Involving Farmers in Agricultural Research Through

Farmer Associations: The case from Maputo Province,

Mozambique

Master Thesis, May 2009

Carlos Franscisco Xavier Felimone

Supervisors:
Professor Jens Carl Streibig (Copenhagen University Denmark)
Dr. Roland Brouwer (Eduardo Mondlane University Mozambique)
Preface

This research has been written as part of Master Degree Thesis, in Agricultural Development
Course at Faculty of Life Sciences, Copenhagen University, Denmark. The research intends to
assess whether agricultural research can use Mozambican Farmer Associations as channels through
which it can access farmers needs, implement the experiments and facilitate the dissemination of
research results. The data to respond the purpose of this research were collected through
questionnaire and semi-structured interview in three districts, Manhia, Marracuene and Namaacha,
located in Maputo, the southern province of Mozambique.

Copenhagen, May 2009

Written by:

_________________________________________________________
Carlos Francisco Xavier Felimone

Student number: ADK07006

i
Acknowledgements

I would like to thank my two supervisors, Professor Jens Streibig from Copenhagen University,
Denmark and Dr. Roland Brouwer from Eduardo Mondlane University, Mozambique, for their
guidance during all the process of research.

I would like also to thank the Danish International Development Agency (DANIDA) for the
financial support and the Institute of Agricultural Research of Mozambique (IIAM), specifically the
Directorate of Training, Documentation and Technology Transfer (DFDTT) for providing mean of
transport used for the field work.

A very special thanks to my wife Arlete, for her collaboration during the field work and for keeping
me going when the times got tough; and also to my friend Sandre Macie for instructing me on how
to use the statistical program SPSS, employed in analysis of data.

Many thanks go to farmers and their organizations and to Directorates of Agriculture in the three
districts, Manhia, Marracuene and Namaacha, where the research was conducted, for their
collaboration during the data collection phase.

At last but not least, I thank my friend Cesarino Benjamim for reading my thesis and giving some
interesting ideas and my colleagues from Master course Quintino Lobo and Enoque Manhique, for
their collaboration. Many thanks to everybody not mentioned but who have helped me during the
research process.

ii
Summary
Worldwide it has been recognized that non adoption of technologies by smallholder farmers is
mainly due to the lack of involvement of farmers and extension services in agricultural research
process. As part of the reform from 2005, the Institute of Agricultural Research of Mozambique has
committed itself to work closely with farmers and extension services in the development and
dissemination of agricultural technologies. But even so, little or no attention has been given to
understanding how to communicate with farmers. Experiences from other countries have shown
some advantages to work with farmer groups, in particular, established farmer organizations (FOs).
These organizations can transmit farmers needs to the research system and facilitate the
dissemination of research results. But the current situation of FOs in Mozambique, in term of
whether they have the capacity to fulfil these functions is unknown. This case research conducted in
Manhia, Marracuene and Namaacha districts has the purpose to assess whether agricultural
research can use Mozambican Farmer Associations (FAs) as channels through which it can access
farmers needs, implement the experiments and facilitate the dissemination of research results.

The research was conducted through two kinds of questionnaires (one for representatives of FAs
another for individual farmers). The questionnaire for the representatives of FAs was designed to
get the characteristics and functioning of FAs. It involved twenty six FAs. The individual
questionnaire was designed to get socio-economic characteristics of farmers, their priority problems,
their access to agricultural services providers and to services provided by/or through FAs. It
involved 214 farmer members from the twenty six FAs selected for the case and sixty nine non-
member farmers, from the areas where these FAs operate. The research also involved semi-
structured interviews with fourteen key informants, which were used to obtain more profound
information about the characteristics of FAs and to get explanations of some issues that arose in the
questionnaire phase. The statistical analysis employed was mainly non parametric tests, except in
variable age where was used the parametric t-test.

The findings show that member and non-member farmers have different farming conditions, crops
and destination of their production. They also show that farmer members and their organizations are
in better conditions to be involved in the research process because they are more preoccupied with
the improvement of their production and they have mechanism of communication which can ensure
the conveying of farmers constraints to research and disseminate research results. There is,
however, a risk that the involvement of FAs representatives in the agricultural research process
leads to the exclusion of the non-members constraints, priorities and farming conditions. It remains
therefore, important to find ways that will allow non-members constraints and farming conditions
to be addressed in research. And also it is important to take some special consideration to female,
illiterate and farmers from FAs out of FOs network, as these groups have shown less access to
research services provided through FAs.

iii
List of abbreviations
DFDTT: Direco de Formao, Documentao e Transferncia de Tecnologias (Directorate of
Training, Documentation and Technology Transfer)

FAs: Farmer Associations

FOs: Farmer Organizations

FGs: Farmer Groups

FRG: Farmer Research Group

FU: Farmers Union

IIAM: Instituto de Investigao Agrria de Moambique (Institute of Agricultural Research of

Mozambique)

IK: Information and Knowledge

NGOs: Non Government Organizations

UNAC: Unio Nacional dos Camponeses (National Farmers Union)

iv
Table of Figures
Figure 1: Mozambique farmer organizations structure, adapted from UNAC, 2004 ...........................................7

Figure 2: Map of Maputo province with indication of the three districts selected for the study .........................9

Figure 3: Conduction of questionnaire in farmers field.......................................................................................12

Figure 4: Frequency distribution of farmer associations according to the objectives of their membership ......17

Figure 5: Frequency distribution of farmer associations according to the origin of the initiative of their
formation ..................................................................................................................................................................18

Figure 6: Frequency distribution of farmer associations according to the way they use to share information
and knowledge .........................................................................................................................................................19

Figure 7: Farmer field school in common farm of Bloco 1 Farmers Association .............................................19

v
Table of tables
Table 1: List of farmer associations selected for the study by location ...............................................................10

Table 2: Descriptive statistics of farmer associations based in their composition and functioning ...................16

Table 3: Frequency distribution of farmer associations according to their status, linkage and farming ...........16

Table 4: Comparison of socio-economic characteristics of members and non-members ..................................20

Table 5: Relationship between the location of farmland and membership ..........................................................21

Table 6: Comparing members and non-members based on crops they usually grow .........................................22

Table 7: Destination of farm production, comparing farmer members and non-members ................................22

Table 8: Mann-Whitney mean ranks based on how important is the constraints for members and non-
members ...................................................................................................................................................................23

Table 9: Mann-Whitney mean ranks based on number of times that farmers have demanded services ...........24

Table 10: Comparing members and non-members in term of their access to agricultural information and
knowledge ................................................................................................................................................................25

Table 11: Relationship between the socio-economic characteristics of farmers and the access to information,
knowledge and services ..........................................................................................................................................26

Table 12: Comparing farmers from farmer associations with and without common farm in term of their
access to information and knowledge ....................................................................................................................27

Table 13: Comparing farmers from farmer associations network and out of network in term of their access to
information, knowledge and services .....................................................................................................................28

Table 14: Comparing farmers from farmer associations formed by different entities in term of their access to
information and knowledge ....................................................................................................................................29

Table 15: Comparing farmers from farmer associations that had and had no linkage with extension service in
term of their access to extension services ..............................................................................................................29

Table 16: Comparing farmers from farmer associations that had and had no linkage with research, in term of
their access to research services .............................................................................................................................30

vi
Table of Content
I. Introduction ............................................................................................................................................................1
1.1 Research objectives .........................................................................................................................................2
II. Background ...........................................................................................................................................................3
2.1 Changes in agricultural research and dissemination of information and knowledge .................................3
2.2 Working with farmer groups in agricultural research process .....................................................................4
2.3 Experiences on involving farmer organizations in research ........................................................................5
2.4 Mozambique Farmer Organizations ..............................................................................................................6
III. Methodology........................................................................................................................................................ 8
3.1 Research approach ..........................................................................................................................................8
3.2 Study area ........................................................................................................................................................ 9
3.3 Data collection methods ...............................................................................................................................10
3.4 Sampling and sample size ............................................................................................................................10
3.5 Procedure and time frame .............................................................................................................................11
3.6 Data analysis..................................................................................................................................................12
3.7 Research limitations ......................................................................................................................................14
IV. Research results.................................................................................................................................................15
4.1 Profile of farmer associations .......................................................................................................................15
4.2 Type of farmer associations .........................................................................................................................17
4.3 Sharing of agricultural information and knowledge within farmer associations ......................................18
4.4 Socio-economic characteristics of farmers in study area ...........................................................................20
4.5 Farming activities ..........................................................................................................................................21
4.6 Access to agricultural information and knowledge ....................................................................................24
4.7 Farmer associations structure and functioning factors that may influence the access to information and
knowledge ............................................................................................................................................................26
V. Discussion ...........................................................................................................................................................31
VI. Conclusion and recommendations ...................................................................................................................37
6.1 Conclusions ...................................................................................................................................................37
6.2 Recommendations .........................................................................................................................................38
References ................................................................................................................................................................39
Appendix 1: Individual famers questionnaire ......................................................................................................42
Appendix 2: Famer Associations questionnaire ...................................................................................................45
Appendix 3: Socio-economic characteristics that had shown dependence with access to IK and services ......49

vii
I. Introduction

Mozambique has a wide diversity of soil types and diverse climatic conditions which allow for a
large variety of crops (Southern African Development Community 2008). Agriculture in
Mozambique is almost entirely dominated by smallholders (World Bank 2006). It constitutes the
main source of income for seventy-five percent of the total inhabitants (Food and Agriculture
Organization & World Food Programme 2005). Over the past decade, agricultural growth was
almost entirely driven by farming more land with few technological improvements (World Bank
2006 & Sitoe 2005). Access to and use of improved crop technologies remains limited, and there is
evidence that crop yields are stagnant. Therefore, if appropriate action is not taken, agricultural
growth will slow and rural poverty will remain widespread (World Bank 2006). Some believe that
the slow uptake of new technologies is due to the lack of interaction between research, extension
service and farmer (Kely 2003; Gemo 2007).

The new research institution formed in 2005, Institute of Agricultural Research of Mozambique
(IIAM), integrating all research institutions under the Ministry of Agriculture, has recognized the
lack of interaction with farmers and extension service in the research process. And it decided to
adopt participatory approaches, working closely with farmers and extension workers (Direco de
Formao, Documentao e Transferncia de Tecnologias 2006). Nevertheless, little or no attention
has been given to understanding how to communicate with farmers.

