Linking Agricultural Research and Farmer Learning for Sustainable Small Scale Horticulture

Linking agricultural research and farmer learning for sustainable small scale horticulture production in Colombia.

Rebecca Lee Horticulture Research Centre University of Bogotá Jorge Tadeo Lozano Chía, Cundinamarca, Colombia

Abstract

A methodology was designed with small farmers to convert their vegetable plots to more ecologically friendly practices. From the facilitation of the farmer learning process emerged a sequence of research activities designed to generate farmer learning: understand the context, implement participatory diagnostic research, create a learning platform, interactively design a conversion process, identify and test science-based applicable technologies at farm level, scale up this system from the farm to higher system levels, and ensure long-term project impact and farming community autonomy.

The interface between the farmer learning pathway and the research activities divides the pathway into four phases. These are: I. participatory diagnosis and the beginning of the creation of a learning platform, II. improvement of production at farm level due to better technical knowledge leading to working together as a community, III. the search for solutions on a larger scale as a tool for regional development, and IV. building the capacity of the farmers to stand on their own. Each phase is related to farmer progress in the three dimensions of the development project: 1. technical know-how for appropriate farm management, 2. creation of a cooperating group of farmers, and 3. long-term sustainability through autonomy and self-reliance.

Introduction

Economic and ecological pressure on small farmer production in Colombia has increased since the globalization of trade in the early 1990s. Although the tropical high Andean climate allows for year-round production, the farmers live precariously due to a high dependence on external inputs, poor access to different sources of information on production technology and lack of control over market prices. Mechanisms are required to help these producers find alternatives to stabilize their income while reducing the negative effect their farming practices have had on the environment. Addressing the growing local demand for safe and healthy food by improving on conventional production practices was considered a viable option. The context

The project was set in the municipality of Cota, located 14 kilometres Northwest of the capital of Colombia, Bogotá. At an average 2600 meters altitude and 4 latitude, the climate is cold and dry with an annual average temperature of 13.7 °C. The population of Cota was estimated at 14,187 for 1998 of which 50% is under 25 years of age. Just over half of its inhabitants live in rural areas. It can be considered a typical municipality of the Bogotá plateau in that the city is surrounded by many similar vegetable- producing villages and is dependent on them for the supply of cold climate crops. Commercialization of the vegetables was done through two cooperatives that existed prior to the initiation of the project, and a farmer association that was later formed.

Description of the farmers The research worked with a group of small farmers homogeneous from socio-economic and technological points of view. Vegetable farming in Cota is typically a family business. The family structure is very much reflected in the hierarchy of the business (Prada, 2001).

Description of the farms The project was specifically oriented towards small farmers, defined as those with less than 2.5 hectares of land, the amount required to make the equivalent of two minimum salaries (approximately U$300.00) a month. The majority of landowners in Cota have small plots; 57% own 6.6 % of the area, with less than a hectare each.

Vegetable production in Cota Vegetable production represents approximately 10% of the agricultural area (300 of the 3,271 hectares). The principal crops are spinach, coriander, cauliflower, beets, Swiss chard, lettuce, broccoli and celery. Most farmers have access to some form of water source for irrigation: drill, wells, streams and in extreme cases, the Bogotá River. However, in dry periods, these sources slow up, making farming more difficult. Soil preparation consists of a first pass with a disc plough and harrow, then with the rotary cultivator. The farmers have access to three tractors on a rented basis. Typically fertilization is done with fresh chicken manure (twice a year or after three crop cycles) and occasionally with triple 18 or triple 15. These are applied without prior soil analyses. Where crop protection is concerned, weed control is done by hand when there is a crop in or with herbicides where compatible. The main diseases for which control is required are anthracnose, powdery mildew, and those caused by Alternaria and Fusarium. Where insect management is concerned, prevention is not practised. The main problem is leaf miner which is controlled through the use of yellow sticky traps and commercial insecticides. Methodology

A case study approach was used in which a methodology was designed with small farmers to gradually convert their vegetable plots to more ecologically friendly practices. This involved new (technical) learning for the farmers and parallel capacity building to ensure long lasting effects of these efforts, at both farm and landscape level. Both the methodology and the conversion design evolved throughout the project before reaching their final design. Emerging from the facilitation of the farmer learning process came a sequence of coherent and novel research activities intended to generate farmer learning (figure 1): understand the context, implement participatory diagnostic research to anchor the work in real problems, encourage the creation of a learning platform, interactively (with farmers) design a system based on the farmers’ priorities that is effective at the farm level, and that is acceptable to farmers, identify and test science- based applicable technologies at the farm level, scale up this system from the farm to higher system levels, and ensure long-term project impact and farming community autonomy by providing the tools for accessing new information and training local facilitators.

