Many agricultural development projects support low external input technology (LEIT) as a way to combat rural poverty and unequal access to agricultural technology. However, is LEIT suitable to the conditions of resource-poor farmers?

LEIT emphasises the use of locally available resources and encourages group activities, social learning and developing capabilities for individual and collective innovation. The role of LEIT is a common theme in discussions about agricultural development. Some argue that LEIT is preferable to dependence on purchased inputs or biotechnology; others dismiss it as a set of labour-intensive techniques that cannot compete with “modern” technology. Research from the Department for International Development, UK, looks at how suitable and effective this approach really is.

The research analysed the degree to which LEIT is utilised, modified, diffused or abandoned. The research selected projects from three countries:

• Since the early 1980s, non-governmental projects in central Honduras promoting sustainable hillside farming have focused on using local resources to develop alternative crop management methods, training village leaders as extensionists, and encouraging experimentation and farmer-to-farmer sharing. 
• Between 1988 and 1998, the National Soil and Water Conservation Programme of Kenya’s Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock Development and Marketing identified catchments of neighbouring communities that could work together to manage soil and water conservation.
• The Sri Lanka Department of Agriculture, with assistance from the Food and Agriculture Organization, established over 600 Farmer Field Schools (FFS) for introducing Integrated Pest Management in rice between 1995 and 2002.

These field sites provided an opportunity to look at the long-term effects of LEIT. The research aims to understand the original participation and adoption experience of LEIT projects and also assess developments after the projects ended. Several key findings emerge:

• The uptake of LEIT was higher among farmers engaged in commercial agriculture and better environments; there is little evidence that LEIT is specifically targeted at resource-poor farmers.
• Farmers used and adapted several types of LEIT; these made significant contributions to improving farm productivity and conserving resources.
• When LEIT requires additional labour, hired rather than family labour is often used.
• Although formal education is not a requirement for most LEIT, farmers need time and incentives to learn new techniques.
• Although farmers often appreciate the environmental benefits of LEIT, there is little evidence that projects lead to more environmentally friendly farmers.
• The knowledge gained by farmers does not always lead to a significant increase in experimentation, nor does the knowledge of new techniques pass very efficiently from farmer to farmer.
• Although farmer groups manage LEIT projects most effectively, few groups survived to address other tasks after the projects terminated.

These findings are important when considering future LEIT policies. The research recommends:

• Policymakers and donors should recognise that no technology, low or high input, can fully rectify rural inequality or compensate for inadequate agricultural markets.
• Because LEIT projects often require intensive investment, lowering costs per farmer for developing and introducing technology should be a priority.
• Policymakers should not overlook the importance of labour requirements for technology adoption; even in subsistence systems, hired labour is an increasingly important factor.
• It is inefficient to concentrate on ‘scaling up’ particular examples of LEIT. Instead, building broad farmer organisations should be the priority, so farmers have increased access to a wide range of information.

Source(s):
‘Learning from Success: Revisiting Experiences of Low External Input Technology Adoption by Hillside Farmers in Central Honduras’, by M. Richards and L. Suazo, 2005 Full document.
'Self-Sufficient Agriculture. Labour and Knowledge in Small-Scale Farming', Earthscan: London, by Robert Tripp, 2006
'What should we expect from farmer field schools? A Sri Lanka case study', World Development 33(10), pages 1705-1720, by Robert Tripp, Mahinda Wijeratne and V. Hiroshini Piyadasa, 2005

Funded by: The research was SSR Project 8231, funded by the UK Department for International Development (DFID)

id21 Research Highlight: 15 June 2005

Further Information:
Robert Tripp
Overseas Development Institute
111 Westminster Bridge Road
London
SE1 7JD
UK

Tel: +44 (0)20 7922 0300
Fax: +44 (0)20 7922 0399
Contact the contributor: r.tripp@odi.org.uk

Department for International Development, UK

Overseas Development Institute, UK

Other related links:
'How can agricultural extension workers support small farms? '

'Communicating information for rural development'

'People not projects – the low-technology approach to improving rural water supply'

'Participatory research and learning: two sides of the same coin?'

Overseas Development Institute, UK

LEISA - Magazine on Low External Input and Sustainable Agriculture