Worldwide have been increasing the recommendation for working with farmer groups, particularly
established farmer organizations (Wennink & Heemskerk 2006; Heemskerk & Wennink 2004), due
to their important role in providing farmers constraints and needs to research and for facilitating the
dissemination of information and knowledge to farmers (Heemskerk & Wennink 2004; Mutunga
2008). Thus, it becomes important to assess the possibility to work with farmer organizations (FOs).
Some authors suggest a profound analysis of their structure, functioning and composition, as a first
step before working with them (Del Castello and Braun 2006; Sanginga et al 2005).

1
The analysis of the current situation of Farmer Organizations (FOs) in the Mozambican context
seems to be important. Because, there is little information about FOs, and especially there is no
research that clarifies whether these organizations can work in collaboration with research,
conveying the interest and needs of farmers, including smallholders farmers, and disseminating
research results for all social economic groupings in their farming community.

1.1 Research objectives

The overall objective of this study is to assess whether agricultural research can use Mozambican
Farmer Associations as channels through which it can access to farmers needs, implement
experiments and facilitate the dissemination of research results. The aims is to help researchers to
decide whether to work with established Farmer Associations (FAs) and to identify key issues that
are necessary to be resolved before starting to work with them.

Four specifics objectives have been defined:

(i) Assess the profile and functioning of Farmer Associations.

(ii) Assess the profile of the farming community, focusing on socio-economic characteristics,
priority problems and access to agricultural service providers.

(iii) Assess whether farmers have been benefiting on agricultural information and knowledge
provided by/or through Farmer Associations.

(iv) Identify the factors linked to Farmer Associations structure and functioning that may influence
farmers access to agricultural information and knowledge.

2
II. Background

2.1 Changes in agricultural research and dissemination of information and

knowledge

In the 1980s there have been shifts in thinking and priority setting in agriculture in most of the Third
World (Chambers et al 1990). This shift was due to the previous experiences that have shown little
adoption of agricultural technologies generated at various research institutions (Chambers et al
1990; Wanyonyi et al 2000). Three reason have been pointed: extension service have been
inefficient in serving farmers; smallholders farmers are traditional and conservative in technology
adoption and resistant to change (Wanyonyi et al 2000); and technologies that have been produced
by research and disseminated by extension services might be inappropriate to the smallholder
farmer conditions (Wanyonyiet al 2000; Heemskerk & Wennink 2004).

However, the reasons for non adoption of technologies by smallholder farmers can be summarized
in two key factors: the lack of involvement of farmers and extension persons in all stages of the
technology generation process including diagnosis, planning, evaluation and dissemination
(Wanyonyi et al 2000) and the development of the technologies under research station conditions,
which are not similar to the smallholder farmers (Chambers et al 1990).

Therefore, in 1990s Sub-Saharan African countries embarked on major agricultural sector reforms,
which led to changes in the roles of the public and private sectors as well as civil society
organizations (Wennink & Heemskerk 2006). Research organizations were encouraged to adopt
participatory research methods. According to Okali et al (1994), most of the restructure of national
agricultural research institutions have emphasized participatory structures to foster more
decentralized decisions.

Literature show different ways of working with farmers in participatory agricultural research
process. For example, there are experiences of working with Farmer Groups (FGs), mainly formed
for research purpose, Farmer Research Groups (FRGs), in Latin America (Ashby et al 1995) and

3
Ethiopia (Renda et al 2005; Adamo 2001). There are also experiences of working with existing
Farmer Organizations (FOs) and their networks, in Tanzania (Wennink & Heemskerk 2006).

The concept of Farmer Research Group was introduced in Latin America by the Local Agricultural
Research Community, as an extension methodology for participatory technology development.
FRGs can be formed by farmers themselves to solve their common problems and request research
for help, or by external initiative (Renda et al 2005) for participatory research purpose (Ashby et al
1995; Renda et al 2005; Adamo 2001).

Farmer Organizations are organizations owned and governed by farmers and which work for
farmers' interests. These include farmer associations, farmer unions, agricultural cooperatives and
chambers of agriculture (International Federation of Agricultural Producers 1995). In this research it
will be used the terms Farmer Associations to refer to the grassroots farmer organizations and
Farmer Unions, to the groups of FAs that form a network, at local, district, province and national
level.

2.2 Working with farmer groups in agricultural research process

Under reforms made in most of the research and extension organizations, there were adoption of
participatory research approaches and shifts from working with individual farmers to collaboration
with groups and, increasingly, with FOs. Therefore, at the grass-roots level, research and extension
organizations, they are working with farmer associations, producer groups and cooperatives, as well
as specially created farmer research groups. At higher levels, unions, federations and syndicates are
involved in planning research and extension activities (Wennink & Heemskerk 2006).

According to Knox et al (2004), working with group or collective action approach has proved to be
an effective way for motivating participation, coordinating the actions of the multi-resource users
and enhancing empowerment of farmers in the innovation system. Collective action may be aimed
at different purposes and functions (generating, spreading, sharing, utilizing and applying
knowledge and information). For the spreading and sharing of information and knowledge,
Heemskerk & Wennink (2004), argue that working with FGs they can provides opportunity to share
information and thus, create a multiplier effect, which facilitates the spread of technology.

4
Involving FGs is also important for communicate farmers constraints to the research system and
provide an information and communication network (Wennink & Heemskerk 2006). In developing
countries, FGs, specifically the established FOs, can be an effective alternative for provision of
agricultural services for farmers. As the reform that held in some developing countries, a range of
services that were provided by public sector are privatized and in many countries private sector did
not replace public in provision of those services and where it did, it often did not reach the poors
(Naranjo et al 2007).

The importance of working with FGs seems to be clear. The question now is which kind of FGs will
really be effective in development and dissemination of agricultural technologies? Literature
suggests working with: exiting FGs; groups with representation of all categories of households
(Heemskerk & Wennink 2004); with representation at high level; and with efficient communications
channel, what can be through networking (Mutunga 2008).

The advantage of working with existing groups is because they already know each other and they
have proven their ability to work together. The representation of all categories of households,
including the poor, is to ensure that the needs of all categories can be addressed in the research
(Heemskerk & Wennink 2004). Working with FOs networked from local to high level and with
efficient communications channels, will guarantee effective and efficient regular flow of
information and convey of the interests and concerns of farmers to the appropriate government
decision makers (Mutunga 2008).

2.3 Experiences on involving farmer organizations in research

Experiences from Benin, Rwanda and Tanzania show that FOs are increasingly being solicited to
participate in planning (priority-setting and resource allocation), but their contribution is still limited
due to the lack of skills of their representatives to formulate a mission statement (Shapland &
Kampen 2006).

5
In Tanzania, the representative network of FOs, Mtandao wa Vikundi vya Wakulima wa Wilaya ya
Monduli (MVIWATA), emerged in 1993, is strongly involved in agricultural research and
development, and actively approach different sources of information. This farmers network has
developed experience with farmer-to-farmer knowledge exchange for innovation (Lema & Kapange
2006), including the dissemination of farmers best practices through written materials, radio
programmes and newsletters (Kaburire & Ruvuga 2006).

Nevertheless, Cote dIvoire had not been successful in their participatory framework adopted with
objective to involve all categories of farmers and FGs in agricultural research process. The poorest
farmers (those are engaged in subsistence farming and livestock keeping), did not have any
important roles in the research process, because they are not organized and also due to the
complexity of their farming systems (Inter Academy Council 2004).

Farmer research groups formed by Participatory Research for Improved Agro ecosystem
Management Project, in Ethiopia, were successful in their involvement in research process but less
in sharing research results with their community; they were sharing the research results among
members of FRGs (Adamo 2001).

2.4 Mozambique Farmer Organizations

Mozambique has long history of working in groups, mainly in agriculture sector. In 1950s there
was a growing numbers of FOs, promoted by the Portuguese government, with objective to bring
together prosperous farmers, so that they can get help from the government (Hedges 1999). After
the independence in 1975, the new government led by the socialist party, also suggested farmers to
work together in farmer cooperatives (Gotschi 2007, citing Vugt 2001).

With the transition of the country into market economy, farmer cooperatives were transformed in
farmer associations (Gotschi 2007, citing Vugt 2001). And, in 1987 leaders of the farmer
associations decided to form Farmers National Union (Unio Nacional dos Camponeses), which
was officially establish in 1994 (UNAC 2007). Among several functions, it was created to promote
and defend farmers interest, serve as farmers voice and facilitate the sharing of experience and
information (UNAC n.d).

6
The Unio Nacional dos Camponeses (UNAC) is compound by farmer associations and farmer
unions (Figure 1), (UNAC 2004). In 2005, there was four Provincial Farmer Unions (Nampula,
Tete, Manica and Sofala); three provincial committees (Cabo Delgado, Niassa and Maputo); 1.300
farmer associations, cooperatives or other local form of organizations (UNAC n.d). These figures
show that in this period, not all provinces have joined the network of FOs formed by UNAC.

Figure 1: Mozambique farmer organizations structure, adapted from UNAC, 2004

Despite the long history of FOs in Mozambique and the existence of a structured movement of FOs,
Woodhouse (1997) reviewing Mozambique agriculture technology development, from 1975 to
1993, showed no evidence of active involvement of farmers and their organizations in agriculture
research process.

7
III. Methodology

A combination of social research methodologies have been used to achieve the purpose of this
research assess whether agricultural research can use Mozambican Farmer Associations as
channels through which it can access farmers needs, implement the experiments and facilitate the
dissemination of research results. In this chapter it will be described in detail.

3.1 Research approach

The research approach applied in the study is mixed methods. A mixed method is a research
approach that combines quantitative and qualitative methods in a single research project. It can be
used for improving the accuracy of the finding, to give fuller and more complete picture of the
issues that are being studied, to develop the analysis through addressing the issues that arise during
the research, and compensate the strengths and weakness of each method (Denscombe 2007).

In this research, the mixed methods have been used for two reasons: (i) to give the full picture of the
FAs, through the collection of complementary data that may be difficult to be collected through
quantitative method; (ii) to develop the analysis of the findings through seeking explanation of some
issues that arose during data collection, with quantitative method.

8
3.2 Study area

The research had been conducted in three districts (Manhia, Marracuene and Namaacha) belonging
to Maputo province (Figure 2), the southern province of Mozambique. Maputo province is located
in agro-ecological zones one and two, characterized mainly by sandy soil and annual precipitation
between 500 600 mm (Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries 1996, cited in Walker et al 2006).

