GENERAL SECTION 113

Gross Domestic Product (GDP) of US$1000. Domestic Product Gross 17 per capita heard how the actually changed, some quite a heard able to and we were even dropped, lot, and how some were found this to the innovations. We understand local reactions type of workshop to be a useful evaluation tool in showing adapted and adopted, which were how technologies were in this of the Innova project not adopted, and the role process. Background Background Background to Bolivia countries in the Americas, with Bolivia is one of the poorest a Income distribution is extremely unequal and there is a big unequal and there Income distribution is extremely (mainly economic divide between people of European Spanish) extraction and indigenous people, most of whom speakers. Indigenous people mostly Quechua or Aymara are stemming for a living. Land reforms depend on agriculture placed much of the land in the the 1952 revolution from hands of indigenous farmers, giving many rural households agriculture of land to farm. However, two to four hectares contributes only 12.8% of national income. New technolo- and productive, gies could help make the land much more poverty. contribute to reducing 1

The project adapted many participatory methods while The project The UK Department for International Development (DfID) supported research with consortium members on these technologies and continued this support Systems for -Based Innovation Technical (Strengthening INNOVA through in Bolivia) between 2002 and 2006. Agriculture 1 trying out promising technologies with farmers (see refer- trying out promising technical grassroots ences at the end of this article). Innova’s in the field since they are the key to this process people were most of the time and in close contact with farmers. This article focuses on an innovative type of workshop developed similar to a method developed independently by the project, J. (2005), in which grassroots by Douthwaite and Ashby, given the opportunity to map the history were agronomists to change). We (the road of the technologies introduced From 2002 to 2006, the authors were part of a project in part of a project 2002 to 2006, the authors were From organisa- Bolivia implemented by a consortium of research tions called Innova. The goal of Innova was to test methods Innova took for linking supply and demand for . several technologies that consortium members had worked nearly ready felt were and which researchers on previously, to what It tested whether they corresponded to release. wanted, and fine tuned those technologies farmers really for extension to farmers. that passed this test, ready Introduction Introduction by JEFFERY W. BENTLEY and GRAHAM THIELE and GRAHAM BENTLEY W. by JEFFERY technologies in Bolivia writing the historywriting the of On the road to change: road to change: On the 17 114 GENERAL SECTION Jeffery W. BentleyandGraham Thiele following locations(seeFigure 1): nership programme PotatoCentre oftheInternational (CIP). project wasmanagedbyPapaAndina,theregional part- Table 1)whoworkedtogetherfrom 2002to2006.The Innova isaconsortiumofthree partnerorganisations(see About Innova map_of_bolivia.shtml Map courtesyof: www.appliedlanguage.com/maps_of_the_world/ Table 1: Innovapartnerorganisations Figure 1: MapofBoliviashowingproject sites Institution Foundation PROINPA ITSnaCu The Centrefor Tropical Agricultural Research, Santa CIAT/Santa Cruz UMSS Innova workedatthree pilotsites,oneeachinthe prefecture ofSantaCruzDepartment. development institutionaffiliatedwiththe Cruz, apublicagriculturalresearchand Promoción e Investigación de Productos Andinos Productos de Investigación e Promoción Cooperation (SDC). the Swiss Agency forDevelopmentand Technology) potatoprogramme, withsupportfrom (Bolivian Institutefor Agriculture andLivestock Andean crops, whichevolvedoutoftheIBTA a private, non-profitinstitution forresearchon Brief description which includesanagriculturalcollege. The PublicUniversityofSanSimón, , Low valleys High valleys , 2 www.en.wikipedia.org significantly reduce oreliminatetheuseofpesticides.Source: techniques, andpesticidesasalastresort. Itisanecologicalapproach thatcan resistant varieties,culturalpractices,biologicalcontrols, variousphysical array ofcomplementarymethods:natural predators andparasites,pest- Table 2: Examples ofthesupplytechnologyat proposed, 2001 Technology (IPM) Pest Management Potato Integrated nut sedge Herbicide forpurple Improved fallow nematodes Chicken manurefor implements Adoption of Grains-plus-legumes Phalaris grass New fodders