(B) Type, frequency and conduct of group activities were strongly criticized by the
group members of WomUn and NatRes, since in each case only three official
meetings were held during the project cycle, namely an initial training class, a
mid-term review and a final evaluation. On a positive note, in the case of
WomUn there was a chance to update and discuss current issues at the less
formal monthly meetings held at the local branch. ExtClubs and ForRes
assembled their group members more frequently, with the intention of
providing space for discussion among members, though the relatively inflexible setting provided for training activities was criticized by most interviewees,
on the basis of access, timing, provision and conduct. As a result, attendance at
training activities was typically low, which seems at odds with the views of the
majority of interviewed group members who were not satisfied due to the
somewhat low number of training sessions provided. This contradiction can
be explained by looking at the timing of the training sessions. In all the basic
documentation (with the exception of ForRes), the target number of meetings
and exact frequencies were indicated, but the meeting schedules did not
provide the opportunity for individual adjustments based on people’s availability, with many sessions conducted during periods of labor shortages in the
middle of the peak cropping season.
Most group activities showed the typical features of classroom lectures, with
the exception of a few interactive elements such as group discussions in ForRes.
In WomUn and NatRes, members were disappointed by both the conventional
lecture style and the choice of topics, which largely ignored the requests made by
farmers during inaugural meetings. This was particularly discouraging for farmers,
as responses to individually articulated problems had been explicitly promised at
the beginning.
(C) Individual initiatives to obtain high-quality breeding animals were constrained
by the limited availability of cash and credit and by a lack of access to
genetically superior pig breeds. The projects offered a unique opportunity for
smallholders to obtain good animal material, and at the same time offered
subsidies (WomUn, ExtClubs) and in-kind payments (obtain a sow for free and
pay back with a piglet from the first litter) (ForRes, NatRes). However, vague
or unclear information regarding the use of subsidies or modes of repayment
resulted in tensions with initiators, as well as placing the group heads – who
were assigned to collect the money – in a situation where loyalty towards their
peers conflicted with their accountability towards the initiators. Consequently,
a feeling of ‘us’ and ‘them’ emerged among ordinary members, leading to
mistrust towards group heads, facilitators and initiators, and ultimately
undermining the creation of an open and cooperative atmosphere. On several
occasions, group members criticized the lack of support measures in place such
as a credit brokerage, which would have enabled farmers to deal with higher
input costs after a project’s term had finished, as well as the introduction of
input suppliers and market information, and were therefore concerned that they
would not be able to sustain innovations after the project finished.
11 Rethinking Knowledge Provision for the Marginalized: Rural Networks. . .
449
group members of WomUn and NatRes, since in each case only three official
meetings were held during the project cycle, namely an initial training class, a
mid-term review and a final evaluation. On a positive note, in the case of
WomUn there was a chance to update and discuss current issues at the less
formal monthly meetings held at the local branch. ExtClubs and ForRes
assembled their group members more frequently, with the intention of
providing space for discussion among members, though the relatively inflexible setting provided for training activities was criticized by most interviewees,
on the basis of access, timing, provision and conduct. As a result, attendance at
training activities was typically low, which seems at odds with the views of the
majority of interviewed group members who were not satisfied due to the
somewhat low number of training sessions provided. This contradiction can
be explained by looking at the timing of the training sessions. In all the basic
documentation (with the exception of ForRes), the target number of meetings
and exact frequencies were indicated, but the meeting schedules did not
provide the opportunity for individual adjustments based on people’s availability, with many sessions conducted during periods of labor shortages in the
middle of the peak cropping season.
Most group activities showed the typical features of classroom lectures, with
the exception of a few interactive elements such as group discussions in ForRes.
In WomUn and NatRes, members were disappointed by both the conventional
lecture style and the choice of topics, which largely ignored the requests made by
farmers during inaugural meetings. This was particularly discouraging for farmers,
as responses to individually articulated problems had been explicitly promised at
the beginning.
(C) Individual initiatives to obtain high-quality breeding animals were constrained
by the limited availability of cash and credit and by a lack of access to
genetically superior pig breeds. The projects offered a unique opportunity for
smallholders to obtain good animal material, and at the same time offered
subsidies (WomUn, ExtClubs) and in-kind payments (obtain a sow for free and
pay back with a piglet from the first litter) (ForRes, NatRes). However, vague
or unclear information regarding the use of subsidies or modes of repayment
resulted in tensions with initiators, as well as placing the group heads – who
were assigned to collect the money – in a situation where loyalty towards their
peers conflicted with their accountability towards the initiators. Consequently,
a feeling of ‘us’ and ‘them’ emerged among ordinary members, leading to
mistrust towards group heads, facilitators and initiators, and ultimately
undermining the creation of an open and cooperative atmosphere. On several
occasions, group members criticized the lack of support measures in place such
as a credit brokerage, which would have enabled farmers to deal with higher
input costs after a project’s term had finished, as well as the introduction of
input suppliers and market information, and were therefore concerned that they
would not be able to sustain innovations after the project finished.
11 Rethinking Knowledge Provision for the Marginalized: Rural Networks. . .
449