Figure 2: Map of Maputo province with indication of the three districts selected for the study

Agriculture is the main income activity for the population in the study area, with the following
percentage of the people involved: seventy-seven in Manhia (Ministrio da Admistrao Estatal
2005a), eighty in Marracuene (Ministrio da Admistrao Estatal 2005b) and sixty-eight in
Namaacha district (Ministrio da Admistrao Estatal 2005c). The three districts have a total of 119
FAs; with 9.313 members, 70% of them are women (Direco Provincial de Agricultura de Maputo
2007).

9
3.3 Data collection methods

For data collection, have been used a questionnaire (quantitative method) and semi-structured
interview (qualitative method).

Two kinds of questionnaires were used, one to get information from individual farmer and another
for the representatives of FAs. The first questionnaire was designed to get the socio-economic
characteristics of farmers, their priority problems, access to agricultural services providers and to
information and knowledge provided by/or through FAs (see appendix 1). The second questionnaire
was designed to collect information about the characteristics and functioning of FAs (appendix 2).

The semi-structured interview was used to obtain more profound information about the
characteristics of FAs and get explanation of some issues that arose in the research. The following
issues were addressed: Farmer associations and farmers union structure and functioning and farmer
association sharing agricultural information and knowledge.

3.4 Sampling and sample size

The research was based in a case of twenty six farmer associations from 119 existing in the three
districts. The twenty six farmer associations involved in research were selected through simple
random sampling strategy. The sampling frame used for selection was the list of Maputo Province
FAs, provided by Provincial Directorate of Agriculture.

Table 1: List of farmer associations selected for the study by location

Manhia District Marracuene District Namaacha District

Associao 25 de Setembro
Associao Mimbire
Associao Ex-mineiros
Associao Indepncia Morte
Cooperativa Eduardo Mondlane
Associao Pateque
Associao Bloco 1
Associao Francisco Manyanga
Cooperativa 25 de Junho
Associao Samora Machel
Associao Xifamba Gwadzi
Source: Adapted from Direco Provincial de Agricultura de Maputo, 2007
Associao 7 de Abril
Associao Guazamutine
Associao 19 de Outubro
Associao Bolaze B
Cooperativa Eduardo Mondlane
Associao Bobole 1B
Associao Cumbene A
Associao 4 de Outubro
Associao Mpala Wa Socoti
Associao dos Regantes Mafuiane
Associao dos Camponeses Impaputo
AMPRODEC
Associao Combela
Associao Alacache
Associao de Mafavuca

10
For the individual farmers questionnaire, stratified random sampling strategy was used to select the
respondents. The populations of the two stratums are: farmer members of FAs and farmer
households that are not members of any FAs.

The selection of farmer members were based on subpopulation compounds by members of the
twenty six FAs selected for the study. Thus, 214 farmer members from the total of 2432 were
interviewed through the questionnaire. The selection of farmer non-members were based on
subpopulation compounds by farmer households from the communities where these FAs selected
for the study are operating. Thus, sixty-nine farmers out of 1343 were involved in research. The
lists, from which the samples were drowned, were provided by FAs leaders and by the heads of the
communities where the research was conducted.

The semi-structure interview method involved fourteen key informants, namely:

The head of district agricultural directorate (Marracuene),
Three extension officers (two in Namaacha and one in Manhia)
Representative of district farmers union (Marracuene)
The head of the district farmers union (Manhia)
Three heads of local farmer unions (Manhia)
Five key farmers (two in Manhia, one at Marracuene and two in Namaacha).

3.5 Procedure and time frame

The field work had been conducted from October to December 2008. At the beginning of the
research, an exploratory visit was done to test the questionnaire, establish contacts with keys
persons in each field location and guarantee that the sampling methods and the research plan can
work in the field conditions. Additionally were collected all preliminary information.

The second stage of the research was the conduction of the questionnaire in the entire field site. As
is known in developing countries the level of education is low, mainly in rural area, where this
research was conducted. As a consequence, the administration of the questionnaire was through
individual interview. To maximize the time and reduce the distance, most farmer members were met
in their field early in the morning, as they farm close to each other and usually they are in the field
11
early (Figure 3). At afternoon, the interviews were conducted at homes. This period also was
possible to find non-members farmers, as most of them farm far away from FAs farmlands. FAs
representatives questionnaire was conducted at same time with the individual farmers
questionnaire.

Figure 3: Conduction of questionnaire in farmers field

In the last phase of the field work, semi-structured interviews were conducted with key informants
(farmers, extension staff and representative of agricultural directorate) identified in the second
phase.

3.6 Data analysis

The analyses of the findings from the two questionnaires were done through a statistical programme
SPSS, version 12. The level of significance used in research to test the hypothesis is 95%. The
statistical analyses employed were mainly non parametric (Chi-square, Fisher Exact, Mann-Whitney
and median tests) as the research variables are mainly qualitative. Exception was in one case, age,
where a parametric analysis t-test was employed. The points (a) to (d) explain how the data from
each specific objective were analysed and what types of statistical analyses were used.

a) To assess the profile and functioning of farmer associations, the statistical procedure taken was
descriptive statistics (frequency, average, median, maximum and minimum) to find out whether FAs
possess the characteristics desired to become partners in participatory research. The following

12
characteristics were analysed: FAs composition, formation, membership, status, networking and
sharing of agricultural information and knowledge.

b) To get the socio-economic characteristics, priority problems and access to agricultural services
providers, the statistical analysis done was to see whether there is any significant difference between
member and non-member farmers in their socio-economic characteristics. This analysis will help to
conclude if there is any socio-economic group excluded from being members of FAs and
consequently their need may not be addressed by research system. Another analysis done was to
compare farmer members and non members to see whether they have same priority problems and if
there is significant difference on where they communicate their agricultural problems. This will
show whether working with FAs representatives, we can ensure the access of the problems and
priorities of member and non-member farmers.

c) In order to assess whether farmers have been benefiting on agricultural information and
knowledge provided by/or through FAs, the following analyses were done: chi-square test to see
whether there is independence between the access to the service and membership of FAs. The
results from this analysis help understand if the service provided by FAs (sharing of information and
knowledge) and through FAs (research and extension services) are benefiting both, member and
non-member farmers. Furthermore, the same analysis had been done comparing farmers based on
their socio-economic characteristics (gender, age, level of education and farm size). Farm size has
been used as indicator of wealth, based in experience from Ouma et al (2002) in Kenya. Therefore,
the larger the farm size, the more wealth is considered.

d) Finally, to identify the factors linked to Farmer Associations structure and functioning that may
influence farmer access to agricultural information and knowledge, the analysis focused on the
following variables: existence of common farm in FAs, FAs networking, linkage with extension and
research organizations, and the origin of the initiative of FA formation. These variables were cross
tabulated with access to agricultural information and services provided by/through FAs to see
whether there is independence.

13
3.7 Research limitations

Some farmers selected for the questionnaire were not found during the survey because they were
engaged in farming activities, as the research was conducted in the beginning of the rain season.
Unfortunately, this inconvenient have reduced the numbers of farmers interviewed through
questionnaire. The group of non-member farmers was the most affected because their farmlands are
disperse and located far away from the area of residence. And usually in the period of intensive
agricultural activities, they come back home late. To interview them in their farms, could imply high
cost and impossible within the resources available.

The leadership of FAs has been indicated as an important factor of FAs functioning to be assessed.
Although it was planned to be assessed through individual questionnaire, it failed due to the fact that
in questionnaire interview it was felt that the respondents were not comfortable to assess the
leadership of their organizations.

14
IV. Research results

In this chapter it will be presented the main results of the field work. The findings will show the
main characteristics of FAs, including their composition, formation, networking and ways they use
to share agricultural information and knowledge. And also they will show the characteristics of the
farming community, and the differences between farmer members and non-members in term of
farming activities and access to services provided by FAs and by research and extension services
through FAs.

4.1 Profile of farmer associations

The results in table 2 describe the profile of the twenty six farmer associations involved in this
research in term of number of members, number of meetings established per year and farm size
owned by FAs. The average number of members in FAs is around seventy six, ranging from twelve
to 250. Female members represent the majority, with the average of 59.2 per FA, against 17.2 male
members. In term of the number of regular meetings established in FAs per year, range from zero
(two FAs have no regular meetings established) to twelve. The mean and median is respectively 6.5
and 4 meetings per year.

Table 2 also shows that the average land size that FAs own is 67.5 hectares, ranging from zero (one
FA have no land) to 300 hectares. According to key informants, all members that their organization
own land have received a certain farm size from their FA land to use for their farming, while they
are member of the FA.

15
Table 2: Descriptive statistics of farmer associations based in their composition and
functioning

FAs characteristics Average Median Maximum Minimum

Number of FAs members 76.5 41 250 12

Number of men in FAs 17.2 7.50 93 0
Number of women in FAs 59.2 35 215 7
Number of regular meetings per year 6.5 4 12 0
Land size belong to FAs (ha) 67.5 51 300 0

Table 3 shows that eighteen FAs out of twenty six are officially registered and the remaining eight,
seven have started the process of registration. Nineteen out of twenty six FAs are networked through
FUs (local, district, provincial and national). But none of the FAs from Namaacha district are in the
network. Five FAs have or had linkage with research (in on-farm trials and/or in farmer field
school) and seven with extension services in on farm demonstrations or in other type of extension
activities.

Table 3: Frequency distribution of farmer associations according to their status, linkage and
farming

FAs characteristics (n=26)

Number of FAs officially registered 18

Number of FAs in process of official registration 7
Number of FAs networked 19
Number of FAs that had linkage with research 5
Number of FAs that had linkage with extension service 7
Number of FAs with common farm 21

Table 3 also shows the number of FAs that have common farm. Common farm here is referring to a
FAs farm where members use to farm together, growing crops for farmer association income.
Therefore, twenty one FAs out of twenty six have about 0.5 to1.0 hectare of land for common
farming. According to key informants, all FAs with common farm meet once a week for common
farming.

16
4.2 Type of farmer associations

Farmer associations representatives were asked about the main objectives of their membership.
Figure 4 show that there are two main objectives of FAs membership: (i) access to and mobilization
of production means, such as land, equipment, inputs and water; (ii) lobbing, advocating and
defending farmers interest, when dealing with government authority, public and private sector.
From the twenty six FAs interviewed, twenty five have these two membership objectives. The
second major membership interest of FAs is mobilization of financial means, (nine FAs out of
twenty six). Only six FAs have membership interest in mobilization of information and knowledge
necessary to improve the agricultural production and marketing activities (helping farmers to access
market).