Results After acquiring an understanding of the context, a participatory diagnosis exercise was implemented with interested farmers (Lee, 2000). A map showing the information sources used by the producers revealed the one-way directionality of knowledge flow and the high dependence on local sales people. Restrictions to production and marketing were listed and then prioritized by the farmers, who also brainstormed on potential solutions. The prioritization led to the sequence of steps to be followed in the conversion process to sustainable farming. Beginning from this exercise, a learning platform began to take shape by the mere fact that the farmers had to negotiate the prioritization among themselves. The facilitators then built on this incipient platform to gradually strengthen the farm group into being an organization.

The farm conversion process was designed with the farmers based on the prioritization. Methods used in European prototyping for integrated and ecological arable farming were adapted here (Vereijken, 1999), and new ones added. These methods are: farmer participation and organization, soil systems management, water management, cropping systems management, marketing strategies, ecological infrastructure management, and farm overall sustainability (Lee, 2002 and submitted). By studying the interface between the farmer learning pathway and the set of research activities involved in its facilitation, it became apparent that the farmers’ progress throughout the research was based on accomplishments in three dimensions of the development project. These dimensions are: Figure 1. Methodology for design of farm conversion and implementation used with farmers in the municipality of Cota, Colombia. Arrows infer conditionality, where simple lines represent a link. The learning platform is included here showing its influence throughout the entire conversion process (Taken from Lee, 2002). 1. Technical know-how for appropriate farm management. This dimension deals with ‘hard’ issues, and took the farmers from the situation of high reliance on external chemical inputs with no guarantee of recovering their costs, much less of making a profit, to one where they are able to choose and combine production methods most appropriate to their conditions and expectations of economic return. 2. The creation of a cooperating group of farmers. This second dimension deals with ‘soft’ issues and opened opportunities for the hitherto atomistic self-centred farmers to join forces with fellow farmers so as to achieve recognition and bargaining power. 3. Reaching long-term sustainability through autonomy and self-reliance. The farmers moved from a situation where they were highly dependent on others for their information, for acquiring inputs and for selling their produce, to one where they were more self-reliant, able to make informed decisions, seek information and make their own inputs should they so desire. In sum, they became more autonomous. Figure 2 brings these three dimensions together in a spiral that moves around and up. The spiral suggests that the farmers went through different phases during the process of conversion to sustainable farming. Each phase is related to the progress made by the farmers, described as follows: I. Participatory diagnosis and the beginning of the creation of a learning platform. Through the information map and the list of obstacles to vegetable production and marketing, the farmers described a complex situation in which a wide variety of actors and factors were involved. The farmers organized the list of obstacles according to general areas and then prioritized these areas for problem solving. Although many of the problems enunciated had been included in the context description, this diagnostic exercise served to confirm and elaborate on the problems. From the prioritization, the research activities were given an order that made sense to the farmers rather than using an imposed agenda. This was fundamental to the farmers’ learning process as they felt that the time they were spending in the project actually was helping to answer their own questions. II. Improvement of production at farm level due to better technical knowledge leads to the realization of the importance of working together as a community. By implementing the conversion process on their individual farms, the farmers progressed along the first dimension from a high dependence on external inputs and biased information providers to a situation in which they had knowledge of choices available and the know-how to prepare the inputs themselves. The horizons of the farmers widened. Their focus moved from the farm to the market place. They learned about post harvesting techniques to maintain product quality throughout the distribution channels. They applied marketing strategies new to them to the implementation of an agroecological tourist route, home distribution of their produce and the supplying of some restaurants. The role of research here was through the application of results obtained elsewhere. The result was specifically a set of farmer-owned marketing strategies that signified better market control. The farmers gradually realized that working on their own multiplied the amount of effort required to keep updated on production techniques, market their produce, obtain fair prices, and so on. Forming a group became an interesting option. III. The search for solutions on a larger scale as a tool for regional development. Having reached a certain technical ability that permitted them to feel more comfortable about the productivity of their individual farms, in Phase III the farmers began to realize the importance of looking at conversion processes in a larger area. They came to understand the importance of recovering biodiversity for farm resilience, and particularly in order to enhance natural control of potential pests. They began to apply the principles of live fences by planting trees and herbs round their plots. And they started to look at their neighbours to see who might be susceptible to change so that the region as a whole might become more sustainable. IV. Building the capacity of the farmers to stand on their own. To bring together the phases of the farmer learning pathway so that the effort of the whole process would not be lost as soon as the researcher – facilitator and team left, a final phase (IV) was used to build the capacity of representatives of the participating farmers. These local facilitators were given additional training in the technical aspects of converting farms to sustainable practices, as well as in how to be facilitators. By forming the facilitator groups, a platform for sustainable social learning has been created, which allows the community to learn together in the absence of external support.