Improved tillage cows Home remediesfor Integrated PestManagement(IPM)isapest control strategythatusesan 2 start ofInnova tuberoarundinacea arundinaceae, Dactylisglomerata grass isgoodfodder. traps soilrunoff, slowlyformingaterrace. The conservation. The livebarriersformawall that Live barriersofphalarisgrass( plots called ‘pasture gardens’. and grasses, plantedinsmall demonstration Some 14varieties ofseveralspecieslegumes Brief description farmers) byapplyingchicken manuretothesoil. Bolivia whichcausesheavylossestosome Nacobbus aberrans Integrated managementofthenematode weed Trials oftheherbicideglyphosate tomanagethe from localplantstokillcattleparasites. Better nutritionforlivestock; remediesmade Promote adoptionofanimal-drawnimplements. and stabiliseyields. and water, controlpests, diseasesandweeds, grains (oats, )forfodder, toconservesoil Mixes oflegumes(vetch, purpleclover)with dates. trials wereneededtolearnthebestploughing Several ploughshadbeendesigned, andafew Rhizoctonia. moth inthefield; andfungicidesfor disease (aphids, whitefliesetc.); controloftuber and plantextractstokillinsectvectorsof valleys (SantaCruz), including: usinginsecticides IPM ofpotatopestsanddiseasesinthelow with grasses( manage weeds. field entersfallow, toproducefodderand planted afterharvestingoatsorbarley, asthe Mixtures ofpurpleclover( Cyperus rotundus Lolium perenne,Festuca ) plantedinrowsforsoil (a majorpestofpotatoin . Trifolium pratense Phalaris ).are These ) 17 GENERAL SECTION 115 et Grupo Evaluador ,. 2004 for more detail). ,. 2004 for more or Technology Evaluator Group) or Technology et al Innova staff also helped farmers set up local agricultural Innova staff Innova added a community feedback session, during was like a field day. Another method, the technology fair, These and other participatory methods gave Innova an ., 2004). people corrected and confirmed the conclusions (Bentley and people corrected al committees or CIALs (Ashby et al., 2000) to test research back on them to their neigh- possible innovations and report called GETS ( bours. In Innova, these were de Tecnología which committee members gave their opinions about the of other community members. technologies in front their field trials to up to 200 people from Farmers presented of 30 each). But, neighbouring communities (in groups the technology fair included very short unlike a field day, impressions to gather people’s (two minute) questionnaires of the technologies they had seen. This was done every year. (See Bentley being adopted, but some- idea of which technologies were thing was missing. It was still not clear why certain tech- than others. Of course the staff nologies had changed more with formal and quantitative, but they were reports, wrote So, near the end the human side written out of the picture. On the road to change: writing the history of technologies in Bolivia of technologies the history writing road to change: On the Taking two-minute Taking at the questionnaires technology fair in the 2006. high valleys, sondeo are similar are (Hildebrand, Sondeos sondeos team reported the findings team reported sondeo The Innova project started with ten main technologies The Innova project The three sites were in different language areas: Aymara language areas: in different sites were The three

Participatory methods used Participatory For the first two years, Innova used (see Table 2), which were to be validated on-farm. to 2), which were (see Table on the Altiplano; Quechua in the high valleys; and Spanish in the low valleys. The climate becomes warmer and more different: are so the crops humid as altitude decreases, on the Altiplano; • native tubers, and cereals valleys; and in the high • and cereals potatoes, broad in the low valleys. • temperate crops • the Altiplano at about 4000 metres above sea level; • the Altiplano at about 4000 metres and • the high Andean valleys at about 3000 metres; • the low valleys of Santa Cruz, at about 2000 metres. to PRAs but rely more on individual, semi-structured inter- on individual, semi-structured more to PRAs but rely views on farmsteads, and have fewer meetings and visual session to the methods. Innova added a results format during which the back to the community in an open meeting, and local 1981) or rapid reconnaissance surveys, to see what tech- 1981) or rapid reconnaissance nologies farmers demanded and decide if these fitted with had been developing. what researchers Photo: Jeffery Bentley Jeffery Photo: 17 116 GENERAL SECTION Jeffery W. BentleyandGraham Thiele • A scribetotakenotes(arole