Figure 4: Frequency distribution of farmer associations according to the objectives of their

membership

17
Farmer associations representatives were also asked about the origin of the initiative of their FA
formation. The results from figure 5 show that most FAs have been formed by external initiative
(eleven by government and eight by NGOs). Only seven have been formed by farmers initiative.

Figure 5: Frequency distribution of farmer associations according to the origin of the initiative of their
formation

4.3 Sharing of agricultural information and knowledge within farmer

associations

Farmer associations leaders were asked if they use the followings ways for sharing agricultural
information and knowledge: planned regular meetings, extraordinary meetings organized
specifically for sharing information and, field days. The results in figure 6 show that half of FAs
(thirteen out of twenty six) uses the FA regular meetings to share agricultural information and
knowledge. Eleven and ten FAs respectively have used extraordinary meetings and field days.

18
Figure 6: Frequency distribution of farmer associations according to the way they use to share
information and knowledge

Key informants during the semi-structured interview have pointed another two important ways used
by FAs to share agricultural information and knowledge, within FAs and among FAs, respectively
using common farm/common farming days and through district FU regular meetings. According to
information given by extension workers, common farms have been used by extension personals and
researchers for demonstration and learning. The two farmer field schools found in FAs, during the
research, was implemented on common farm (figure 7); the district FU meetings are organized
monthly, with representative of FAs. In these meetings they share farmers problems, experiences,
and information.

Figure 7: Farmer field school in common farm of Bloco 1 Farmers Association

19
4.4 Socio-economic characteristics of farmers in study area

Gender, age, level of education and farm size were used to understand whether there are significant
differences between farmer members and non-members (table 4). The statistical results from gender,
median level of education and farm size show that there is no significant difference between the two
groups of farmers. For average age of farmers, the statistical results show a significant difference
between the two groups. Non-members are relatively younger than farmer members. The average
age of non-members is around 43, while for members is 48 years old.

Table 4: Comparison of socio-economic characteristics of members and non-members

Variables Farmer members Non-members

Gender (Chi-square test: P-value= 0.430)

Number of men 73 (34.1%) 20 (29.0%)
Number of women 141 (65.9%) 49 (71.0%)

Total 214 (100%) 69 (100%)

Age (T-test: t-value= 0.002**)
Age average of farmers 48.4 42.6

Level of education (Median test: P-value = 0.521)

Median level of education (a) 2.5 2.0

Farm size (Chi-test: P-value = 0.261)

Number of farmers with farm size 177 (82.7%) 61 (88.4%)
less than 5 ha
Number of farmers with farm size 37 (17.3%) 8 (11.6%)
of 5 ha or more

Total 214 (100%) 69 (100%)

** significant at 5%
(a) Level of education has been classified as: (1) Illiterate; (2) primary; (3) secondary; (4) High school and (5)
University.

20
4.5 Farming activities

To assess the difference between members and non-members in their farming activities, farmers had
been asked about the following aspects: location of their farmland, type of crops they usually grow,
the destination of their farm production, farming constraints and demand of services for solving
their farming constraints, last five years. The answers are summarized in tables 5 to 9.

Table 5 gives the number of farmers with and without farm in lowland or in irrigation system
conditions. The figures show that the majority of farmer members (94.9%) have a farm in lowland
or in irrigation system, whereas non-members the majority (78.3%) farm in upland. The chi-test
shows that this difference is statistical large enough to be considered significant at 5%.

Table 5: Relationship between the location of farmland and membership

Variables Number (%) of farmers by farmland location

Farmer members Non-members

Farming in lowland or in 203 (94.9%) 15 (21.7%)

irrigation system
Not farming in lowland or in 11 (5.1%) 54 (78.3%)
irrigation system

Total 214 (100%) 69 (100%)

Chi-square test: P-value = 0.000** significant at 5%

Table 6 gives the results from the question about whether there are differences on the type of crops
that famer members and non-members usually grow. The figures in table represent the number of
farmers growing each kind of crop. The statistical analysis shows that there is significant difference
between members and non-members in numbers of farmers growing cowpea, common beans,
vegetable and banana. For the rest of the crops the difference is not statistical significant. The crops
that show significant difference, there are more members cropping than non-members.

21
Table 6: Comparing members and non-members based on crops they usually grow

Crops Number (%) of farmers by type of crop Chi-test: (P-value)

Farmer members Non-members

Maize 210 (98.1%) 67 (97.1%) 0.606

Cassava 181 (84.6%) 63 (91.3%) 0.159
Peanut 115 (53.7%) 31 (44.9%) 0.203
Sweet potatoes 171 (79.9%) 48 (69.6%) 0.074
Cowpea 152 (71.0%) 39 (56.5%) 0.025**
Common beans 163 (76.2%) 21 (30.4%) 0.000**

Vegetable 189 (88.3%) 22 (31.9%) 0.000**

Banana 123 (57.5%) 16 (23.2%) 0.000**
Percentage based on total: farmer members = 214; non-members = 69; (**significant at 5%)

From the question about the destination of the farm production, the figures from table 8 show that
the majority of members (89.3%) are producing for home consumption and to market, while the
majority of non-members (65.2%) are producing only for home consumption. The chi-test shows
that this difference is big enough to be considered statistical significant at 5%.

Table 7: Destination of farm production, comparing farmer members and non-members

Destination of the production Farmer members Non-members

Only for home consumption 23 (10.7%) 45 (65.2%)

Home consumption and to market 191 (89.3%) 24 (34.8%)

Total 214 (100%) 69 (100%)

Chi-test: P-value = 0.000; significant at 5%

Table 8 gives the answer about whether there are differences between members and non-members
on production constraints and priorities. So, farmers were asked to score from one to four according
to the importance they give to the constraints they have faced last five years, in their cropping and
management of the agricultural production (where one is less important and four very important
constraint). The results based on Mann-Whitney test give the mean ranks of each group of the seven
constraints. Non-members have much higher mean of ranks than members in the all constraints.
Difficult to access inputs and production equipments are the two most important agricultural

22
constraints for members. For non-members it is the difficult to access technical information
(technical advice) and production facilities. The statistical analysis shows that the difference in
scores given by the two groups, in all constraints, is larger enough to be significant at 5%.

Table 8: Mann-Whitney mean ranks based on how important is the constraints for members
and non-members

Mean ranks Mann-Whitney U

Constraints Farmer members Non-members (P-values)

Difficult to access production 128.32 184.41 0.000**

facilities
Difficult to access production 134.22 166.13 0.002**
equipment
Difficult to access technical 123.51 199.34 0.000**
information
Difficult to access production inputs 136.36 159.49 0.028**
Difficult to access market 132.32 172.01 0.000**
Difficult to access storage and 132.58 171.22 0.000**
processing facilities
Difficult to access financial means 132.15 172.56 0.000**
**significant at 5%
Score used in questionnaire: (1) not important; (2) slight important; (3) import; and (4) very important constraint

The question addressed in table 9 is whether there is difference between members of FAs and non-
members in where they demand services to their agricultural difficulties. Farmers were asked to
score from zero to four, according to the number of times they have demanded service in each
institution and organization. The figures based in Mann-Whitney test, show that members have
higher score of ranks than non-members for all the institutions and organizations. The highest mean
ranks from members it is in FAs, while for non-members it is in private companies/organizations.
The statistical analyses shows that in four institutions (extension service, research organizations,
FAs and NGOs) the difference is statistical significant. The remaining two institutions (village
authority and private organization), although members have demanded more services than non-
members, the statistical difference is not significant at 5%.

23
Table 9: Mann-Whitney mean ranks based on number of times that farmers have demanded
services

Institution/organization Mean ranks Mann-Whitney U

Farmer members Non-members (P-values)

Extension service 164.51 72.17 0.000**

Research organization 147.40 125.24 0.001**

Farmer Associations 170.33 54.12 0.000**
Non Government Organizations 157.81 92.96 0.000**
Village authority 145.85 130.07 0.135
Private organizations/companies 143.33 137.88 0.445
**significant at 5%
Score used in questionnaire: (0) not demanded; (1) demanded once; (2) demanded twice; (3) demanded three times;
and (4) demanded more than three times.

4.6 Access to agricultural information and knowledge

To find out whether there are differences between members and non-members in access to
agricultural services provided by/through FAs, they were asked if they have benefited from the
following services: access to information sharing with other farmers, access to information,
knowledge and services provided by extension service and research, through FAs. The figures from
table 10 show the number of farmers that accessed these services. Seventy eight percent of FAs
members and 8.7% of non-members have accessed information and knowledge sharing with other
farmers within FAs. For the services provided by extension services and research organizations also
members have been benefiting more than non-members. And the statistical analysis shows
significant difference between the two groups, members and non-members.

24
Table 10: Comparing members and non-members in term of their access to agricultural
information and knowledge

Variables Total number (%) of farmers that accessed the service

Farmer members Non-members P-value
(n=214) (n=69)

Access to IK sharing with other 167 (78.0%) 6 (8.7%) 0.000**

farmers, promoted by FAs
Access to IK and 88 (41.1%) 2 (2.9%) 0.000**
assistance provided by extension
service through FAs
Access to IK and 32 (15.0%) 1 (1.4%) 0.002**
assistance provided by research through
FAs
** significant at 5%; Tests used: Chi-test for first variable and Fishers Exact test for second and third variables

The question answered in table 11 is whether there is relationship between the socio-economic
characteristic of farmers (gender, level of education, age and farm size) and access to agricultural
services provided by/through FAs. Farmers were split in two groups (members and non-members).
And the analyses were done within each group.

Within the group of farmer members the results from table 11 and appendix 3 show that there are
significant different between the following variables: (i) Male and female in access to IK and
services provided by research; male had more access than female. (ii) Elder and younger farmers in
access to IK and services provided by extension services; the younger farmer members had more
access than the elderly. (iii) Farmers with different farm size, in access to sharing information;
farmers with small land size had accessed more than those with big farm size. (iv) Farmer with
different level of education in access to IK and services provided by extension services; people with
some level of education had more access than illiterate. Within the category of non-members
farmers, the results show that there are differences between farmers with different farm size in
access to IK and service provide by research and extension service; farmers with farm size less than
5 ha, had not accessed these services.

