From maths matrix game to management tools
A traditional board game, which is played throughout sub-Saharan Africa, is being used in two distinct ways. For use as participatory budgets, methods based on the game have been developed to help farmers analyse and plan their activities and resource use. In other regions, the game has been used as a tool for farmers to evaluate different tree species that grow on their farm or that they are testing for possible agroforestry applications. The rules of the original game vary in different regions, but essentially it involves rows of holes (matrix) in a board or on the ground and beans or seeds which act as counters, which are moved between these holes. The advantage this essentially mathematical game offers, is that it is well-known and played by literate and illiterate farmers alike with incredible skill and speed. The innovative techniques that have been developed from the game have proved useful and informative to both farmers and researchers.
From board games to budgets
 |
| Credit: Mark Galpin, University of Reading |
Researchers from The University of Reading, UK have used the layout of the game to develop a technique to provide farmers with a farm management tool or 'participatory budget'. This draws on both farm management and PRA (participatory rural appraisal) principles.
However, although participatory budgets provide researchers with an increased understanding of farmers' situations, the main benefit of this method is that it enables farmers, working on their own or with research and extension staff, to plan and analyse activities and their related resource use and production (see case study 1). This technique has also proved effective in helping extension workers identify what information farmers require of them, and challenges them to think about the feasibility and implication of the technologies that they encourage farmers to adopt. For instance, by applying a 'What if...?' hypothesis to the budget (e.g. a delay in the rains), farmers and extension workers can assess the impact of different scenarios on an enterprise. In addition, participatory budgets are useful in helping farmers and researchers to assess the likely suitability of a particular intervention and its effect on farming systems (see case study 2).
The advantage of participatory budgets over conventional budgeting tools is that they are simple to use, use local materials, take account of non-cash resources such as labour, and they look at the variation of resources over time. These factors mean that this form of farm management has the potential to be used by smallholder farmers to look at a wide variety of issues affecting them.
| Participatory
budget - a two dimensional matrix drawn on ground/paper. Columns
represent specific periods of time e.g. symbols are used for months
to represent different activities undertaken during the course of
the year/season. Nos. of beans/counters represent quantity of resources
e.g. 2 beans = 2 bags of fertilizer. The symbols and beans are then
placed in the columns in the matrix, to represent the activities and
resources used AND PRODUCED in each time period. The participatory budget methods were developed by Peter Dorward and Mark Galpin of the Department of Agriculture and Derek Shepherd, Head of AERDD, in A DFID funded project. Email: AERDD@reading.ac.uk Case Study 1: Comparison of two cash crops (sunflower/groundnuts), Zimbabwe* Through comparing budgets for these crops, farmers were able to express their options for adopting one crop in preference to another. A major factor proved to be labour. Farmers with smaller families (little labour available) grew sunflower. Those with more labour grew groundnuts (more profitable). * in collaboration with AGRITEX and Research & Specialist Services |
Case
Study 2: Assessment of potential of green manuring to improve poor
soil fertility for wet season tomato production, Ghana** By using participatory budgets, farmers were able to communicate how they would include a green manure crop into their farming system to benefit wet season tomato production and to analyse what impact this technology would have on their labour and cash, and how it would affect their overall profit. This varied between different categories of farmers who grew their tomatoes in different ways, but the impact on the timing of production and how this affected marketing and prices were identified as being particularly important. This process helped the farmers and researchers to assess whether green manuring was a technology which was likely to be suitable to farmers in this area, and what adaptations to the technology were required to increase the potential uptake by farmers. **in collaboration with Ministry of Food and Agriculture, Ghana Further information: Participatory Farm Management methods for agricultural research and extension: a training manual. |
Assessing alternatives for agroforestry
To evaluate different tree species ICRAF researchers and farmers have had to first learn which criteria are used locally in assessing alternatives. This has been done by touring the selected farm, viewing available tree species, discussing their performances, advantages and disadvantages, and noting the different criteria used.
A twig is then placed (from each of the selected trees for consideration) next to each row of the board game. For each criterion the farmer rates each species from 5 seeds (performs well) to 1 seed (performs poorly). Farmers may decide to add further criteria or be given suggested criteria for consideration by participating researchers. Having taken all criteria into account, farmers give overall scores for each of the species.
The game combines the strengths of conventional tools for scoring (e.g. questionnaires) with those of PRA techniques (e.g. matrix ranking). For researchers, the quantitative data that is generated from the scoring is useful for testing hypotheses and statistical analysis. However for farmers, it is a participatory tool in which they control the scoring process, it is a game that they are familiar with and enjoy using and, because it is visual, respondents can check their data. The difference in scores also stimulates discussion between group members.
| Case Study 1 To
rate 8 wood-producing trees that farmers grown on their farms across
7 criteria, Burundi Major assessment criteria: management, growth, uses for timber & firewood. Results: Interestingly, some discrepancies were found between farmers' ratings and the actual prevalence of species on farms. Eucalyptus spp. and Grevillea robusta were most common on the farms and were highly rated, both for fast growth plus Eucalyptus for firewood and Grevillea for compatibility with crops. However, two other species, Maesopsis eminii and Cedrela serrata, were also highly rated but not commonly grown. As these two species were relatively new in the area, there was no information or planting material available. On-farm trials to test these species will help confirm their usefulness to farmers and promote their planting on farms. New evaluation criteria noted: Women farmers rated Markhamia lutea higher than men because they use its leaves to prepare a medicine to treat diarrhoea in children. |
Case Study 2 To
rate 5 trees that farmers are testing on their farms across 6 criteria,
Kenya Major assessment criteria: growth characteristics, uses for fodder & firewood. Results: Grevillea - best for growth and wood. Leucaena leucocephala - best for fodder. Farmers also used the game to indicate which trees they wished to plant on their farms, and the influence of selected farm and household characteristics on their ratings was noted. Characteristic variables included wealth level, farm size, off-farm income, ethnic group, age, gender, district, and livestock ownership. Results: Only district emerged as a significant variable, reflecting biophysical differences e.g. soil type which affected tree growth. New evaluation criteria noted: Casuarina junghuhniana, a wood-producing species, grew poorly but was rated second by farmers, because it is appreciated for its ornamental qualities. Further information: Steven Franzel, ICRAF, Nairobi, Kenya (S.Franzel@cgiar.org) |