II I IV 1

Figure 2. Convergence of the three dimensions (1, 2, 3) showing progress in the development project and the emergence of four phases (I,II,III,IV) in the farmer learning pathway. The curve follows how the farmers move through up the third dimension toward autonomy (Taken from Lee, 2002). Conclusions: The link(s) between research and farmer learning

1. Research activities required to improve farm productivity, economically and ecologically. Applied and adaptive research activities were most used in this project. In many cases, the information required already exists albeit in a form not accessible to the farmers. In such cases, the researcher – facilitator must make that information available to the farmers, helping them to learn how to choose what is useful to them, or to adapt the results to their particular circumstances. When information is not available on a specific issue, then new research may be required to provide answers.

2. A research methodology for scaling up ecological production. Scaling up is definitely an issue. Biological control cannot happen efficiently on one farm alone. Future emphasis must definitely be in trying to get the neighbours involved. The same methodology can be used: adapting results already available and supplementing them where required with new research. However, in order to expand the area under ecological or integrated production, abilities in negotiation will need to be strengthened. Where regional landscaping is concerned, negotiations will be required at different levels as the landscape to be affected is enlarged.

3. Research activities required to facilitate small farmer organization. The farmers must first feel the need to be organized. The research activities must therefore feed into the learning process of the farmers. The interaction between research and learning must be carefully managed here, so that the research does not end up directing the farmers’ progress according to the research team’s criteria.

4. Research activities required to facilitate ownership by farmers. In order to ensure that the farmers feel ownership of the research activities, from the very beginning the farmers must understand that the facilitators do not have all the answers and that decisions as to the orientation of the conversion design and implementation would be made by the farmers. At first, the research team gave guidance on specific research, and provided the link to laboratory work. However, all research activities should in fact gradually be taken over entirely by the farmers, from the identification of a problem, discussion of possible solutions, implementation or contracting out of the research, evaluation of results, to the final decision on what works.

5.Research activities to build the capacity for self-facilitation. Through out the entire conversion process, research activities were used to feed into the farmer learning pathway to provide answers when required. The farmers learned how to acquire information, analyze its usefulness, choose what was appropriate for them, from the point of view of their own objectives. Thus, from the very beginning, the researcher must help the farmers to recover confidence in themselves. Ownership of the process is part of that. Seeing that their decisions in fact produce positive results in the form of reduced pesticide use, better health, food that tastes good, higher farm productivity, and feeling better about themselves, also helps. Once they are able to recognize their needs and know how to look for solutions that they know will help improve their lives, the confidence to depend on themselves will grow.

6. Additional conclusions for research. The outcomes of hard research (insect collecting and identification, efficacy trials, irrigation trials, etc) are essential to feed into the farming system that is being reconstructed. The complexity of the farming situation studied here (small farms, year- round production in high mountain climate conditions, integration of production, quality control, marketing aspects, integration of different forms of learning) is only possible by taking a systems thinking point of view. Systems thinking explores things as a whole, taking into account their interconnectedness (Flood, 1998), where reductionists try to take things apart to understand them, and expect to get the original whole when they put the pieces together again, which inevitably does not happen. Because of the complexity, there are also many variables to take into account, especially when time is factored in as well. Ensuring that the learning platform evolves into or includes negotiation among all the different actors of the agricultural system will help ensure that such complexity is considered.

References

Flood, R.L. 1999. Rethinking the Fifth Discipline: Learning within the Unknowable. London /New York: Routledge. Lee, R. A.(submitted). Converting small holder vegetable farms to ecologically friendly production in tropical high Andean conditions. Acta Horticulturae. Lee, R.A. 2002. Interactive design of farm conversion: Linking agricultural research and farmer learning for sustainable small scale horticulture production in Colombia. Published doctoral dissertation, Wageningen, University: The Netherlands. Lee, R. 2000. Participatory prototype design for the conversion of vegetable farms to sustainable production in the Colombian high Andes. Phase one: Participatory Diagnosis International Farming Systems Association Symposium, Chile, 27-29 November, 2000. Prada, E. 2001. Culturas Organizacionales Locales. Prácticas Asociativas. Investigación – Práctica por Proyecto. Faculty of Psychology, Pontificia Javeriana University. Bogotá. Unpublished manuscript. Vereijken, P. 1999. Manual for prototyping integrated and ecological arable farming systems (I/EAFS) in interaction with pilot farms. Wageningen, NL: AB-DLO.

Rebecca A. Lee, Horticulture Research Centre, University of Bogotá Jorge Tadeo Lozano, A.A. 140196, Chía, Cundinamarca, Colombia. Telefax: 571-865-0218/19. [email protected] Poster. Small farms diversification.