25
Table 11: Relationship between the socio-economic characteristics of farmers and the access to
information, knowledge and services

Variables Access to IK sharing Access to IK and Access to IK and

with other farmers, assistance provided by assistance provided
promoted by FAs extension service through by research through
FAs FAs
Within farmer members(P-values)
Gender of farmer 0.719 0.562 0.015**
Level of education of 0.388 0.129 0.002**
farmer
Average age of farmer 0.646 0.045** 0.187
Farmers farm size 0.024** 0.136 0.507
Within non-members(P-values)
Gender of farmer 0.235 0.506 0.115
Level of education of 0.547 0.262 0.517
farmer
Average age of farmer 0.428 0.143 0.306
Farmers farm size 0.685 0.000** 0.005**
** significant at 5% (chi-test for gender, level of education and farm size; t-test for age)

4.7 Farmer associations structure and functioning factors that may influence the
access to information and knowledge

The question to be answered in this subchapter is whether there is relationship between the FAs
characteristics and access to information, knowledge and services provided by/or through FAs. The
following FAs characteristics have been analyzed: Existence of common farm, FA networking, the
origin of the initiative for FAs formation and FAs linkage with research and extension service. The
answers are summarized in tables 12 to 16.

26
Table 12 shows how many farmers from FAs with and without common farm have accessed
information, knowledge and services provided by/through FAs. And whether there are statistical
differences between farmers from the two groups. The figures show that there are more farmers
from FAs with common farm accessing IK and services provided by/through FAs than farmers from
FAs without common farm. And the chi-test shows that this difference is significant in access to IK
and services provided by FAs and by research through FAs.

Table 12: Comparing farmers from farmer associations with and without common farm in
term of their access to information and knowledge

Variables Number (%) of farmers from P-values

FAs with common farm FAs without common farm

Access to IK sharing with other

farmers, promoted by FAs 142 (83.5%) 25 (55.0%) 0.000**

Access to IK and
assistance provided by 72 (42.4%) 16 (35.6%) 0.410
extension service through FAs
Access to IK and
assistance provided by research 32 (18.8%) 0 (0.0%) 0.002**
through FAs
**significant at 5%; Test used: Chi-test for first and second variables and Fishers Exact test for third variable

Table 13 shows how many farmers from FAs network and out of network have accessed
information, knowledge and services provided by/through FAs. And whether there are statistical
differences between farmers from the two groups. The figures show that there are more farmers
from FAs network accessing the services than farmers from FAs out of network. The chi-test shows
that this difference is significant in the access to agricultural IK and services provided by FAs and
by research through FAs.

27
Table 13: Comparing farmers from farmer associations network and out of network in term
of their access to information, knowledge and services

Variables Number (%) of farmers by type of FA P-value

FAs from network FAs out of network

(n=148) (n=66)

Access to IK sharing with other

farmers, promoted by FAs 129 (86.6%) 38 (57.6%) 0.000**

Access to IK and
assistance provided by extension 63 (42.3%) 25 (37.9%) 0.545
service through FAs
Access to IK and
assistance provided by research 28 (18.8%) 4 (6.2%) 0.017**
through FAs
**significant at 5%; Test used: Chi-test for first and second variables and Fishers Exact test for third variable

Table 14 shows how many farmers from FAs formed by own farmers initiative, NGOs and
government have accessed IK and services provided by/through FAs. And whether there are
statistical differences among farmers from the three groups. The figures show that about half of
farmers from FAs formed by farmers initiative and NGOs had accessed extension services against
30% of farmers from FAs formed by government. More farmers from FAs formed by farmers idea
(36.7%) had accessed research services provided through FAs compared with only 6.5% of farmers
from FAs formed by external initiative (government and NGOs). The statistical analysis show
significant differences among the three groups in access to IK and services provided by research and
extension service.

28
Table 14: Comparing farmers from farmer associations formed by different entities in term of
their access to information and knowledge

Variables Number (%) of farmers that have accessed IK and services P-value
by origin of their FA
FAs formed by FAs formed by FAs formed by
farmers(n=60) NGOs (n=63) government(n=91)

Access to IK sharing 50 (83.3%) 49 (77.8%) 68 (73.9%) 0.395

with other farmers,
promoted by FAs
Access to IK and 28 (46.7%) 33 (52.4%) 27 (29.7%) 0.009**
assistance provided by
extension service
through FAs
Access to IK and 22 (36.7%) 4 (6.5%) 6 (6.5%) 0.000**
assistance provided by
research through FAs
**significant at 5% Test used: Chi-test for first and second variables and Fishers Exact test for third variable

Table 15 gives the number of farmers from FAs that had and that had no linkage with extension
service, last five years (through on-farm demonstration and farmer field school, implemented in
FA), have accessed information and assistance provided by extension service. The results show that
farmers from FAs that had linkage with extension service had more access to their services (62.7%)
than those from FAs that had not linkage (34.1%). And the chi-test shows statistical significant
difference at 5%, between the two groups.

Table 15: Comparing farmers from farmer associations that had and had no linkage with
extension service in term of their access to extension services

Variables Number (%) of farmers by type of FA Total

FAs that had linkage FAs that had no linkage

with extension service with extension service

Number of farmers that have

accessed extension services 32 (62.7%) 56 (34.4%) 88 (41.1%)
provided through FAs
Number of farmers that have
not accessed extension services 19 (37.3%) 107 (65.6%) 126 (58.9%)
provided through FAs

Total 51 (100%) 163 (100%) 214 (100%)

Chi-test (P-value = 0.000; significant at 5%)

29
Table 16 shows the numbers of farmers from FAs that had and that had no linkage with research
organization (through on-farm demonstrations or experiment implemented in FAs farms), last five
years, have accessed the services provided by research. The results show that farmers from FAs that
had linkage with research had more access to their services (55%) than those from FAs that had no
linkage (3.6%). And chi-test shows statistical significant difference at 5%, between the two groups.

Table 16: Comparing farmers from farmer associations that had and had no linkage with
research, in term of their access to research services

Variables Number (%) of farmers by type of FA Total

FAs that had linkage FAs that had no linkage

with research with research

Number of farmers that have

accessed research services 26 (55.3%) 6 (3.6%) 32 (15.0%)
provided through FAs
Farmers of farmers that have
not accessed research service 21 (44.7%) 161 (96.4%) 182 (85.0%)
provided through FAs

Total 47 (100%) 166 (100%) 214 (100%)

Chi-test (P-value = 0.000; significant at 5%)

30
V. Discussion

This chapter provides the interpretation of the results shown in chapter 4. It provides the information
that show what can be the consequence of involving farmers in research process through farmer
associations. The consequences here addressed are in term of access to farmers needs, implement
experiments and facilitate the dissemination of research results.

Table 2 shows that the average number of member in FAs is about 77 and women represent the
majority (more than of members). This contradicts with the theory that men tend to dominate
community organizations (Sanginga et al 2005 and Kanji et al 2004). For this case, the results might
be influenced by the fact that in the three districts, where the research was conducted, there are more
women engaged in agricultural activities than men (Ministrio da Admistrao Estatal 2005a;
Ministrio da Admistrao Estatal 2005b; Ministrio da Admistrao Estatal 2005c). The
representation of women in farmer associations will guarantee the communication of their needs to
the research system and the access to research results from the experiment implemented with the
representatives of FAs.

The results from table 3 show that not all FAs are officially registered yet. According to extension
workers, this is result of the bureaucracy and high cost involved in previous law, for the registration
of the community organizations. However, the new law, Decreto-Lei 2 /2006, contains less cost
and few official procedures. This will encourage the registration of FAs. Legal status has been
referred as an important key issue to be considered when intending to work with farmer groups or
other community organizations, in development projects (Leisa Magazine 2007).

In term of farmer associations creation, the results from figures 4 and 5 show that most of them
were created by external initiatives, (government and NGOs). And nearly all farmer associations
were created with main objective to access means of production (mainly land) and defend farmers
interest. For instance, almost all FAs members are farming in farmland provided by their
organizations. Three key informants confirmed the fact. Additionally, they indicating that most FAs
created after the independence were formed to access the good farms left by Portugueses farmers.

31
This information given by key informants is confirmed by Van de Loo (1984) in his research
conducted in Cabo Delgado province, north of Mozambique.

The results from figure 4 show that most FAs have not been created with the objective to access
information and knowledge needed to improve their agricultural production. Nevertheless, the
results from figure 6 and from key informants show that several FAs are engaged in information and
knowledge sharing through the following strategies or ways: FAs regular meetings, extraordinary
meetings for sharing IK, field days and common farming day. This means that there are some
mechanisms and experiences of sharing information within FAs that can facilitate the dissemination
of research results.

The results from structure and functioning of FAs on table 3, show that nineteen out of twenty six
FAs, representing all FAs from Manhia and Marracuene and none from Namaacha, are networked,
constituting farmer unions (see figure 1). According to Mutunga (2008), the network of FOs from
local to high level is fundamental as it guarantees the effective conveying of the interest and
concerns of farmers to the appropriate sectors. What this mean is that FAs from Manhia and
Marracuene are structured and functioning in the way that will facilitate the communication
between farmers and researchers.

The results from figure 6 and from key informants show that there is regular communication of
farmers within and among FAs. Within FAs it is through FAs regular meetings, field days,
extraordinary meetings and common farming days. Among FAs it is through FU regular meetings,
in Manhia and Marracuene where FAs are networked. The regular communication among farmer
members could act as channel for regular convey of farmers needs to the research system. Mutunga
(2008) highlight the existence of communication channels that guarantee effective and efficient
regular flow of information within and among FOs as key issue to be considered when deciding to
work with FGs.

The socio-economic representativeness of farming community in FAs is also an important factor

considered in research. The results from table 4 show that the proportions of three out of four socio-
economic characteristics (gender, level of education and wealth) are almost equal for the groups of
members and non-members. Nevertheless, the results from average age of famers show significant

32
difference. Younger farmers are less represented in FAs than elders, probable because of the
membership objective, which is connected with the access to FAs land. And likely, might not be
land available in FAs to allocate to new members; likewise, the difference between younger and
elders farmers can be associate with other reasons. For example, Dorsey and Muchanga (1999) in
research conducted in Mozambique have found that some FAs after establishment refuse to accept
new members. This means that younger farmers are in risk of not being integrated in already
existing FAs and consequently their needs not addressed in research system. According to Abaru et
al (2006), FAs that are not representing social-cultural and economic structures of their farming
community cannot serve as viable channels through which farmers can take part in decision making.

The findings from tables 5 to 9 have also demonstrate the existence of other differences between the
two groups (members and non-members), related to agricultural aspects (location of their farmland,
crops, destination of their production, production constraints and demand of services). These
differences give the meaning and relevance of working with FAs in agricultural research process.

