99

SURVEYING PEASANT FARMERS-SOME EXPERIENCES

D. C. CAT" University of A berdeen (formerly Department of Agricultu~e, Malawi)

Information about various aspects of agriculture is particularly vital in any country where increased agricultural production or efficiency is an im- portant part of economic development. It is essential that any practical plans to develop agriculture consider not only national aspirations and potential but also the problems facing the individual producer. In countries where there are large numbers of very small farmers, obtaining adequate information about them is particularly important yet very difficult. Partly because of this, agri- cultural economics has been a slow starter in developing countries. There is, however, an increasing interest in surveys of peasant farmers but there is a very large amount of work still to do.

In some countries there are now well established government or university departments of agricultural economics and a useful body of information is being built up although too little is published, especially on the subject of survey techniques. In many countries, however, the responsibility for all the work in this field falls on a single agricultural economist who, in many instances, is near the beginning of his career and is engaged on a two or three year contract only. For this reason i t is important that he should be able to refer t o literature on the subject so that time is not wasted repeating the mistakes of others. This note represents a small contribution to this end and is based on the writer's experiences whilst working in Malawi from 1962 to 1965.

Three separate surveys using contrasting methods were conducted. The fmt was of progressive farmers and covered a few such farmers in each of a dozen districts. The data collected included: income, expenditure, crop areas, yields, animal production, non-farm income and labour use. These data were re- corded throughout the year and each farmer should have been visited each week. The recording was done by field staff of the Department of Agriculture in addition to their other duties. The survey was supervised by the District Agricultural Officer. This technique was not really successful and is not recom- mended. The chief defects are that the field staff often cannot make weekly visits due to seasonal pressure of other work or attendance of in-service training courses; and the adequacy of the supervision depends on the interest in agri- cultural economics of the District Agricultural Officer. By the time the agri- cultural economist comes across a gap or inconsistency in the records it is usually too late to go back and amend them. In addition it is now felt that case studies of progressive farmers, which this survey really was, are of little value in relation to the effort involved.

The second survey was by contrast a survey of a random sample of cotton growers in three villages of one district. It was intended as a pilot survey partly to test the technique of collecting data at one visit. The survey was conducted soon after harvest and all the field staff in the district were put at the full-time disposal of the writer for one month. Teams of three each surveyed one farm per day (sometimes two). The team leader collected most of the data whilst his two assistants measured acreages of the gardens. Information on yields, income, purchased inputs, family size, acreage, hired labour and animal production was collected as well as the answers to some socio-economic

100 D. C. Catt

questions. The teams were supervised by area supervisors who checked the forms as they were completed. In addition some of the acreage measurements were checked. A total staff of twenty-four (including supervisors) managed to survey one hundred and fifteen holdings in four weeks which included three days training at the beginning. This sort of organisation was found to be satis- factory and it was felt that the enumerators were adequately supervised. A single visit soon after harvest seemed to be sufficient to collect details of acreage, yields, family size, capital possessions, animal ownership, etc. but it is doubtful if it would be sufficient to collect details of personal expenditure, egg or milk production, detailed labour use or other events that occur throughout the year.

The third survey followed the second and consisted of detailed records from a sub-sample of those surveyed in the second survey. The chief informa- tion collected was labour use field by field together with acreage, physical input and yield data. This was conducted by two full-time enumerators each visiting eight farmers weekly. They were supervised by the area supervisor and were visited monthly by the writer. Experience showed that a fairly good enumerator could be expected to manage more than eight farmers if all were living in the same village but that eight is too many if much travelling is involved.

In conclusion, the lessons learned from these three surveys are:- (1) The need for full-time recorders. (2) The need for adequate personal supervision and checking for gaps and

inconsistencies on the spot. (3) It is better to underestimate the number of farmers that can be covered

than to overestimate them and end up with a lot of inadequate data. (4) The one-visit technique is adequate for records of acreage, family size, etc.

and of yields if done directly after harvest. If different crops are harvested at different times it may be necessary to make several visits to coincide with the harvest of each.

(5) The weekly visit method is probably necessary if accurate labour records and certain other classes of data are required. It is important to maintain the level of supervision throughout the year otherwise gaps occur. It is hoped that this note will be of some value to those who are planning

surveys of peasant farmers and is of general interest to others.