 121 rural water supply projects. Washington DC: World Bank. Pretty, J. N. & Vodouhe, S. D. (1997). Using rapid or participatory rural appraisal. In Swanson (ed.), Improving agricultural extension: A reference manual, 47-55. Rome, FAO. Pretty, J. N., Guijt, I., Thompson, J. & Scoones, I. (1995). Participatory Learning and Action: A Trainer’s Guide. London: IIED. Rogers, E. M. (1993). Diffusion of Innovations, Third edition. New York: Free Press. Roling, N., & Pretty, J. N. (1997). Extension’s role in sustainable agriculture development. In: B. E. Swanson, R. P. Bentz, & A. J. Sofranko (eds.), Improving Agricultural Extenison: A reference manual, 181-191, FAO. World Bank. (1994). The World Bank and participation. Washington DC: World Bank.