Table 5 shows that the two groups have farmland in different areas, non-members in upland and
members in lowland or in irrigation system. And there is clear difference on these two farmlands;
for example, in Manhia and Marracuene districts the upland is characterized by poor sandy soils
and lowland, along Incomati River, is characterized by rich clay soils (Leeuwen 1987). This means
that members are farming on better soils conditions than do non-members; consequently, they can
have different cropping system, problems and priorities. This poses challenge for the research
system on deciding where to place the experiments. Experiences from Knox and Lilja (2004) and
Sanginga et al (2005), working with farmer groups, the experiments were placed in shared groups
plots, which were either rented by or donated to the groups. For the current research, this implies the
placement of the experiments in lowland or in irrigation system, where FAs have shared plots
(common farms). And this represents a risk of excluding the upland farming conditions, where non-
members are farming.

In term of crops that farmers usually grow, table 6 shows that there is no statistical difference
between the two groups (members and non-members) in four out of five crops usually grown in
upland conditions. But there are statistical significant differences in all crops usually grown in
lowland conditions. In the last group of crops, there are more members cropping than non-members.

33
The differences between the two groups of farmers are also found in the destination of their
production. Table 7 shows that 89.3% of members are cropping for home consumption and market,
while non-members (65.2%) are cropping for home consumption only. Garforth et al (2003) have
also found high percentage of members with market objectives. On the current research, two key
factors can justify the difference: (i) Difference in crops that the two groups grow (table 6);
members of FAs are growing crops with high market value, common beans, vegetable and banana,
which easily get the market. (ii) The existence of surplus for the market; non-members are farming
in upland; the soil fertility in upland is low and there is no access to water (Leeuwen 1987); the
farming relies on precipitation, and the amount of rainfall is around 500 600 mm per year
(Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries 1996, cited in Walker et al 2006). These two characteristics,
soil and availability of water, affect the yield and consequently the availability of marketable
surplus, mainly for Mozambican poor farmers.

The results from table 8 show that there is statistical significant difference in the importance of the
constraints faced by the two groups of farmers, last five years. Non-members have been more
affected than members, by all the constraints assessed in this research. The differences are also
found in the priorities. This can exposes research system in risk of addressing only FAs members
problems, when working with FAs representatives in research process.

There are differences also in demand of agricultural services (table 9): Members demand more
services than non-members from all institutions and organizations that have been providing
assistance to farmers, except in two (Village authority and private organizations), where the
difference is not significant at 5%. Nambiro et al (2005) have found the same results for demand of
the extension service. According to Chipeta (2006), farmers that demand advisory services are
motivated to develop their agricultural production and also, the demand of services is linked to the
existence of market opportunity.

Literature states that more contact with extension service (Sanginga et al 2005) and growing
marketable crops (Wennink & Heemskerk 2006) are key characteristics of farmers that are
appropriate to work with research. For example, Sanginga et al (2005) have found that farmers with
frequent contact with extension service were more likely to be aware of the innovation and
consequently more inclined to experiment new ideas. Based on these two characteristics (frequent

34
contact with extension service and growing marketable crops), suggest to say that members of FAs
from this research, seem to be more prepared to be involved in agricultural research process than
non-members.

In term of access to agricultural information, knowledge and services, table 10 shows that FAs share
information and knowledge with their members. And also, the services provided by research and
extension service through FAs, are accessed by farmer members. This prove the statement that
membership organizations have the tendency to restrict services to their members (Del Castello &
Braun 2006). This can be justified by the fact that information access and sharing occur within
framework of existing socio-economic network (Garforth et al 2003). The implication of this is that,
the experiments results implemented with the representatives of FAs will be shared among
members.

The analyses of the results from table 11 and appendix 3 gives the socio-economic characteristics
that have statistical dependence with the access to information, knowledge and services. The groups
representing these characteristics they will need special considerations in order that they can benefit
from involvement of farmers in research process. The following variables have shown dependence:

(i) Gender and education with access to research services. For gender, male had more access to
research services than female. Sanginga et al (2005) and Kanji et al (2004) have found the same
results in access to external services. For education, illiterate farmers had less access to research
services compared to other farmers with some educations. Nambiro et al (2005) have found the
same results in access to extension services.

(ii) Age of the farmers with the access to extension services. The younger farmers have accessed
more extension services than elder farmers. This difference can be due to the fact that younger
farmers have more education, and thus they might be more aware of innovations.

(iii) Wealth, measured in farm size with access to information sharing. People with less than five
hectares have accessed more IK sharing with other farmers within FAs compared to farmers with
big farm size. Matching small farm size with poverty, we can say that poor farmer member have
sought more for information sharing within their organization than wealthier members. Garforth et

35
al (2003) argues that people without direct access to external information through mass media,
telecommunications or travel, depend on their gatekeepers and on their own network. In the
current research, this suggests that poor farmer members rely on FAs agricultural information
sharing with other farmers, probably because they are lack of resources to demand external sources
of information. Hence, the improvement of their agricultural production will depend on the
availability of the information in their FAs.

Tables 12 and 13 show that farmers from FAs with common farm and from FAs network have more
access to IK sharing and to research services provided through FAs. For the access to information
sharing: (i) farmers from FAs with common farm have accessed more these services probably
because they have more frequent contact, as they meet once a week, while other farmers from
organizations that have no common farm, they have less frequent meetings; (ii) farmers from FAs
network have accessed more information sharing because they have frequent contact with other
farmers from the network, through monthly FU meetings. For research services, it is not clear why
farmers from FAs with common farm and networked had more access to their services than other
from FAs without common farm and out of network.

Table 14 shows that the origin of the initiative of FA formation has statistical dependence with the
access to external services provided through FAs. Therefore, FAs formed by own farmers
initiatives have more access to extension services than FAs formed by government, and more access
to research services than the two groups formed by external initiatives (NGO and government).
These results are supported by the statement from Leisa Magazine (2007) that FGs formed by own
farmers initiatives are more likely to be effective than do those formed by external initiatives.
The analysis of tables 15 and 16 show that there are more farmers from FAs that had linkage with
research and extension benefiting to their services than those from organizations that had no linkage
with these two institutions. This means that the results from the experiments implemented in FAs,
will be accessed only by farmers from the organizations that will be involved in research.

36
VI. Conclusion and recommendations

6.1 Conclusions

The analysis of the structure and functioning of FAs shows that the involvement of FAs
representatives in the research process will ensure the transmission of farmer members constraints
to the research system, and facilitate the dissemination of research results. As members of FAs have
been reporting their agricultural problems to their organizations and they regularly meet to share
agricultural information.

The access to good farmland is the main objective of membership of FAs in study area as almost all
members of FAs are farming in FAs land. And those farmlands are in areas with availability of
water and with good soils conditions.

The involvement of FAs in research process poses in risk of exclusion of non-member farmers
problems, needs, farming conditions and priorities; as the two groups of farmers are different in
where they farm, in crops they grow, and in their priorities. But the fact that members are more
preoccupied with improvement of their production and consequently more disposed to experiment
new technologies, place them in better position to be involved in participatory agricultural research
process than non-members.

The involvement of FAs representatives in research process will benefit more farmer members than
non-members, in term of access to research results, because FAs restrict the access to services that
they provide and the services provided by research and extension services, through FAs, to their
members. However, among farmer members, illiterate, elders and farmers from organizations that
may not be involved in research process, they will be excluded from the access to research results;
as these groups had less access to research services provided through FAs.

The involvement of FAs representatives in research process will contribute to more access to
agricultural information by poor farmer members, as they had relied more on the information
obtained in their FAs.

37
Farmer associations with common farm (common farming day) and from network, will provide
better dissemination of the research results, because their farmers have shown more access to
information provided by their organizations and by research services through farmer associations.

6.2 Recommendations

In order to enhance the access to the benefits from research experiments conducted in collaboration
with FAs representatives, it is important to take some special consideration to female and illiterate
farmers as these two groups had less access to research services provided through FAs. It is also
important to find ways that will allow non-members needs, problems and farming conditions to be
addressed in experiments as well as the results from the experiments to be accessed by non-member
farmers.

Farmer associations out of network, for example FAs from Namaacha district, it is important to
raise their awareness of the importance of networking; for example, in term of facilitating their
communication with research, and the exchange of the information and experiences between farmer
associations. It is also recommended to strengthen the network, where it exists, in order to guarantee
that the experiment results can flow among FAs networked.

38
References
Abaru, M., Nyakuni, A. & Shone, G., 2006. Strengthening farmer organizations: RELMAs experience in eastern and
southern Africa. Nairobi, Kenya: ICRAF Working Paper no 23.

Adamo K. A., 2001. Participatory agricultural research processes in eastern and central Ethiopia: using farmers
social networks as entry points for participatory research activities. Network on bean research in Africa, occasional
publications series no. 33. Kampala: Centro Internacional de Agricultura Tropical (CIAT).

Ashby, J. et al., 1995. Institutionalizing farmer participation in adaptive technology testing with the CIAL.
Agricultural Research and Extension Paper No. 57, July. United Kingdom: Overseas Development Administration.

Chambers, R., Pacey, A. & Thrupp, L., 1990. Farmer first: farmer innovation and agricultural research. London:
Intermediate Technology Publications.

Chipeta, S., 2006. Demand driven agricultural advisory services. Switzerland: Neuchatel Group.

Del Castello, R. & Braun, P., 2006. Framework on effective rural communication for development. Rome: Food and
Agriculture Organization of the United Nations & Deutsche Gesellschaft fr Technische Zusammenarbeit (GTZ)
GmbH.

Denscombe, M., 2007. The good research guide for small scale social research projects. 3rd edition. Berkshire: Open
University press.

Direco de Formao, Documemntao e Trasnferncia de Tecnologias, 2006. Relatrio anual da DFDTT 2006,
Maputo: Instituto de Investigao Agrria de Moambique (IIAM).

Direco Provincial de Agricultura de Maputo, 2007. Mapa informativo de organizao de produtores. Maputo:
Direco Provincial de Agricultura de Maputo.

Dorsey, J. & Muchanga, S.P., 1999. Best practices in farmer association development in Mozambique. Mozambique:
Rural and Agricultural Incomes with a Sustainable Environment (RAISE). USAID.

Food and Agriculture Organization & World Food Programme, 2005. FAO/WFP crop and food supply assessment
mission to Mozambique. Mozambique: Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) & World Food Programme (WFP).