theauthorsundertook,with • • Afacilitatortostimulatediscussionswhowasanagrono- • Three orfourgrassroots technical peoplewhoknewthe comfortable workingtogether. Eachgroup had: low valleys).Thepeopleallknewoneanother, andwere ing towhere staff were located(Altiplano,highvalleysor the historyofchanges.We dividedintothree groups accord- started withafewexampleswehadwrittenearlier, showing Cambio We calledtheworkshopRoadstoChange( Writing ahistoricaltimeline: RoadstoChange rather thanwhatwassupposedtohavehappened. nologies, withanemphasisonwhatactuallyhappened shop withproject staff towritethehistoryofmaintech- of theproject, inMay2005,Innovaheldatwo-daywork- the work. take notes,alsohelpingthefacilitators askquestionsabout another colleague).Inpractice, thescribesdidmore than but slightlyremoved from day-to-dayfieldactivities. mist andaproject memberandsofamiliarwith thework, technologies andthefarmingcommunitieswell. ). Thiswastoemphasisehowchangehappened.We Caminos al (opposite page), 17May2005. the multiplemountainplough below) designatimelinefor and RemyCrespo (lefttoright, Javier Aguilera, RubénBotello • What were pointsontheroad thecriticalturning to • Howhasitchanged? • Whatwasitlikeatthestartofproject (in2002)? • Whatisthetechnologylikenow(in2005)? then talkedthemthrough inthefollowingformat: Jeffery Bentley editedtheresults andemailedadraftto all the wholeproject staff, the three scribespooledtheir notes. was nothelpful?’ Nobody wasforced tosay, ‘Whatdoyoumean,mymethod a bitaboutthemethodsand avoiddefensivereactions. change from thetechnology’s perspectivehelpedusforget associated withcertainproject staff. Lookingattechnical each ofourparticipatorymethods(CIALs, timeline (seeTable 3). Innova eventsinfluencedthechange?) suggested thechange?Whatwere thebenefits?Which involved? Howdidyouknowchangewasneeded?Who change? (Whatchanged?When?Where? Whowas Each group pickedafewinteresting technologies,and After presenting theresults attheendof meetingto We organisedthestepsthiswaybecausebytime, The nextstepwastocreate atableoftheresults asa sondeos etc.) was

Photo: Jeffery Bentley

17 GENERAL SECTION 117 Photo: Jeffery Bentley Jeffery Photo: 2004–2005 Ploughs promoted with the PITA: Proyectos de Innovación Tecnológica Aplicada (Applied Technological Innovation Projects) in Umala Sale of ploughs in a store in Patacamaya 2003–2004 Tests with GETs with Tests Multiple mountain plough 2002–2003 INNOVA tests 6 INNOVA ploughs with GETs PROMETA works PROMETA Altiplano on the for the first time 2000 On the road to change: writing the history of technologies in Bolivia of technologies the history writing road to change: On the Municipality demands tillage technology Municipal government of Umala holds an inter- institutional workshop Nelson Vallejos, 2005, tells 2005, Vallejos, Nelson about his other farmers clover. plot of purple Multiple mountain plough 1997–2001 PROMETA in PROMETA Cochabamba Tools to be pulled Tools donkeys by horses, and oxen in November sondeo 1996 PRA by (a PROMETA follow-on university project) in Cochabamba Implements for soil conservation ) has been in Bolivia since the 1979–1996 CIFEMA (a university project) in Cochabamba Develops ploughs and other equipment Trifolium pratense Trifolium Box 1: From improved fallow to purple clover improved From 1: Box 1970s. DfID projects in the 1990s conducted on-farm trials of DfID 1970s. for several ‘improved fallow’ (mixes of grasses and legumes) During the first years in the high valleys. Innova kept studying ‘improved fallow’ and in the first studying kept Innova with three field, in a farmer’s technology fair presented a trial, But at the same technology fair, treatments of different mixes. showed a plot he had planted Vallejos, Nelson another farmer, of based on the idea technology was Innova’s on his own. the after (in planting clover and grass seed in dry fields, the plot so that during the several years of fallow, dry season), The and less weedy herbs. would grow nutritous fodder, that the clover and grass failed to thrive in the problem was and other farmers started Vallejos As soon as rocky fields. dry, they changed it radically. planting purple clover on their own, they planted it at the Instead of planting it at harvest time, instead of and they sowed it with oats, regular planting time, and had the seed. since they knew oats better, pasture grasses, not in hillside fields. planted purple clover in good soil, They Almendras agronomists Salomón Pérez and Freddy Innova and Farmers . recommended another change, agronomists