Here is a little story about behaviour change and how conviction is essential in the process of technology adoption.
This one is from my own field experience with weedicide application or what every farmer call «spraying». Spraying is a very important part of farming and it’s normally done right after ploughing or during planting to kill all the weeds that could prevent seeds from germinating well.
Situation now: Weedicides are very dangerous chemicals and they can cause many different sicknesses in the long-term. That’s why its application needs to respect clear safety rules: use boots and mask, wear long clothing, no contact with the skin, etc. But right now, most of the spraying is done by inexperienced labours without any safety measures. That’s why many projects in the agriculture sector, like the big value chains project I’m working with, are trying to reinforce good safety practices directly with farmers. Most of that is done through trainings and sensitization at the beginning of the growing season.
This is where my own field experience becomes relevant. I assisted in one of the sensitization session done by an AeA* with a farmer group in Tangazu during which he spoke extensively about the safety measures to follow when you spray. I then followed the farmers to the farm the next day, to see how the information from trainings was used in the reality. I was surprised to see that even if they knew the importance of wearing protective clothing, all the farmers were spraying without any protection! From what they told me, the main reason is the high price and low accessibility of protective clothing, which are only found in Wa. Fair enough for me at that time.
Then, last week I followed the nucleus farmer I work with to his own farm. This is the same nucleus farmer who organised the sensitization session for some of his outgrowers in Tangazu. Imagine my surprise when I saw that he had hired some labourers to spray his farm and they were all working without any protective clothing! For him, I can assure you that price and accessibility is not an issue! So why are all these people refusing to change their behaviours and adopt the safety measures, even if they are saying the opposite? Where is the problem?
I think this is a proof that most development projects trying to change farmers’ behaviours are not targeting the right element of behaviour change: CONVICTION. Most of the farmers know the safety measures with spraying and even why they should do it but they still don’t take the action. Why? Because they don’t have the conviction that it’s worth doing it! Same thing for the nucleus farmer who is preaching for safety measures but is not himself convinced of the importance of doing it.
Something is sure for me: while trainings and sensitization can build understanding, knowledge and even skills, they are not very effective at convincing people to act, which is a key element of behaviour change. So what’s the solution then?
This issue is very similar to community led total sanitation (CLTS), which is an initiative trying to address the problem of people defecating in the bush instead of using latrines. How do they CONVINCE people to change? They put real shit beside food and water to show how flies go from one to another! I think this explicit and visual way of explaining things is also interesting in the spraying context.
Here are some ideas:
- During trainings or sensitization, invite another farmer or a sprayer who was sick because of the chemicals to come and tell their story.
- Use a highly visual example (like the one used by CLTS) to show the consequences of being exposed to chemicals. For example, putting a pig leg in the chemicals for some time or anything else that could be badly affected by the chemicals.
- Show pictures or video about the consequences of using these chemicals without any protection.
- Working more closely with the farmer leader to give HIM conviction in the new behaviour you want the group to adopt can also be a good idea to still have someone pushing for the change when you leave the community.
* Agriculture Extension Agent. They are employed by the government (Ministry of Food and Agriculture) but are often hired by NGOs to do technical trainings with farmers groups.



Great post David. I have seen the exact same thing here in Yendi when it comes to safety measures in spraying. I’ve never actually seen someone using full protective equipment. Another interesting point is that there are people that come to the conclusion that spraying without protective equipment is too dangerous. Their solution is to quit spraying all together rather than using protective equipment but.
Hey David, I feel like you’ve definitely hit something there about what’s missing in sensitizations. Ironically their stated aim is to convince people about the right way to do things! I love your suggestions that explore things other than knowledge to create that conviction.
I am curious as to what the labourers and farmers had to say to you about why they are not wearing protective clothing. Why don’t they believe it’s worthwhile?
Thanks for sharing your thoughts David!
Thanks for your comments on the post!
First, what Evan said about sprayers quitting instead of adopting the good behaviour really surprised me. I don’t know what convinced them that spraying was too dangerous. Is it because some of them were sick or something like that? Maybe they would be interesting people to try the idea of bringing «real life stories» in trainings.
Secondly, to answer your question Binnu, I don’t think they believe it’s worthless. From what I understand (and there could be many answers) it’s more that they don’t see spraying as dangerous enough to worth the trouble buying and wearing protective clothing. The temperature becomes kind of high when you are wearing all the right protective clothing during a hot day! I think the key point is that chemicals are not going to harm you in the short term. It’s the same thing with wearing a helmet on a motorbike for example.
Has the spraying in any of these areas been going on for long enough for the long term consequences to be seen directly? If not, it can be easy to dismiss “negative consequences later” as predictions that may or may not come true, which might give enough wiggle room to not feel bad about neglecting the proper precautions now.
Hey David,
Great post! The parallels to CLTS are really interesting, and your suggestions worth trying.
Are there some next steps you plan to take to pursue this farther?
All the best,
Amir