Garforth, C., Khatiwada, Y. & Campbell, D., 2003. Communication research to support knowledge interventions in
agricultural development: case studies from Eritrea and Uganda. In Development Studies Association Conference,
Glasgow, 10-12 September 2003. Communication Research for Knowledge Intervention: Glasgow.

Gemo, H., 2007. Ligao investigao-extenso como contributo para o fluxo de conhecimentos e tecnologias agrrias:
breves consideraes sobre Moambique. In documento apresentado no workshop sobre transferncia de tecnologias.
Nampula, 06 08 de Maro, 2007, IIAM & United States Agency for International Development (USAID): Maputo.

Gotschi, E., 2007. The wrong gender? Distribution of social capital in groups of smallholders farmers in Bzi
district, Mozambique. Vienna: University of Natural Resources and Applied Life Sciences. Department of Economics
and Social Sciences.

Hedges, D., 1999. Histria de Moambique: Moambique no auge do colonialismo, 1930-1961. 2nd ed. Maputo:
Livraria Universitria.

Heemskerk, W. & Wennink, B., 2004. Building social capital for agricultural innovation: experiences with farmer
groups in sub-Saharan Africa. Amsterdam: Royal Tropical Institute.

InterAcademy Council, 2004. Realizing the promise of African agriculture. [e-book]. Amsterdam: InterAcademy
Council.
Available at: http://www.interacademycouncil.net/CMS/Reports/AfricanAgriculture/6972/7242/7315.aspx

39
[Accessed 14/01/2008].

International Federation of Agricultural Producers, 1995. Negotiating linkages: farmers organizations, agricultural
research and extension. Paris, France: International Federation of Agricultural Producers (IFAP).

Kaburire, L. & Ruvunga, S., 2006. Networking for agricultural innovation: the MVIWATA national network of
farmers groups in Tanzania. Bulletin no 374. Amsterdam: Royal Tropical Institute.

Kanji, N., Vijfhuizen, C., Branga, C. & Artur, L., 2004. Cashing in on cashew nuts: women producers and factory
workers in Mozambique. In Carr, M. (ed), Chains of Fortune: Linking Local Women Producers and Workers with
Global Markets. London: Commonwealth Secretariat.

Kely, S., 2003. A brief overview of Mozambiques rural development and the role of US assistance. In Cornell
University, national intelligence council conference on Mozambique. Mozambique, August 7, 2003, Cornell University:
New York

Knox, A. & Lilja, N., 2004. Farmer research and extension. Washignoton D.C.: International Food Policy Research
Institute (IFPRI).

Leeuwen, J.V., 1987. Agricultura familiar numa parte da faixa costeira do sul de Moambique: descrio e prospostas
para investigao. Srie Agrnomica 11. Maputo: Eduardo Mondlane University. Projecto da Faixa Consteira.

Leisa Magazine, 2007. How farmers organize. [online].

Available at: http://www.leisa.info/index.php?url=show-blob-html.tpl&p[o_id]=90649&p[a_id]=211&p[a_seq]=1
[Accessed 19 March 2009]

Lema, M. & Kapange, B., 2006. Farmers organizations and agricultural innovation in Tanzania. the sector policy for
real farmer empowerment. Bull374 17-05-2006. Amsterdam: Royal Tropical Institute.

Ministrio da Administrao Estatal, 2005a. Perfil do distrito de Manhia, provincia de Maputo. Moambique:
Ministrio da Administrao Estatal.

Ministrio da Administrao Estatal, 2005b. Perfil do distrito de Marracuene, provincia de Maputo. Moambique:
Ministrio da Administrao Estatal.

Ministrio da Administrao Estatal, 2005c. Perfil do distrito de Namaacha, provincia de Maputo. Moambique:
Ministrio da Administrao Estatal.

Mutunga, K. J., 2008. Why and what should enhancement of the role of farmers organizations target? Oslo: African
Agriculture and the World Development.

Naranjo et al., 2007. SARD and farmers organizations. Policy brief 12. Sustainable Agricultural and Rural
Development (SARD). [online].
Available at: ftp://ftp.fao.org/SD/SDA/SDAR/sard/SARD-farmers-orgs%20-%20english.pdf [accessed at 27 April
2008].

Nambiro, E., Omiti, J. & Mugunieri, L., 2005. Decentralization and access to agricultural extension services in Kenya.
Kenya: Strategies and Analysis for Growth and Access (SAGA).

Newitt, M., 1995. Histria de Moambique. Portugal: Publicaes Europa-Amrica, LDA.

Okali, C., Sumberg, J. & Farrington, J., 1994. Farmer participatory research: rhetoric and reality. London: Intermediate
Technology Publications.

Ouma, J. et al., 2002. Adoption of maize seed and fertilizer technologies in Embu District, Kenya. Mexico: International
Maize and Wheat Improvement Center (CIMMYT).

40
Renda F., Dadi H., Hassana, M. & Bekele A., 2005. Farmer research groups: concept and practices. In EARO-OARI-
JICA cooperation. Melkassa, 20-21 October 2004. EARO, OARI and JICA: Ethiopia.

Sanginga, C.P., Tumwine, J. & Lilja K.N., 2005. Patterns of participation in farmers research groups: lessons from the
highlands of southwestern Uganda. Agriculture and Human Values, 23 (4), p.501-512.

Shapland, B. & Kampen, J., 2006. Farmers Organizations and agricultural innovation: case studies from Benin,
Rwanda and Tanzania. Amsterdam: Royal tropical Institute.

Sitoe, T., 2005. Agricultura familiar em Moambique: estratgias de desenvolvimento sustentvel. Maputo. [online]
Available at: http://www.sarpn.org.za/documents/d0001749/index.php. [Accessed at: 12 February 2009]

Southern African Development Community, 2007. SADC review 11 th anniversary: 1997 2008. [online].
Available at: http://www.sadcreview.com/country_profiles/mozambique/moz_agriculture.htm. [Accessed 29 February
2008].

Unio Nacional dos Camponeses, 2004. Verso popular do plano estratgico da UNAC, 2004-2008. Maputo: UNAC
(Unio Nacional dos Camponeses).

Unio Nacional dos Camponeses, 2007. Manifesto. Maputo: Unio Nacional dos Camponeses (UNAC)

Unio Nacional dos Camponeses , n.d. Apresentao da UNAC. Maputo: Unio Nacional dos Camponeses (UNAC)

Van de Loo, A., 1984. Anlise do movimento cooperativo na rea de influncia do programa CRED. Cabo Delgado:
Centro Regionl de Experimentao e Desenvolvimento.

Walker, T. et al., 2006. Priority setting for public-sector agricultural research in Mozambique with the national
agricultural survey data. Mozambique: Institute of Agricultural Research of Mozambique.

Wanyonyi, N., Mwangi, T.J., Mureithi, J.G., Akuno, W., 2000. Farmer participatory research under resource-poor
farming systems of Kenyan highlands. Proceedings of the 2nd Scientific Conference of the Soil Management Project and
Legume Research Network Project, June 2000, Mombasa, Kenya, KARI Publication: Nairobi, Kenya.

Wennink, B. & Heemskerk, W., 2006. Farmers organizations and agricultural innovations: case studies from Benin,
Rwanda and Tanzania. Amsterdam: Royal Tropical Institute.

Woodhouse, P., 1997. Virtue or necessity? pluralist agricultural technology development in Mozambique. Journal of
International Development. 9 (3), p.331-346.

World Bank, 2006. Mozambique agricultural development strategy: stimulating smallholder agricultural growth (report
no 32416-MZ). Maputo: Agriculture, Environment, and Social Development Unit. World Bank.

41
Appendix 1: Individual famers questionnaire
We kindly ask you to participate in our questionnaire survey. Your answers will be kept anonymous and the
results will be used to analyze the characteristic of farming community. The respondent of this questionnaire
must be the head of the household or someone else that hold enough information about household farming
activities. Thank you for your participation.

1. Basic information
1.1 Number of questionnaire_______
1.2 Location District: Manhia ___ Marracuene___ Namaacha___
Village name_____________________________________________________________
1.3 Interviewees name_________________________________________________________ (optional)
1.4 Gender of the interviewee: M____F___
1.5 Age of the interviewee________
1.6 Level of education of the farmer interviewed
1. Illiterate__ 2. Primary school__ 3. Secondary school__ 4. High school__ 5. University__

1.7 Are you member of an FA? Yes__(1) No__(2) (if you answer is no, go to question 2)

1.8 Name of FA were you are member________________________________________________________

2. Famers characteristics

2.1 What is the total area do you usually farm?

Area of farm in hectares (ha) Tick
Less than 5 ha
Between 5 to 10 ha
More than 10 to 50 ha
More than 50 ha

2.2 Do you farm in: lowland/Irrigation system ____(1) Rainfall/upland ___ (2)Both ___(3)

2.1 Do you usually grow the following crops in your farm?

No Type of crop Yes (1) No (2)
1 Maize
2 Cassava
3 Peanut
4 Sweet potatoes
5 Cowpea
6 Common beans
7 Vegetable
8 Banana
9 Other

2.3 What is the main objective or destination of your production?

1. Home consumption____ 2. Market ____3. Both___

42
2.4 What are the main difficulties, from the list below, have you faced in your farm/livestock production last
5 years? Please rank from 1 to 4 where 1: you have not faced this problem and the rest you have faced, and
you classify as 2: Slight important 3: Important 4: Very important problem)

No Problems Score
1 2 3 4
1 Access to production facilities (irrigation network, water ),
2 Access to equipment for production (pump, power tiller, )
3 Access to technical information, technical advising
4 Access to inputs (seeds, fertilizers, animal feed, pesticides, fuel,)
5 Access to financial means
6 Access to market (transportation, trading, information on market,)
7 Access to storage and processing facilities

3. The search for solution

3.1 For solving your farming/livestock problem who have you contacted last 5 years? (Please rank from 0 to
4 where 0: You have never contacted; 1: Have contacted once; 2: Have contacted twice; 3: have contacted 3 times;
and 4: more than 3 times)
No Organization or person you have contacted Score
0 1 2 3 4
1 Public extension service
2 Public research organization
3 Farmer organizations
4 NGOs
5 Village authority
6 Private sector
7 Other farmers (neighbor, families, etc)

3.2 Who have helped you to solve your farming/livestock problems in last five years? (Please rank from 1 to
4; where 0: Have never helped; 1: have helped once 2: have helped twice; 3. Have three times and 4. Have helped
more than three times)
No Organization or person that have helped you Score
0 1 2 3 4
1 Public extension service
2 Public research organization
3 Farmer organizations
4 NGOs
5 Village authority
6 Private organization
7 Other farmers (neighbor, families, etc)