realised that they should plough carefully before Later farmers instead of simply broadcasting the seed. planting, and they soon had a thriving field began manuring the clover, even could cut fodder every day for their cows, They of it. permanent growing in a well-tended, though the clover was and not on a fallow hillside. pasture, 2002 in the high valleys, people said they were tired of doing 2002 in the high valleys, they said. to try big fields,’ want ‘We little field trials with clover. Purple clover ( Changes in the technology Key events Key Table 3: Example of an innovation history Example 3: Table 17 118 GENERAL SECTION Jeffery W. BentleyandGraham Thiele Box 2. Highhillingup Centre): higher they learntfromCIP(InternationalPotato colleagues begantomanageitwitha technique Ernesto Montellano, Pablo Franco and the CIALsinlowvalleys. Innova agronomists beetle In April 2001anearlierprojectfoundtheflea plants. This iscalled ‘ is heapedhigharound theyoung fewer healthproblems whensoil Potatoes yieldmore, andhave alto ’ or ‘high hillingup’. Epitrix damaging seedpotatoinoneof aporque aporque (hilling up, i.e. putting better. Innova plantedtillagetrialsinall three and gaveroominthesoilfortubers togrow hilling, whichdamaged thepotatoplantsless By 2002peopleintheCIALswereusing higher it was hardtodowithawoodenplough. more soilaroundtheplantswhileweeding). But by usinghighhillingup. doubled hispotatoharvest, amongotherthings, Rogelio CachacaLópezshowedthathe had the Altiplano in2005, farmer-experimenter made hillingupeasier. Inthetechnologyfairon designed ametalploughpulledbyoxen, which pilot areas. In2003, Innova agronomists

Photo: Jeffery Bentley 17 GENERAL SECTION 119 without the sondeos gave us a picture of demand, but knowing gave us a picture Sondeos Of all the methods we tried, the CIAL (or the version organisations and projects. This information will be used to This organisations and projects. a participatory understand the conditions under which In addi- method or combination of methods is appropriate. of the effectiveness tion, the Alianza will use evidence of policy change in promote to participatory approaches to make them more national agricultural innovation systems The histo- needs of the poor. to the inclusive and responsive to Change of how participa- Roads ries that emerge from help support this should make a difference tory approaches advocacy process. Conclusions frames all have to evolve. methods and log Technologies, of successful adap- Admitting mistakes is an important part way a technology tations. Roads to Change examined the did or achieved. It changed rather than what the project objective window into how the a novel and more provided the twists and turns activities influenced the on projects’ to innovation. road about demand is not always enough. Just because a tech- did), doesn’t demand (and most of Innova’s nology addresses For example, the improved mean it does so in the best way. the key shortage of fallow described in Box 1 addressed functional until farmers and agrono- but it wasn’t fodder, the field. it in mists reworked which Innova called GET) was the most useful for complet- The other methods all fit ing a part-developed technology. inside it, like tools on a Swiss army knife. It would have been impossible to hold technology fairs or collaboration of the farmers in the CIAL. The ‘community feedback’ method was useful for developing the mountain fallow’ to a meadow of plough and for changing ‘improved The technology fair was perhaps best for giving some clover. the courage to quietly set a technology aside and researchers would not have learnt topic. We promising go on to a more the insights like these if our discussions had kept stressing judge the really favourite method. To virtues of everyone’s the technolo- methods, we needed to look at change from gies’ perspective. On the road to change: writing the history of technologies in Bolivia of technologies the history writing road to change: On the “In our haste to show that the farmers “In our haste in adapting the ‘participated’ had we had under-represented technologies, of the agronomists” the creativity (Alliance for Change in will promote the broader use of the best the broader will promote Alianza Cambio Andino Alianza We hope to use Roads to Change in a more systematic in a more hope to use Roads to Change We If there was a limitation with the ‘road to change’ the ‘road was a limitation with If there In other cases, the technology changed just a little, so In other cases, the technology changed Ways