4. Organizational Diagnosis
4.1 Assess the level of capacity of your FA leader on the following items:
No FA leader capacity 1 2 3 4 5
1 Represent farmer interest in ordinary meeting or working group (with external organizations)
2 To react to specific problems that are concerning farmers (giving some suggestion, propose
innovative solutions)
3 Discuss openly with FAs members as a way to get solutions for farmers problems
Note: 1=Very good, 2=Good, 3=Fair, 4=Poor, 5=Very poor

43
4.2 Assess the level of capacity of your FAs leader in mobilization of the following resources:
No FAs leader capacity 1 2 3 4 5
1 Capacity to mobilize members to participate efficiently into activities
2 Capacity to mobilize internal resources (fees, margins from economical services)
3 Capacity to mobilize external resources (subsidies, credit, donations, etc)
4 Capacity of mobilize information needed for solving farmers problems/needs (for
example: extension service, research, other services providers).
Note: 1=Very good, 2=Good, 3=Fair, 4=Poor, 5=Very poor

4.3 Have you had benefit from the following services provided by Farmer Associations, last five years?
No Services provided Yes No
1 Access to market to sell production
2 Access to inputs (fertilizers, pesticides, seeds, etc.)
3 Access to credit
4 Access to extension service
5 Access to research service
6 Sharing information and knowledge between farmers

5. Decision making and farmer members involvement

5.1 Who decide about the activities and other FA issues? (Please tick only one, the most important)= this
question is for FAs members only.
1___Farmer Association leader without previous consultation of members
2___Farmer Association leader after previous consultation of members
3___All members
4___Government
5___NGOs
5.2 If you were in a position to make a decision on the type of local organization that can represent you in
searching solution for your farming problems, which one you should choose? (Choose only one)
1___Farmer association
2___Village/community authority
3___A local NGO
4___A private organization

End of questionnaire: Thank you for your cooperation.

44
Appendix 2: Famer Associations questionnaire
We kindly ask you to participate in our questionnaire survey. Your answers will be kept anonymous and the
results will be used to analyze the capacity of your Farmer Association (FA) to deal with farming community
problems and work closely with public research and extension service in development and dissemination of
technologies. This questionnaire must preferable be answered by the leadership of the FA (president, vice-
president or general secretary). Thank you for your participation.

1. Identification
1.2 Number of questionnaire_______
1.2 Location District: Manhia ___ Marracuene___ Namaacha___
Village name________________________________________________________
1.3 Name of Farmer association:_____________________________________________________
1.4 Interviewees name______________________________________________________________
1.5 Position of the interviewee in FA: President___ (1) Vice-president ___ (2) Secretary___ (3)

2. Basic information of Farmer Association

2.1 How many years your FA have been established?________
2.2 Total number of members_________
2.3 Gender: Number of men_______(1) women____(2)
2.4 Statute of FA: Formalized__ (1) non formalized ___(2) in process of formalization____(3)
2.5 Level of representativeness: Village ____ (1) District_____ (2) Provincial____(3)National____(4)

3. The idea of FA formation comes from: (Tick only one)

3.1__Farmer members
3.2__An NGO
3.3__Government (local, district, provincial, national)
3.4__Other farmer organizations

4. Farmers Association structure and functioning

4.1Does your FA focuses on the following areas?
Code Area of focus Yes No
(1) (2)
1 Access to and mobilization of means of production such as land, equipment, inputs, water
2 Access to and mobilization of information and knowledge (technical and economical one)
3 Mobilization of financial means (cash) necessary for production though savings or credit
4 Manage marketing activities (selling farmer members products)
5 Deal with processing and storage of agricultural products
6 Lobbing, advocacy and defending farmers interest (when dealing with government
authority, public and private sector)
7 Mutual support in farming activities (helping each other in seeding, weeding and harvesting)

4.2 What is the most important focus area ______ (enter focus area code from above)

4.3 Does your FA have faced the following constraints or difficulties to fulfill the FA functions?
No Constraints and difficulties faced Yes No
(1) (2)
1 Poor knowledge on conception of the activities (design and presentation of the idea)
2 Difficulty to get the means to initiate the activity
3 No respect of commitments by the FAs members (co participation in activity)
4 No respect of commitments by the partners (support agency): delay in delivering the support,
temporary stop of the support, end of the support, etc.

45
4.4 How regular your farmer association members meet? (If you dont have regular meeting put zero)
________/year

4.5 How the decision marker is made in your FA? (Tick only one)
1___Farmer Association leader without previous consultation of members
2___Farmer Association leader after previous consultation of members
3___All members
4___Government
5___NGOs

5. Capital resources
5.1 Does your FA have regular fees? Yes __(1) No __ (2)
5.2 How much? _______________/year (in Mozambican Currency)

5.3 Does your FA have another source of financial resource (cash) like from the following?
Code Source of resource Yes (1) No (2)
1 Donation
2 Income generating activities
3 Partnership activities

5.4 Does your organization have other kind of resources? (Please put the quantity, where zero means that
yours FA doesnt have the resource).
Code Type of capital Quantity
1 Tractor
2 Oxen
3 Irrigation equipment (pumps)
4 Land (Ha)

5.5 Does your FA have a bank account? Yes___ (1) No___(2)

5.6 If yes, how much had saved in your account? _______________________ (in Mozambican Currency)

6. Farmer Association linkages

6.1 Have your organization worked with research organization, last 5 years? Yes__(1) No __(2) If no go to
6.6.

6.2 Does your FA have worked with research organization in the following kind of activities?
No Activities Yes (1) No (2)
1 Identification of technologies
2 On station experiment
3 On farm experiment
4 Famer field school
5 Field days
6 Others

6.3 From whom came the initiative of working with research organization? (Tick only one)
1___Farmer association (your FA)
2___An NGO
3___Research organization
4___Extension service
5___Others

46
6.4 Your FA have had been given opportunity by research organization to define or redefine the activity, in
order to fit in your expectation? Yes___(1) No ___(2)

6.5 How was the involvement (participation) of your farmer members in the activities that your organization
had worked with research?
1. Very good___ 2. Good___3. Fair__ 4.Poor___5.Very poor___
6.6 Have your organization worked with extension service, last 5 years? Yes___(1) No ___(2) if no go to
question 6.11

6.7 Does your FA have worked with extension service in the following kind of activities?
No Activities Yes (1) No (2)
1 Identification of technologies
2 Training and visits
3 On farm demonstration
4 Famer field school
5 Field days
6 Others

6.8 From whom came the initiative of working with extension service? (Tick only one)
1___Farmer association (your FA)
2___An NGO
3___Research organization
4___Extension service
5___Others

6.9 Your FA have had been given opportunity by extension service to define or redefine the activity, in order
to fit into your expectation? Yes___(1) No ___(2)

6.10 How was the involvement (participation) of your farmer members in the activities that your organization
had worked with extension service?
1. Very good___ 2. Good___3. Fair__ 4.Poor___5.Very poor___

6.11 Does your organization has or had linkage with an input supply organization, last five years? Yes__(1)
No__(2) if no go to the question 6.13

6.12 From whom came the initiative of working with Input Supply Organization? (Tick only one)
1___Farmer association
2___An NGO
3___ Input supply organization

6.13 Your farmer organization is member of any FA network? Yes__(1) No__(2) if no go to the question 7.

6.14 Up to what level your FA is networked?

Village___(1) District__ (2) Provincial__ (3) National__ (4)

47
7. Searching for solutions

7.1 Have your FA taken the following initiatives in order to try to cope with the problems faced by farmers?
Code Type of initiatives taken Yes (1) No (2)
1 Discuss with farmer members and try to find solutions within FA
2 Ask help from extension service (information, technology and ideas)
3 Ask solutions from research organization (information, technology and
ideas)
4 Ask help from local authority (village, district)
5 Contact an NGO (for technical and financial help)
6 Contact private organization (input supply, transport,)

7.2 From the initiatives that you have taken, which one was the most important (the initiative that had been
more efficient in solving farmers problems) ______ (enter the initiative code from above)

7.3 From the initiatives that you have taken, which one was the less important (the initiative that had not been
efficient in solving farmers problems) ______ (enter the initiative code from above)

8. Group participation and communication (requirements, roles and responsibilities)

8.1 How is the involvement of FAs members in FAs activities or projects?
Note: 1=Very good, 2=Good, 3=Fair, 4=Poor, 5=Very poor
No Type of farmers involvement Score
1 2 3 4 5
1 Payment of membership fees
2 Contribution in provision of others resources (e.g. labour) for FO activities
3 Participating in FAs meetings
4 Participation in the decision-making processes of the farmers organization

8.2 Does your FA members share information and knowledge through the following mean?
No Mean used Yes (1) No (2)
1 Regular meetings organized by FA for many other issues
2 Extraordinary meetings organized by FA with this purpose
3 Field days organized by FA
4 Through day a day contact (informal contact)

9. Which language do you use in your FA meetings?

1__Local language
2__Official language (Portuguese)
3__Both

End of questionnaire: Thank you for your cooperation

48
Appendix 3: Socio-economic characteristics that had shown
dependence with access to IK and services
Variable Percentage of farmers that had Percentage of farmers that had not Total
accessed IK and assistance accessed IK and assistance provided
provided by research through by research through FAs
FAs

Gender (farmer members)

Male 23.3% 76.7% 100%

Female 10.7% 89.3% 100%

Level of education (farmer members)

Illiterate 5.3% 94.7% 100%

Primary school 23.5% 76.5% 100%

Secondary school 19% 81% 100%

Farm size (farmer non-members)

Less than 5 ha 0.0% 100.0% 100%

5 10 ha 12.5% 87.5% 100%

More than 10 ha 1.4% 98.6% 100%

Age (farmer members)

Variable Average age of farmers that had Average age of farmers that had not Total
accessed IK and assistance accessed IK and assistance provided
provided by extension service by extension service through FAs
through FAs

Average age 46.17 49.94 100%

Farm size (farmer members)

Variable Percentage of farmers that had Percentage of farmers that had not Total
accessed IK sharing with other accessed IK sharing with other
farmers promoted by FAs farmers promoted by FAs

Less than 5 ha 81.4% 18.6% 100%

5 10 ha 65.5% 34.5% 100%

More than 10 ha 50% 50% 100%

49