forward Ways in the Andes beginning a new project currently are We called the and also funded the Andes), building on the Innova project that some 20 to 30 organisations, anticipate by DfID. We and several thousand farmers will be 150 plus agronomists, and involved in the four countries (Colombia, Ecuador, Bolivia). way to document the outcomes and impacts of using partic- and development ipatory methods in agricultural research participatory methods developed by Innova. method, it was that the agronomists tended to mention method, it was that the agronomists They successful. only those technologies they thought were that were much less likely to discuss technologies were abandoned. For example, Innova taught farmers to make local plants, but the home- cows, from for home remedies abandoned when farmers failed to adopt them were brews because the medicine was tedious to make, and farmers Even though this shows medicines. store-bought preferred listening to farmers’ views, were clearly that the agronomists they omitted this case at our workshop. It is perhaps under- their successes standable that people want to remember but this means that some of the and forget the failures, soon forgotten. lessons learnt are the technical people had got it mostly right the first time the technical people had got it mostly (e.g. Box 2). of the participants, who responded with comments within who responded of the participants, one of the but minor, comments were a week. Most of the We summary. to the editor’s strongly participants objected liked the case of purple clover (Box 1), (Bentley and Thiele) thought it We because the technology changed so much. to farmers, were showed how sensitive the technical people into the tech- thoughtfully incorporating farmer suggestions said it made the staff agronomists But one of the nology. farmers. He too much on look bad, that they had relied the come from insisted that some of the changes had incorporated this not the farmers. We agronomists, into the history of the technology, suggestions colleague’s haste to show that he had a point. In our and we realised adapting the tech- that the farmers had ‘participated’ in of the the creativity nologies, we had under-represented Withoutagronomists. and encouragement the their ideas the purple clover farmers would never have thought of innovations. 17 120 GENERAL SECTION Jeffery W. BentleyandGraham Thiele caminosalcambiomemorias14.pdf www.jefferybentley.com/ available (inSpanish)online: The fulltextoftheRoadtoChangepaperis NOTE Email: [email protected] Peru Lima 12 Apartado 1558 PotatoCentre)CIP (International Graham Thiele [email protected] Email: [email protected] Peru Lima 27 PO Box270-116 Jeffery Bentley CONTACT DETAILS Participatory LearningandAction Participatory agricultural innovationsystems.’In: ‘Methodological diversityandcreativity in Van Mele,P. andBraun,A.(2005) Agricultural Administration in rapidappraisal:thesondeoapproach Hildebrand, P.E. (1981)Combiningdisciplines from Experience.’ ‘Innovation Histories:AMethodforLearning Douthwaite, B.andAshby, J.(2005) Journal ofAgriculturalSustainability farm technology.’ Submittedto Thiele, G.(inpress) ‘Unspokendemandsfor R., Botello,Webb, M.,Devaux,A.,and Bentley, J.W., Velasco, C.,Rodríguez,F., Oros, Network London: ODI and technologyfairsforgaugingdemand C. (2004)Cinderella’s slipper:sondeosurveys Bentley, J.W., Thiele,G.,Oros, R.andVelasco, in LatinAmerica experience withlocalAgriculturalcommittees J.I. (2000) M.P., L.A.,Quirós,C.A.andRoa, Hernández, Ashby, J.,Braun,A.R.,García, T., Guerrero, REFERENCES ( AgREN Investing infarmersasresearchers: Agricultural Research&Extension . Cali,Colombia:CIAT ), NetworkPaperNo.138 ILAC Brief 8, 423-32 5:1-4 International 53 Patty Meneces. Botello andFélixRodríguez;toscribe, and tothefacilitators;RolandoOros, Rubén Montellano, VladimirLino,GuillermoBeltman; Carola Chambilla,JavierAguilera,Ernesto Fredy Almendras,RemyCrespo, VladimirPlata, Roads toChangeworkshop:SalomónPerez, Antonio Gandarillas;theparticipantson SDC; AndréDevaux,ClaudioVelasco and The authorsare gratefulforthesupportof DfID. views expressed are notnecessarilythoseof (Crop Post-HarvestResearch Programme). The ( Production Programme) andCPHP (Crop Protection Research Programme), LPP developing countries,andthrough theCPP Resources Research Strategy)forthebenefitof (DfID) through itsRNRRS(RenewableNatural Development Department forInternational projects fundedbytheUnitedKingdom This publicationisanoutputfrom research ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS