The Use of No-Tillage Techniques in Caazapá, Paraguay

Social networks enriching smallholders’ lifeworlds The use of no-tillage techniques in Caazapá, Paraguay

MSc Thesis by Leonie van Twisk April 2010

Social networks enriching smallholders’ lifeworlds The use of no-tillage techniques in Caazapá, Paraguay

Leonie van Twisk

Master thesis Land Degradation and Development Group submitted in partial fulfillment of the degree of Master of Science in International Land and Water Management at Wageningen University, the Netherlands

Study program: MSc International Land and Water Management (MIL)

Student registration number: 850709846090

LDD 80336

Supervisors: Dr. Ir. A. Kessler Ing. Agr. K. Moriya

Examinator: Prof. Dr. Ir. L. Stroosnijder

Date: April 2010

Wageningen University, Land Degradation and Development Group Ministerio de Agricultura y Ganadería, Institution PNMCRS-DEAg

“No-till is not a farming practice – it’s a concept of the mind. If you don’t believe in it you will fail.”

Bieber (2000)

iii

ABSTRACT

The highest adoption rate of no-tillage, seen as a sustainable farming system and applied worldwide, is noticed in Paraguay. No-tillage is successfully expanding among smallholders in Paraguay due to the large efforts made by the national Ministry of Agriculture. Smallholders are organized in smallholder committees which are assisted by one technician of the local extension office. Capacity-building among smallholders is ensured in terms of payments, equipment and knowledge. Despite the national figure, in the district Caazapá a no-tillage abandonment rate of 20% appears whereby smallholders return to their conventional farming system. The social network is assumed to play an important role to smallholders’ decision-making concerning the use of no-tillage. This research aims to increase understanding about how the social network influences smallholders’ decision-making. Semi-structured interviews are conducted with 27 smallholders in Caazapá: 8 smallholders who abandoned and 19 who continued with the no- tillage system are involved. Three social network characteristics are taken into account: relationships, communication and information. A correlation analysis is executed in order to obtain insights concerning smallholders’ decisions to abandon or to continue with no-tillage. It appears that the social networks of smallholders enlarged extremely due to the efforts made by the technicians of the Ministry. More interactions between smallholders are stimulated by means of their committees as well as with their technician who provides intensive technical assistance. Stronger social relationships are positively correlating with the use of no-tillage as motivation and better understanding about the no-tillage system are encouraged. Smallholders obtain information through generally three communication modes: farm days, committee meetings and farm visits, whereby communication based on face-to-face contacts is preferred. Communication raises awareness about the application of no-tillage through shared learning. Although information is perceived by smallholders as relevant and useful for their knowledge- building, information does not correlate with the use of no-tillage. It is suggested that intrinsic motivation is of high importance to the continued use of no-tillage, whereby smallholders are focusing on their farming objectives and are influenced by their social relationships.

Key words: no-tillage, adoption, social network, extension, communication, information, social learning, Paraguay

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This thesis could not be written without the help of many others. Therefore I thank everybody who direct and indirectly contributed to my thesis research.

This thesis could not be done without the support of my supervisor Aad Kessler. He managed to facilitate the initial contacts with my supervisor Ken Moriya in Paraguay and provided feedback when necessary. He especially helped me to develop a proper research methodology and supported me while analyzing the data.

During my time in Paraguay, I met a lot of people who were very helpful during my data collection. I would like to thank Paul Borsy for his patience to explain me the complexity of small-scale farming in Paraguay, and Ken Moriya for introducing me to important people I could speak with. The experts Rolf Derpsch, Fabio Níz and Juan de Dios Monges helped me to develop broader and diverse insights about the reasons why smallholders are making certain decisions. The coordinators in Caazapá of DEAg, Flaminio Miranda, and GTZ, Nestor Espinola, increased my understanding about the agricultural situation in the district. Without these people, I would have missed a lot of important topics which could not be directly seen during the field visits. Special thanks to Nestor Espinola, who provided me the necessary facilities during fieldwork; thanks for the hospitality, the food and the nice conversations. He gave me feedback when I got confused about the results of my interviews and gave critical notes about the way the Ministry works. My thesis would not have been a success without the help of 27 smallholders in Caazapá who took the time to answer my interview questions carefully. They welcomed me in their houses with the cold drink ‘tereré’ and showed me how it is to be a smallholder having a rich life in a poor environment. I learned a lot about cultural values and their view of ‘enrichment of life’. I would also like to thank the technicians of DEAg and GTZ who provided possibilities for transport and translated my interview questions from Spanish to Guaraní and backwards. They were of great importance as I could not get in touch with the smallholders without their help.

Furthermore, I would like to thank some special people. Going to another country alone and collecting data without knowing where to start, is at times quite difficult. Therefore I want to thank the family Adorno, the sweetest family I met in Paraguay. The first month they showed me the way of living in Paraguay and I got in touch with them during some nice visits in a comfortable atmosphere. During my time at the Ministry of Agriculture, I met the German stagier Julia Schrepel. We exchanged our funny experiences as well as our frustrations. I have to thank her for all the motivational support during my time in Paraguay.

Finally, I thank my parents, sisters, boyfriend and friends in the Netherlands for sharing my experiences and unconditional support during my thesis process.

Thank you all!

Leonie van Twisk Wageningen, April 2010

AGRADECIMIENTOS

Esta tesis no se podría haber escrito sin la ayuda de muchas personas. Me gustaría dar las gracias a todos los que conocí y me ayudaron a escribir la tesis en la forma en que lo es finalmente.

Esta tesis no pudo hacerse sin el apoyo de mi supervisor Aad Kessler. Se las arregló para facilitar los contactos iniciales con mi supervisor Ken Moriya en Paraguay y darme sugerencias cuando era necesario. En especial me ayudó a desarrollar una metodología de investigación apropiada y en el análisis de los datos.

Durante mi tiempo en el Paraguay, me encontré con un montón de personas que fueron de gran ayuda durante la recolección de datos. Quisiera agradecer a Paul Borsy por su paciencia para explicarme la complejidad de la agricultura en pequeña escala en el Paraguay, y Ken Moriya por presentarme a gente importante con los que yo pudiera hablar. Los expertos Rolf Derpsch, Fabio Níz y Juan de Dios Monges me ayudaron a desarrollar más amplios y diversos conocimientos acerca de los motivos por los que los pequeños agricultores están tomando ciertas decisiones. Los coordinadores en Caazapá de la DEAg, Flaminio Miranda, y la GTZ, Néstor Espínola, contribuyeron al aumento de mi comprensión de la situación de la agricultura en el distrito. Sin estas personas, me habría perdido una gran cantidad de temas importantes que no podían ser vistas durante mis visitas de campo. Un agradecimiento especial a Néstor Espínola, quien me proporcionó las facilidades necesarias durante el trabajo de campo; gracias por el techo, la comida y las conversaciones agradables. Él me dio información cuando estaba confundida sobre los resultados de mis entrevistas y dio notas críticas sobre la forma en que el Ministerio trabaja. Mi tesis no sería un éxito sin la ayuda de 27 pequeños productores en Caazapá, que se tomaron el tiempo para responder a mis preguntas de la entrevista con cuidado. Me recibieron en sus casas con ‘tereré’ y me mostraron cómo puede un pequeño productor tener una vida rica en un ambiente pobre. He aprendido mucho sobre los valores culturales y su visión de ‘enriquecimiento de la vida’. También quiero dar las gracias a los técnicos de la DEAg y la GTZ que proporcionaron las posibilidades de transporte y traduccion mis entrevistas del español al guaraní y viceversa.

También, tengo que agradecer a algunas personas especiales. Ir a otro país por sí solo y tener que realizar una recogida de datos sin saber por dónde empezar, es a veces muy difícil. Por lo tanto quiero agradecer a la familia Adorno, la más dulce de las familias que conocí en el Paraguay. El primer mes me mostraron la vida en Paraguay, y después me puse en contacto con ellos durante algunas visitas agradables en un ambiente confortable. Durante mi tiempo en el Ministerio de Agricultura, me reuní con la chica alemana Julia Schrepel. Tengo que darle las gracias por todo el apoyo de motivación durante mi tiempo en el Paraguay.

Por último, agradezco a mis padres, hermanas, novio y amigos en Holanda para compartir mis experiencias y el apoyo incondicional durante el proceso de tesis.

Gracias a todos!

Leonie van Twisk Wageningen, April 2010

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

CA Conservation Agriculture

DEAg Dirección de Extensión Agraria

FAO Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations

GMCC Green manure cover crops

GTZ Gesellschaft für Technische Zusammenarbeit

JICA Japan International Cooperation Agency

KfW Kreditanstalt für Wiederaufbau

MAG Ministerio de Agricultura y Ganadería

PMRN Proyecto Manejo Sostenible de Recursos Naturales

PNMCRS Programa Nacional de Manejo, Conservación y Recuperación de Suelo

RAAKS Rapid Appraisal of Agricultural Knowledge Systems

WCED World Commission on Environment and Development

vii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABSTRACT ...... iv

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS...... v

AGRADECIMIENTOS...... vi

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ...... vii

1. RESEARCH DESIGN ...... 1 1.1 Introduction...... 1 1.2 Background...... 2 1.3 Research setting...... 6 1.3.1 The farming region Caazapá...... 6 1.3.2 Adoption among smallholders...... 8 1.4 Research content ...... 9

2. THEORIES AND CONCEPTS...... 11 2.1 Adoption of SWC measures...... 11 2.2 Cognitive processes...... 12

3. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY...... 15 3.1 Research approach...... 15 3.2 Methodologies ...... 16

4. SOCIO-CULTURAL LIFEWORLDS ...... 19 4.1 Smallholders’ lifeworlds...... 19 4.2 Farming objectives ...... 20 4.3 Decision-making...... 21

5. SOCIAL NETWORKING...... 23 5.1 Interacting relationships ...... 24 5.1.1 Direct relationships ...... 24 5.1.2 Indirect relationships ...... 27 5.2 Modes of communication ...... 28 5.2.1 Knowledge-building...... 28 5.2.2 Communication preferences...... 31 5.3 Knowledge processes...... 32 5.3.1 Information exchange ...... 32 5.3.2 Impact of information ...... 34

6. DISCUSSION...... 35

7. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS...... 39

REFERENCES...... 40

LIST OF APPENDICES APPENDIX I Survey forms smallholders……………………………………………………………………………..…....I APPENDIX II Data collection sheets according to survey forms smallholders…………………………..III APPENDIX III Survey form and answers technicians……………………………………………………………...XXII APPENDIX IV SPSS correlation outputs…………………………………………………………………………………XXVI APPENDIX V Communication preferences……………………………………………………………………………XXIX

LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Variables included in correlation analysis...... 17 Table 2. No-tillage adoption categories...... 18 Table 3. Farming objectives and reasons of smallholders to start no-tillage...... 20 Table 4. Reasons of smallholders to continue with no-tillage...... 21 Table 5. Reasons of smallholders to abandon no-tillage...... 21 Table 6. Correlation coefficients of research variables ...... 23

LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Department Caazapá, adapted from Ridriguez Alcala and Otter (2008) …………………….. 7 Figure 2. No-tillage techniques applied on a smallholders’ field ………………………………………………10 Figure 3. The conventional tillage system: burning and ploughing …………………………………………. 10 Figure 4. Cognitive framework, adapted from Röling (2005) ……………………………………………….... 13 Figure 5. Conducting an interview with a smallholder …………………………………………………………….14 Figure 6. Help of a technician as interview translator ……………………………………………………………. 14 Figure 7. Technicians assisting a smallholder during a farm visit ……………………………………………. 22 Figure 8. Smallholder committee consisting of family members ……………………………………………. 22

1. RESEARCH DESIGN

1.1 Introduction No-tillage is seen as a sustainable farming system and is assumed to be successful and beneficial among smallholders (Derpsch, 2001). This research takes place in the farming region Caazapá, a district in the Eastern Region of Paraguay. Since 2000, no-tillage techniques are intensively promoted by extension services among smallholders in Paraguay. The large efforts made by the extension services of the Ministry of Agriculture resulted successfully in an increased use of no- tillage. Despite of this figure, an abandonment rate of 20% appears whereby smallholders return to their conventional tillage system.

It is suggested that especially social aspects are contributing to the smallholders’ decision to continue or to abandon the no-tillage system (Leeuwis, 2004). In this research the influence of the social network is investigated, which is hypothesized to be an important adoption factor. The main research question developed is: What social network characteristics are influencing the use of no-tillage techniques among smallholders in Caazapá, Paraguay? Two objectives are defined for this case study research. The first objective is to analyze what roles the social network play to smallholders. Three social network characteristics are taken into account: relationships, communication and information. The second objective is to analyze what the roles of social network characteristics are on smallholders’ decision-making, in order to increase understanding about the influence of the social network on the adoption of no-tillage techniques. By means of semi-structured interviews with 27 smallholders in Caazapá, of which 8 abandoned and 19 continued with no-tillage, better insights are obtained about smallholders’ decision-making concerning the use of no-tillage. A correlation analysis is used to amplify the most remarkable social network aspects investigated.

This thesis report starts with the research design in chapter 1 where background information is provided and the research setting and content are described. The theories and concepts are explained in chapter 2, followed by the research methodology in chapter 3. In chapter 4, smallholders’ reasoning and farming objectives within their socio-cultural lifeworlds will be discussed. Then, in chapter 5, the correlation analysis is presented and subsequently the influences of relationships, communication modes and information are explained. The thesis report presents a discussion in chapter 6 and ends with the conclusions and recommendations in chapter 7.

1.2 Background Soil degradation in South America During the mid-1980s, South American countries as Brazil, Paraguay and Argentina focused their policies on liberalization and market-oriented trade. This resulted in high deforestation and intensification of agriculture. Especially highly capitalized farmers were involved in this process, using modern agricultural technology for deforestation and crop production. However, the policies not only led to an increase in trade, a growth in agricultural production and a boost in exports. The intensive cultivation practices also led to soil degradation (Tessari, 2000). Despite the progressions in genetics, fertilization and farming techniques, there appeared a loss of fertility of tropical and subtropical soils of the agricultural areas over time. In these areas, low- income small farmers were unable to compete in terms of crop production and limited capital resources to buy inputs. Small farmers were being forced to continue producing at subsistence levels with their traditional farming systems, including deforestation, burning and ploughing, or to migrate to rural areas. From experiments in Brazil, Argentina and Paraguay it appeared that the loss of soil fertility of both modern agricultural technologies and traditional cultivation systems is caused by intensive soil cultivation. The main problem in conventional agriculture in tropical en subtropical areas is the loss of soil fertility through the exploitation of these soils by cultivation. The most important consequences of these human-induced degrading soils are soil erosion and the loss of organic material. Through ploughing and periods of fallow, the soil becomes sensitive for water erosion in areas with high rainfall as well as wind erosion in areas with intensive storms. Moreover, intensive ploughing led to soil compaction and an increased process of mineralization by higher soil temperatures. The reserves of nitrogen decreased fast over time and a deficiency of organic material appeared (Derpsch, website). Also, higher carbon dioxide levels were released to the atmosphere and the uncontrolled use of pesticides led to water pollution (Tessari, 2000). The severe soil erosion and soil degradation caused by conventional soil tillage resulted in non-productive agricultural lands and subsequently in declining productivity and incomes in Brazil, Paraguay and Argentina (Lange, 2005).

Farming innovations The intensive practices from the Green Revolution led worldwide to several innovations in the area of sustainable resource management. The interpretation of the World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED) concerning the sustainability of development is:

“Able to meet the needs of the present without comprising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” (Tessari, 2000)

Although scientists paid less attention to agricultural solutions in the developing world, awareness among local agricultural producers increased. This resulted in farmers experiencing, applying and improving innovative sustainable practices in several developing countries, resulting in no-tillage ; a farming system being known since the 1970s in Brazil. No-tillage is also known as zero tillage, direct drilling, and direct seeding, so-called siembra directa in Spanish speaking countries (Goddard et al., 2008). The main characteristic of the farming system is the elimination of physical soil preparation. No-tillage can be seen as a sustainable farming method of agricultural production as it corresponds with the principles of Conservation Agriculture (CA) stated by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO): continuous

minimum mechanical soil disturbance; permanent organic soil cover; and diversified crop rotations (ISTRO, 2009). Derpsch states that:

“No-tillage is the only truly sustainable production system in most forms of agriculture in the tropics and subtropics” (Derpsch, 2006)

No-tillage is currently the most rapidly growing conservation agriculture practice in the world, consisting of the basic elements: little or no soil disturbance; no burning; crop rotation; permanent soil cover; and the use of green manure cover crops. A definition of no-tillage is given by Phillips and Young (1973) as cited by Goddard et al.:

“No-tillage is a system of planting (seeding) crops into untilled soil by opening a narrow slot, trench or band only of sufficient width and depth to obtain proper seed coverage. No other soil tillage is done” (Goddard et al., 2008)

In theory, no-tillage means that the soil is permanently covered during the whole year using crop rotations and green manure cover crops (GMCC). Seeds are planted into a narrow slit opened through the soil surface residues. By this, the stage of physical soil preparation by the plough is bypassed as good soil-seed contact is ensured. Green manure cover crops, like lupine and oats, are planted right after the previous harvest in order to provide the soil with enough softness and moisture (Tessari, 2000). These cover crops are very effective as they are fixing nitrogen and they dry up right before planting seasons. Cover crops are both planted in summertime and wintertime and the residues are left on the ground. A heavy cylinder with steel blades is used pulled by animal traction to roll over the ripe cover crop. The straw will break down and is carpeting the soil. Then, horses or oxen are pulling a metal blade through the soil to create a narrow slit. Sowing of crops is done by hand, often included with fertilizers, after which the smallholder closes the channel. Then, planting is complete and the soil cover of green manure protects the crop against weeds and drought (Derpsch et al., 2001).

No-tillage in Paraguay After successful experiences with the no-tillage farming system in Brazil, the method expanded across Brazil, Argentina and Paraguay promoted by researchers, extension services and NGO institutions. In 1977, no-tillage was introduced for the first time in Paraguay on a mechanized farm. Mainly due to a lack of knowledge, appropriate machinery and appropriate herbicides the experiments failed. The first successes were made during the mid-1980s through experiments of mechanized soybean farmers, concerned about soil erosion, in the southern department Itapúa. In 1992, the Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA) established a research centre to help Japanese colonists in Itapúa to apply no-tillage on 20.000 hectares. The initial development of no-tillage farming systems was low but expanded rapidly after a national soil conservation program in 1993, initiated by the Ministry of Agriculture of Paraguay. This resulted in the expansion of no-tillage among the largest part of Paraguayan commercial farmers who were increasingly cultivating soybean (Lange, 2005). Nowadays, no-tillage applied in Paraguay consists of four techniques: direct seeding; crop rotations; permanent soil cover; and green manure cover crops (Derpsch et al., 2001). Even though the USA has the biggest area under notill, Paraguay is currently world leader in the adoption rate of no-tillage in terms of its cultivated area (Derpsch, 2006). In the Eastern Region of Paraguay, no-tillage is practiced on more than 85% of the cultivated area in the mechanized farming systems. The success of no-tillage

techniques among large farmers in Paraguay is caused by the positive economical benefits and the climatic and agronomic suitable conditions, together with the efforts of the Ministry (Lange, 2005).

“No other farming techniques have been shown to have such a high impact on farmers’ incomes, reduce their production costs and risks, and at the same time be environmentally sustainable and generate very considerable net social gains to society ” (Goddard et al., 2008)

An important farming group in Paraguay are smallholders ; farmers owning 5 up till 20 hectares. They represent 42.8% of the total amount of farmers (MAG, 2008) and generate 35% of the total value of agricultural production on 14% of the total agricultural area (Lange, 2005). Smallholders are believed to be the most innovative farmers in their country; it is assumed that smallholders are most receptive for new ideas and the introduction of new technologies on their farm (Lange, 2005). Tessari (2000) mentioned that smallholders are highly dependent on their farm activities because they are generally located far away from main roads and urban areas. As a result, transportation and communication costs increase through which the influence of off-farm labour decreases. Subsequently, smallholders will be more based on their crop production and are more willing to apply new technologies. However, it appears that the adoption rate of the no-tillage farming system among smallholders is low; less than 10% of all smallholders in the country are currently applying no-tillage.

Promotion of no-tillage The traditional cultivation system used by smallholders leads to unsuited and problematic soils by decreasing soil fertilities, subsequently resulting in low agricultural production and increasing numbers of smallholders living in poverty and suffering from health, education and nutritional deficiencies (MAG, 2009). Because of their importance for the economy of Paraguay and the assumption that smallholders will also benefit from the no-tillage farming system, the Ministry of Agriculture (MAG) set up several programmes and projects since the nineties. Nowadays, the Ministry of Agriculture in Paraguay is only focusing on smallholders, as large farmers manage themselves in commercial cooperatives. The efforts made by the Ministry of Agriculture to no- tillage adoption among smallholders are made by both the Dirección de Extension Agraria (DEAg) as well as by the German development agency Gesellschaft für Technische Zusammenarbeit (GTZ). DEAg is financed by the Paraguayan government, as GTZ is financed by the German bank Kreditanstalt für Wiederaufbau (KfW). The main difference is that DEAg is executing continuous programmes while GTZ is executing projects for as long as the KfW finances. Both are providing technical assistance to trigger no-tillage adoption among smallholders, aiming for capacity-building (Lange and Moriya, 2006). Triggering no-tillage adoption happens normally through the selection of ten a twenty smallholders who will form a so-called smallholder committee. In general, the selected smallholders are aware of production problems and are assumed to be more motivated and willing to participate in the project (Lange and Moriya, 2006). Forming a committee is important to lower the costs for equipment which is provided by the Ministry to be shared within a committee. Committees sign a three-year contract with the Ministry in which organisational as technical rules are stated, like a minimum area of one hectare applied with no-tillage and the presence at committee meetings (Borsy 1). When the committee is formed, one contact-person, a technician of the local extension service,

1 Talk with Paul Borsy, consultant of GTZ, 1 st of October 2009

is assigned to provide the committee with information. This single technician assists smallholders in the appropriate application of direct seeding together with crop rotations, green manure cover crops and a permanent soil cover. The technician ensures that smallholders buy the right seeds for green manure cover crops and are making use of the optimal crop rotations. Every year, different crops should be rotated in which corn and green manure cover crops play key roles. The transition period from traditional farming to the use of the no-tillage system happens generally in three years. Both DEAg and GTZ are providing intensive technical assistance during the first three years followed up by years of less, however continuous, assistance. One technician is generally responsible for 10 smallholder committees in the region; around 150 smallholders in total. Technicians are working from local extension offices within teams of 3 up till 15 technicians and one technician of each team operates as the coordinator of the local office (Espinola 2).

2 Talk with Nestor Espinola, GTZ coordinator Caazapá, 6th of November 2009

1.3 Research setting 1.3.1 The farming region Caazapá Area characteristics Caazapá (figure 1) is one of the poorest departments of Paraguay, characterized by traditional small-scale farming (Ridriguez Alcala and Otter, 2008). Caazapá occupies 9496 km 2, is divided in ten districts and has around 140.000 inhabitants. The department covers 3.05% of the total area of Paraguay (MAG, 2008). The area consists of sandstone soils and low hills up to 200 meters and small rivers crossing the landscape. A mountain range separates the land in two different regions: to the north-east, there are meadows, lagoons, swamps and fields for agriculture; to the south-east there are hills and forests. The highest temperatures reach 37°C and the lowest drop to 1°C; the average is 21°C. It is one of the departments with a higher quantity of precipitation; between 1550 and 1700 mm (Tessari, 2000). Spring and summers are the seasons with frequent showers of more than 60 mm/h. In Caazapá two soil types can be distinguished: arenosos derivados de areniscas and arcillosos provenientes de basalto . Arenosos derivados de areniscas are yellow/red coloured podsols; arcillosos provenientes de basalto are soils with red clayey structures. From origin, both soil types are very fertile (Florentín et al., 2001). There are about 23.000 farmers living in the department, up to 7.9% of the total amount of farmers on 2.5% of the total agricultural land of Paraguay. Of the total amount of farmers in the department Caazapá, 39.7% are smallholders with 5 up till 20 hectares of land (MAG, 2008). One of the ten districts of the department is named Caazapá, the area where this study is executed. The district Caazapá is a farming region where 2700 smallholders are living. Most smallholdings are using low-input production methods with a diversification of crops, manually or based on animal traction. Their traditional conventional farming system is based on burning and ploughing and their crops are mainly used for self-sufficiency; only a small part is for sales. The main crops cultivated in the region for self-sufficiency are corn, cassava, beans, peanuts and onion. The main cash crops cultivated are sesame, cotton, corn and sugarcane (Espinola 3).

Smallholder characteristics In the research 9 smallholder committees are taken into account; these committees started up between the years 2000, during the previous project Prodesal, and 2007. Two of the committees are still in their ‘contract-time’ with the Ministry of Agriculture. Most committees are ‘losing’ some members during their lifetime; only one committee has nowadays more members than it started with. In every committee 3 smallholders were interviewed; 19 smallholders are still using no-tillage and 8 smallholders abandoned no-tillage. Of the 27 smallholders, 5 women and 22 men were involved. Some of the smallholders are already retired. The youngest smallholder interviewed is 25 years old; the oldest smallholder is 78 years old. Most smallholders have children, up to a number of 14. The majority of the smallholders do have an education level of ‘primary’ which means that they went to school for only six years. About one-fourth of the smallholders earn additional money by off-farm activities. The main soil type found in the region of Caazapá is arenosos ; only 1 committee is settled on arcillosos . The smallholdings consist of 3 up till 42 hectares, but all smallholders are using smaller parts of their farm to cultivate crops; 2 to 29.5 hectares. Despite of the definition stated for a smallholder, having 5 up till 20 hectares of land, it appears that the smallholder definition is too strict in practice as the Ministry involves a broader size range of smallholdings. Some smallholders have

3 Talk with Nestor Espinola, GTZ coordinator Caazapá, 6 th of November 2009

parcels with forestry, like oranges, or are applying agro-forestry. Most important farming activity is crop production; especially corn, cassava, beans, onion, peanut, sesame, cotton and sugar cane are cultivated. Many smallholders do not have any idea about their production levels. Two-third of the smallholders is using animal traction during land cultivation; the others are working by hand, despite of the fact that almost all smallholders do have cows, oxen and/ or a horse. About 40% of the smallholders own their land officially, one-third has no land title and the rest varies in type of land tenure.

District Caazapá

Figure 1. Department Caazapá, adapted from Ridriguez Alcala and Otter (2008)

1.3.2 Adoption among smallholders No-tillage projects During the late 1990s, GTZ selected the department Caazapá, and thus the district Caazapá, for a project of poverty reduction. A joint project between the local government and GTZ started in 2000 by means of the project Prodesal. Goals of the project were commercialisation, organisation, knowledge-building and sustainability, aiming to recover soil fertilities and improve cultivation efficiency of crops. Intensive technical assistance for smallholders, focussing on knowledge-building concerning the use of no-tillage, was seen as the key to the success of the project. The project was first focusing on educating the extension service of DEAg and from 2000 knowledge was transferred to smallholders (Ridriguez Alcala and Otter, 2008). The process took between two and three years and was first implemented with about 800 smallholders. In 2005 the project finished and was followed up by another project of GTZ; Manejo Sustenible de Recursos Naturales (PMRN). From 2005 till 2010, GTZ is focusing on the development of the five poorest departments (Caazapá, Caaguazú, San Pedro, Concepción and Guaira) by setting up projects to develop sustainable land use. Besides, the technical assistants deployed by the DEAg are nowadays also working in Caazapá, aiming to expand the area of no-tillage in the Eastern Region (Miranda 4). In the district of Caazapá seven technicians of DEAg and one technician of GTZ are working. Around 100 committees of DEAg and 11 committees of GTZ signed the three- year contracts with the Ministry. From the 2700 smallholders living in the district, about 1000 smallholders are currently applying a mixed form of no-tillage techniques with direct seeding, crop rotations, permanent soil cover and green manure cover crops (Espinola 5). However, the adoption of green manure cover crops is just around 4.0% (MAG, 2008). Also, no-tillage is practiced either partly or continuously and in many cases just at one hectare of the farm, the minimum amount stated in the contract (Tessari, 2000). It appears that no-tillage is a farming system that needs flexibility and creativity, as circumstances differ for each smallholder (Goddard et al., 2008). In practice, this means that every smallholder is adopting a different form of the system. For example, some smallholders allow weeds instead of cover crops during winter or fallow season (Tessari, 2000).

The use of no-tillage Smallholders involved in this research started with no-tillage between 2000 and 2006, most of them at the same time the committee started up. Smallholders who abandoned their no-tillage system did this between three and seven years after they started with it, which means that they all complied with their three-year contract with the Ministry. Among the smallholders who are continuing no-tillage, the area applied with no-tillage is varying from less than one up to six hectares. Corn is the crop cultivated and applied with no-tillage at every farm. Other crops are cassava, beans, peanut, cotton, oranges, sesame and sugar cane. These cultivated crops with no-tillage are both used for self-sufficiency and for selling. All smallholders confirm their use of the four no-tillage techniques: direct seeding; green manure cover crops; continuous soil cover; and crop rotations. Many smallholders do not have any idea about their no-tillage production levels, either because of their short use of the no-tillage system or because of the difficulty of the no-tillage system to measure yields.

4 Talk with Flaminio Miranda, DEAg coordinator Caazapá, 13 th of November 2009 5 Talk with Nestor Espinola, GTZ coordinator Caazapá, 6 th of November 2009

1.4 Research content Problem statement Due to the efforts made by GTZ and DEAg, many smallholders in the district Caazapá are currently applying no-tillage techniques on their farms (figure 2). However, a mayor problem faced is that about 20% of the smallholders in Caazapá are abandoning their no-tillage farming system whereby they return to their conventional tillage system (figure 3). Reasons for the abandonment of no-tillage are various and not well understood. Research concerning the (non-) adoption of no-tillage often focuses on the physical and economical aspects rather than on the social perspectives of this farming system.

Objectives Two objectives are defined for this case study research. The first objective is to analyze what roles the social network play to smallholders in Caazapá, subdivided into three social network characteristics; relationships, communication and information. The second objective is to analyze what the influences of the social network characteristics are on smallholders’ decision- making, in order to increase understanding about the influence of the social network on the adoption of no-tillage techniques.

Research questions This research investigates the influence of the social network on the use of no-tillage techniques among both smallholders who abandoned and continued no-tillage.

The main research question developed for this research is:

What social network characteristics are influencing the use of no-tillage techniques among smallholders in Caazapá, Paraguay?

The sub-questions related to the main research question are:

What different types of smallholders can be described?

What is the influence of relationships on smallholders’ decision-making?

What is the influence of communication on smallholders’ decision-making?

What is the influence of information on smallholders’ decision-making?

Figure 2. No-tillage techniques applied on a smallholders’ field

Figure 3. The conventional tillageFigure system: 1. burning and ploughing

2. THEORIES AND CONCEPTS

2.1 Adoption of SWC measures Decision-making process Adoption has been discussed since disappointing results of knowledge transfer to farmers concerning soil and water conservation measures became apparent. The adoption of conservation measures can be considered as a decision-making process, in which three phases can be described. The first phase is the acceptance phase, including awareness, trial and evaluation, which could lead to the decision to start investing in a certain measure. The second phase is the actual adoption phase, whereby efforts or investments are made to implement certain measures. The third phase is the continued use, whereby existing conservation measures are maintained over several years and new ones are replicated on other fields. The decision-making process of a farmer is complicated as various personal, physical, institutional and socio-economic factors play a role (De Graaff and Kessler, 2008). More specific, the influencing adoption factors are: heterogeneity of the environment; labour; management capacity; information; investment behaviour, risk and land rights; economic incentives; social factors; and policies (Lee, 2005). While evaluating the (non-) acceptance of conservation measures, both intrinsic and extrinsic motivation should be taken into account. Intrinsic motivation refers to the personal feelings and reasons of a farmer to use certain measures, while extrinsic motivation refers to stimulation from the ‘outside’, for example by money incentives (De Graaff and Kessler, 2008).

Social adoption process Decision-making concerning the adoption of a new measure is seen as an information-seeking process where farmers are trying to acquire knowledge and reduce uncertainty about the advantages and disadvantages of a new farming practice. It can be suggested that network building and the social process are important aspects to the adoption of conservation measures (Leeuwis and Van Den Ban, 2004). Information sources and relationships having information and/ or experiences with a new farming practice are important adoption factors (Glendinning et al., 2001). A division of relationships can be made into direct and indirect relationships. Direct relationships refer to face-to-face connections between actors. Indirect relationships refer to actors getting to know information about each other through a third actor who is in face-to-face contact with both actors (Doerfel et al., 2010). It appears that especially direct relationships are important sources of knowledge and technical support. Information is suggested to empower farmers and improve their management capacity (Lee, 2005). To ensure adequate knowledge exchange about new farming practices and to generate impact amongst farmers, information needs to be relevant, locally appropriate, true and useful (Derpsch et al., 2001). Although more or better information does not automatically lead to the adoption of conservation practices, it may lead to increased awareness among farmers. Important issues concerning information provision are the communication modes used for developing, transmitting and spreading. Therefore, besides the presence of an information base, the access to information is a critical factor (Lee, 2005).

2.2 Cognitive processes Socially-constructed innovations The decision of a farmer to use a new measure could be described as a farmer who is ‘innovating’. An innovation refers to a new way of doing something by changes in thinking, products, processes or organizations (Röling, 2005). An innovation may induce social change. This refers to the development of new technical and/or social methods and materials, or in the adoption of ideas, practices and other elements developed by others (Engel and Salomon, website). Innovation, and thus social change, requires coordinated action within a network of people (Leeuwis, 2004). Successful innovations are considered as the result of a process of interaction and exchange of knowledge within a social network (De Graaff and Kessler, 2008). The social network facilitates learning among farmers through the exchange of information and knowledge. Therefore, innovating can be seen as a process of social learning (Lee, 2005). Social learning refers to:

“Slowly develop overlapping goals, insights and interests, together with mutual trust and feelings of dependence and responsibility; it leads to the development of different perspectives on reality and so to possibly new ideas and changing mindsets ” (Röling, 2005)

The social learning processes through which farmers explore, evaluate and adapt are suggested to be very important in the adoption of innovations (Lee, 2005). Especially in agricultural innovations knowledge is important since it often concerns the interactions and/ or confrontations between ‘expert’ and ‘lay’ forms of knowledge, beliefs and values. An understanding of learning processes requires an analysis of the values, norms and interests of farmers. The main issue is how farmers struggle to understand and give meaning to (new) information within their socio-cultural lifeworlds. The socio-cultural lifeworld is formed by social, political, historical and cultural factors, and refers to the environment where humans are living in (Long, 2001).

Cognitive framework To understand farmers’ decision-making behaviour, their social learning processes should be studied. Social learning is a constantly reframed and negotiated process among the actors involved, by which farmers interpret, select and transform information. Subsequently, the behaviour of farmers could change. A precondition for changing behaviour is the adaptation of wants, which goes along with the acceptability of new social norms in farmers’ socio-cultural lifeworld (Röling, 2005). To increase understanding about the learning process of farmers, the cognitive framework of Röling (2005) can be used to conceptualize human behaviour (figure 4). Röling defines learning according to this framework as:

“A change in the composition of, and mutual relationships among, the elements of cognition” (Röling, 2005)

Cognition can be defined as the ability of living organisms to react to their environment, and consists of four minimum elements; emotion (to want), perception (to get), theory (to know) and action (to do). In a more practical way, it means that a technology will be used by farmers based on what their aspirations are, what information they receive, what they know through experiences, and what they (are able to) do.

Figure 4. Cognitive framework,Figure adapted2. from Röling (2005)

Emotion concerns a mindset; a strong feeling or desire, driven by intentions, goals, objectives and preferences. Perception is related to the information about the environment provided by social relations around. Information can be refused to acknowledge; it will be selected, judged and even transformed as it is influenced by personal discourses. Discourse refers to sets of meanings, metaphors, representations, images, narratives and statements whereby a certain ‘truth’ develops. Theory consists of a collection of experiences, knowledge, through which a farmer will expect, interpret and predict. What a farmer knows is often related to his/her socio- cultural lifeworld where certain traditional ‘rules’ exist. However, learning could change these traditions. Action refers to the ability to act upon the environment through which appropriate behaviour will be chosen. The decision made tends to be goal-seeking; it follows from what a farmer wants and is influenced by their perceptions and their knowledge. Further, means and capacity are required to enable a farmer to perform what was decided. Farmers can hold different cognitive frames in similar circumstances through which different farming styles will be distinguished and different information needs exist. However, it seems that emotions , theories , perceptions and actions can converge through which similarities among farmers arise (Röling, 2005).

Figure 5. Conducting anFigure interview 3. with a smallholder

Figure 6. Help of a technicianFigure 4. as interview translator

3. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

3.1 Research approach The study was carried out during two months preparation in The Netherlands, four months of data collection in Paraguay, and two months of report writing in The Netherlands. The body of this research consists of an in-depth case study analysis of 27 smallholders who are cooperating in smallholder committees in the district Caazapá. The approach used is a participatory case study research to explore the special knowledge of smallholders about their social networks. The position adopted in this research could be described by the constructivist theory of knowledge. A constructivist approach shows that the production of knowledge is not that simple but that many social factors play a role. Constructivism suggests that there is not one ‘right’ theory for understanding reality and there is no one ‘true’ knowledge. The knowledge ‘created’ in this research is mainly based on social processes, like agreement, language, persuasion, belief, culture and worldview. I realize that my research is influenced through the social processes during data collection and my personal way of thinking (Zwarteveen, 2008). Despite of many studies concerning the adoption and diffusion of innovations, it appears that people are not predictable as they are behaving differently in every situation. It appears that the ‘barriers to adoption’ differ per area but could also differ per farmer (De Graaff and Kessler, 2008). Therefore, the perception towards the smallholders involved in this research is an individual approach. Every smallholding is treated as a specific case, assuming that every single smallholder does have his own farming strategy and perspectives. Although this research is case-specific, a case study could lead to better understanding about adoption behaviour.

Assumptions Several assumptions were made during the execution of this research: - A committee is considered as one group of smallholders, often consisting of family members, in which several households are participating. It is assumed that similarities between smallholders in one committee exist as they are influencing each other. - The no-tillage farming system is assumed as being of importance for the improvement of smallholders’ life because it is a sustainable way of farming and it increases production levels for self-sufficiency and selling of crops. - Adoption of no-tillage is assumed to be applied by smallholders using the four no-tillage techniques (direct seeding, use of GMCC, crop rotations, and continuous soil cover) and at least partly on their farms with a minimum of one hectare as stated in their contracts. - The continuous use of no-tillage is accounted to smallholders who are currently still applying no-tillage; either during the contract of the Ministry or after the contract has ended. The abandonment of no-tillage is accounted to smallholders who were applying no-tillage in the past but are currently cultivating none of their crops by use of no-tillage.

3.2 Methodologies Data collection To get familiar with the topic of social networks, literature studies were used. Case study articles and information provided by the Ministry in Paraguay created better understanding about adoption and the local situation. Experts provided useful information and different perspectives about the agricultural situation in Caazapá during informal talks. In the field, notes were made concerning observations and thoughts to develop my own ideas about the study area. The interviews with smallholders were conducted in November, springtime. There were 27 smallholders interviewed, referring to smallholders who are members of a smallholder committee of either DEAg or GTZ (figure 5). The interviews conducted were semi-structured; both qualitative information concerning smallholders’ perspectives and quantitative information concerning household characteristics were collected. The smallholders were visited together with a technician of either DEAg or GTZ. The technicians assisted as translators, as Guaraní is the local language in which smallholders can express themselves better (figure 6). To conduct the smallholders’ interviews more effective, parts of the “Rapid Appraisal of Agricultural Knowledge Systems ” (RAAKS) methodology were adapted (Röling and Groot, 1999). This methodology is used to facilitate social learning processes and innovation. RAAKS identifies opportunities to improve the knowledge system consisting of the organization and exchange of information among actors (Engel and Salomon, website). First of all, the objectives of smallholders to apply no-tillage were investigated and the relationships and their roles to smallholders’ decision- making were taken into account. Also the types and relevance of communication modes and quantity and quality of information were investigated. Through ranking of smallholders’ most important relationships and communication modes, insights were obtained about smallholders’ preferences and the impact on their decision-making. Also, personal household characteristics were investigated. Categorizing the personal household characteristics resulted in a clear overview of the similarities and differences among the smallholders involved. Data storage was done by excel-sheets, word-documents, diagrams and problem trees. Using the data provided by the smallholders interviewed, an overview of social network characteristics as well as personal household characteristics was created. The survey forms for the smallholder interviews can be found in appendix I and the data collection sheets are presented in appendix II. Subsequently, by using the data the influence of the social network of smallholders is analysed by describing the influence of relationships, communication and information. Further, three individual local extension agents were interviewed, as these key informants have a lot of useful knowledge and experiences with smallholders in Caazapá. Full details of the survey form used and the answers during these interviews are given in appendix III.

Sampling procedure Based on the traditional farming culture and the high abandonment rate of no-tillage within a recent project of the Ministry, the study area Caazapá was selected for this research. The smallholders in the district Caazapá were selected based on their continued or abandoned use of no-tillage. A smallholder is considered to be part of a household ; a family living in one house, mostly consisting of a man, a wife and children. Further, these households once signed a contract with the Ministry of Agriculture to participate in a smallholder committee of either DEAg or GTZ. Nine committees were taken into account; these committees are either still in their three-year contract with the Ministry of Agriculture or are already later in time after the contracts were finished. A division is made between ‘healthy’ and ‘failed’ committees. A

‘healthy’ committee is described as a committee where more than 60% of the smallholders are continuing with the no-tillage system. Subsequently, a ‘failed’ committee is described as a committee where less than 60% of the smallholders are continuing, and thus abandoning, the no-tillage farming system. In each committee three smallholders were interviewed, either continuing or abandoning no-tillage. In total, 27 smallholders were involved; 19 smallholders who are continuing no-tillage and 8 smallholders who abandoned no-tillage. The ‘healthy’ and ‘failed’ committees were selected random, as well as the smallholders interviewed in these committees. In total, 5 ‘healthy’ committees and 4 ‘failed' committees were taken into account.

Correlation analysis Correlation research is a form of research in which data will be analyzed so as to look at relationships between naturally-occurring variables rather than making cause-effect statements. Caution must be taken when interpreting the outcomes of a correlation analysis, the correlation coefficients, because causality between two variables cannot be assumed; there may be other (un)measured variables affecting the results. Also, the correlation coefficients say nothing about which variable causes the other to change; the correlation coefficient doesn’t indicate in which direction causality operates (Field, 2009). The statistical program SPSS is used to investigate possible correlations between various variables investigated during the data collection. If it appears that two variables are linked, it could indicate a causal relationship. The correlation coefficient varies between 0, no relation; +1, a positive relation; and -1, a negative relation. Being aware of the significance level, coefficients of +0.1 represent a small effect, +0.3 a medium effect and +0.5 a large effect. The variables taken into account are described in table 1.

Table 1. Variables included in correlation analysis

Variable Definition Type of data Classification

Age Smallholders' age Scale From low to high numbers

Amount of years no-tillage applied Years NT Scale From low to high numbers by smallholder Group bonding between members Group bonding Ordinal Weak; normal; strong in a smallholder committee Level of friendship between Contact technician Ordinal Weak; normal; strong smallholder and technician Preference for a communication Committee meeting with technician; farm day; farm Preference comm.way Nominal mode by smallholder visit of technician; committee meeting; all activities Quantity of information faced by Quantity information Ordinal Little; more is better; sufficient; much smallholder Lack of information faced by Lack information Ordinal Big; small; no lack smallholder

Categorizations are made to investigate potential differences between smallholders who are continuing and smallholders who abandoned no-tillage. The group of 19 continuing smallholders is classified more nuanced. Although a minimum of 1 hectare applied with no-tillage is defined for smallholders who are continuing with no-tillage, every smallholder is applying a different amount of hectares with no-tillage. Instead of an approach to divide types of smallholders based on the amount of hectares applied with no-tillage, the percentage of the no-tillage area

compared to the total cultivated area seems more realistic and clear. As most smallholders own more land than they cultivate at the moment and only the cultivated area can be used with no- tillage, not the total area but the total cultivated area is taken into account. This approach results in 11 smallholders who can be described as smallholders with less than 50% no-tillage adoption (adoption 6.9% - 33.3%). Subsequently, there are 8 smallholders who have equal or more than 50% of no-tillage adoption on their farms (adoption 50% - 80%). The three no-tillage adoption categories used during the correlation analysis are summarized in table 2.

Table 2. No-tillage adoption categories

Category Definition # smallholders

No adoption Smallholders who abandoned the no-tillage system on their farm 8

Low adoption Smallholders who applied less than 50% no-tillage on the total cultivated area 11

High adoption Smallholders who applied equal or more than 50% no-tillage on the total cultivated area 8

Correlation analyses are done either between the variables and the smallholders’ categories, as well as among variables as a so-called ‘internal correlation’. Due to the different types of data, different statistical tests for correlation were used: Pearson for quantitative data and Spearman for ordinal data. Scatter-plots were used to clarify and interpret nominal data.

Difficulties faced While conducting the interviews, several difficulties were encountered. First of all, smallholders speak Guaraní through which I needed a translator to assist me during the interviews. As I could not understand the answers of smallholders directly, this could have caused ‘noise’ between the answers of smallholders and the answers I wrote down. The translators were most often the technicians responsible for the committees taken into account. This means that some power relations could have played a role as smallholders did not want to criticize honestly. Also, the technician could influence the answers through the way of asking the questions. Moreover, I noticed a lack of ‘research-attitude’ among the technicians who translated the interviews. The technicians are practice-oriented and, despite of explaining, did not fully understand what ‘doing research’ is about. Concerning the smallholders interviewed; they did not always fully understand the questions, could not find the answers or it could be that smallholders forgot to tell certain details. Further, I noticed that the number of smallholders who abandoned the no- tillage farming system is not the same as smallholders who are abandoning their committee. It appeared that most smallholders, despite of having none or less than 1 hectare applied with no- tillage, are still participating in their committees. Also, smallholders gave different answers to the question how many smallholders abandoned no-tillage in their committee. Logistically, smallholders who abandoned no-tillage were hard to find as they are hardly registered by the Ministry of Agriculture, and the technicians often had no idea who these smallholders are. Last but not least, I have noticed a sort of competition between GTZ and DEAg. Technicians are not in contact with each other, or even criticize each other’s institutions through which it became hard to work with people from both institutions.

4. SOCIO-CULTURAL LIFEWORLDS

4.1 Smallholders’ lifeworlds Being interested in the interactions of social actors, and the reasons why actors are making certain decisions, a dynamic approach is needed to understand social change . The ‘actor- oriented approach’ of Long (2001) can be adopted to explain differential responses of farmers dealing with similar conditions in one study area. This approach starts with the idea that different social forms develop under similar structural circumstances. Certain social patterns are formed in their so-called socio-cultural lifeworld . The socio-cultural lifeworld is defined as the environment where humans are living in, formed by social, political, historical and cultural factors. These factors create an area with people having similar habits, beliefs and values (Long, 2001). The socio-cultural lifeworld of smallholders in Caazapá makes them interpreting, integrating and communicating in specific and similar ways. For most smallholders cultural traditions play an important role. This is especially expressed in the respectful way children approach their parents and the wife seen as head of the family. Most smallholders have between four and nine children and often these children are working on the farm after their six years of obligatory education. The educational system became stricter the last couple of years due to the focus on economical progression. The traditional conventional farming system of burning and ploughing is highly valued; all family members are needed in this system to make the labour-intensive smallholdings work. Also the wife is cultivating the fields, besides her housekeeping duties. Generally, smallholders are working on their fields for four up till ten hours per day, assisted by their family members and by day labourers when necessary. Furthermore, smallholders live on the countryside, far away from the cities and sometimes only accessible by motor bike. Therefore, they face an environment with few neighbours and a small amount of other contacts. Other families live in the close neighbourhood but are not in close everyday-contact with each other. Because of the small social networks, smallholders are not triggered to change their traditional ways of farming; they are not very aware of other opportunities. Smallholders are mainly producing for self-sufficiency, to feed their family and animals, and not particularly focussing on higher production levels and selling opportunities. Generally they are not very happy with their living standards, but they are satisfied with the way it is now as they are producing enough food in their subsistence farming system. Moreover, most of them do not have money and other resources to change their way of living. Around 10% of the smallholders migrated from rural to urban areas or to neighbouring countries as Brazil where they started to earn more money with other jobs (Borsy 6). From historical and political points of view, Paraguay is a quite unsecure country through the several wars in the past and the corruption faced in governmental levels. Further, the economic progression decreased about twenty years ago, which is expressed by the decayed train stations and railroads. Recently a number of changes appeared, driven by the Paraguayan economy. The most remarkable developments occurring among smallholders are the use of mobile phones and the purchase of fridges, motorbikes, televisions and radios.

6 Talk with Paul Borsy, consultant of GTZ, 1st of October 2009

4.2 Farming objectives Despite of the socio-cultural lifeworlds of smallholders in Caazapá through which similar social patterns developed, differences between smallholders are noticed. Differences between smallholders exist due to variations in smallholders’ rationalities, desires, capacities and practices (Long, 2001). This causes a non-homogenous group, resulting in smallholders who are making different decisions. It may be assumed that smallholders’ decision-making is mainly driven by their farming objectives, built upon the beliefs and values in their socio-cultural lifeworlds. If these farming objectives are corresponding with the potential benefits of no- tillage, they could be motivated to start applying the farming system. According to the technicians, the no-tillage system appears to be the most successful for smallholders who are focussing on higher production levels and are open-minded and willing to put energy into changes and innovations (Arévalos, Espinola, Da Silva 7). According to the smallholders themselves, their most common farming objective mentioned is higher crop production , followed by less erosion on the fields and less working hours . Assuming that no-tillage could help them to reach their farming objectives, several smallholders decided to start applying no- tillage. Besides, various additional reasons are mentioned to start applying no-tillage. The most important aspect is technical assistance , which is not directly an objective on itself because it should be considered as a supporting tool to enable smallholders to use the no-tillage system (figure 7). Nevertheless, several smallholders appoint the technical assistance as the main reason to start no-tillage, which refers to the equipment and information provided by technicians. Sometimes this reason is going along with reasons of being convinced by the committee , receiving payments , or to give the project a try . The farming objectives and reasons to start no-tillage mentioned by smallholders are presented in table 3. Most remarkable among the smallholders who are continuing no-tillage is that none of them mentions the payments as a reason to start with the no-tillage system, while this is several times mentioned by smallholders who abandoned no-tillage. Another remarkable point in respect to literature is the awareness of erosion. It is suggested that awareness of erosion is an important adoption factor; however reasons of less erosion, more humidity and increased fertility are also mentioned by smallholders who abandoned no-tillage.

Table 3. Farming objectives and reasons of smallholders to start no-tillage

Objectives and Higher Help from Higher Less Convinced To try reasons # Receiving yields/ technical fertility/ working by the the ------smallholders payments production assistance less erosion hours committee project Adoption categories No adoption 8 2 2 3 1 1 4 0 Low adoption 11 5 6 3 2 2 0 1 High adoption 8 5 3 3 2 1 0 1

Total 27 12 11 9 5 4 4 2

7 Interviews Mario Arévalos, Gerardo Espinola, Jorge Da Silva, technicians, November 2009

4.3 Decision-making The decision of a smallholder in Caazapá to join a smallholder committee (figure 8) can be seen as the acceptance phase, after which the official start of participating in a smallholder committee and applying no-tillage can be described as the actual adoption phase. This is potentially followed by the continued use phase, whereby the no-tillage system is maintained and possibly replicated on other fields. Asking smallholders why they continue or abandon the no-tillage farming system, they often state that their decision is their personal choice . Despite of the fact that smallholders feel not being influenced by others, which could be interpreted by smallholders as being ‘forced’, it may be assumed that personal choices are unconsciously formed through interactions with others. These relationships are subsequently influencing smallholders in how they interpret and think about certain issues. The main reasons mentioned to continue with the no-tillage system are higher crop production , less working hours and less erosion . Apparently, the reasons to continue comply with the farming objectives of smallholders as stated before. This suggest that smallholders become able to reach their farming objectives by applying no-tillage. Table 4 presents an overview of the reasons of smallholders to continue with no-tillage.

Table 4. Reasons of smallholders to continue with no-tillage

Higher Less Higher Less Commer- Continuation reasons Less # yields/ erosion/ incomes / hoeing; Less work cialization ------working smallholders produc- better more less bush for wife of Adoption categories hours tion soils profit and scrubs products Low adoption 11 11 8 6 5 2 0 1 High adoption 8 5 7 4 2 2 2 0

Total 19 16 15 10 7 4 2 1

The reasons to abandon the no-tillage system are changing priorities , like a focus on another project of the Ministry. Other smallholders mention they became older and started to work less due to less motivation and energy through which farming, and so no-tillage, became of less importance. Other reasons are very diverse and vary between social problems, like problems in the committee , household characteristics, like a reduced sense of responsibility due to a lack of land property , and various reasons related to the Ministry, like no further obligations to accomplish the no-tillage goals after the contract was finished. An overview of the reasons of smallholders to abandon no-tillage is presented in table 5. Other causes for the abandonment of no-tillage mentioned by experts are climatic factors as heavy thunderstorms and a wrong application of the technology, through which the no-tillage system failed and smallholders become demotivated (Níz 8).

Table 5. Reasons of smallholders to abandon no-tillage No obli- Lack of Dis- Less Abandonment reasons Changed Older; less Disap- Lack # gations planning organized assistance ------priorities energy, pointing of land smallholders after end system commit- after end Adoption category / project motivation results title contract MAG tee contract No adoption 8 4 3 2 2 2 1 1 1

8 Talk with Fabio Níz, sociologist, 26 th of October 2009

Figure 7. Technicians assistingFigure a smallholder 5. during a farm visit

Figure 8. Smallholder committeeFigure consisting6. of family members

5. SOCIAL NETWORKING

Social networks consist of direct and indirect relationships and exchanges which are the key elements in the innovation process of adopting farming practices and no-tillage techniques in particular. To understand communication processes, the social situation has to be analysed. Social networks are characterized by flows, content, span, density and multiplicity (Long, 2001). More specific, social networks concern the types, duration and density of relationships involved, the communication modes used, and the flows and content of information exchanged. In this research, the multiplicity and duration of relationships (section 5.1), the types and frequency of communication modes used (section 5.2), and the quantity and quality of information were investigated (section 5.3). In addition, a correlation analysis is executed with the variables investigated during the data collection, presented in table 6. Both the correlations between categorizations and variables as the internal variable analyses are included. The full printouts of the SPSS outputs can be found in appendix IV. In the following chapters references will be made to the cross-table presented below to clarify the written texts.

Table 6. Correlation coefficients of research variables

Section 5.1 Section 5.3 Adoption Group Contact Quantity rate NT Age Years NT bonding technician info Lack info Adoption rate NT 1 -0,186 0,165 0,454* 0,269 -0,153 -0,157 Age -0,186 1 #0,311 -0,265 -0,130 -0,017 0,297 Years NT 0,165 #0,311 1 0,198 0,198 -0,052 -0,119 Group bonding 0,454 * -0,265 0,198 1 0,892 ** -0,432 * -0,244 Contact technician 0,269 -0,130 0,198 0,892 ** 1 -0,380 -0,120 Quantity info -0,153 -0,017 -0,052 -0,432 -0,380 1 0,538 ** Lack of info -0,157 0,297 -0,119 -0,244 -0,120 0,538 ** 1 *. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed). **. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). #. Corrected by means of the Pearson test.

5.1 Interacting relationships Relationships are interacting with each other in a complex communication process whereby several linkages and networks develop among smallholders (Long, 2001). The presence of (new) contacts provides space for making new and/or other decisions through learning experiences and the appearance of new opportunities. Social relations are ‘used’ by smallholders for gathering information and forming opinions about no-tillage. Both direct and indirect relationships are influencing smallholders in their decision-making concerning the use of no- tillage techniques (Glendinning et al., 2001). Direct relationships refer to people where smallholders have face-to-face contacts with. On the other hand, indirect relationships refer to actors who are not having direct contact with smallholders but are connected through a third actor (Doerfel et al., 2010). For example, the wife of a smallholder is a direct relation, while an official of the Ministry of Agriculture is an indirect relation because he is connected with a smallholder through his contacts via a technician.

5.1.1 Direct relationships Wife and husband The family household is considered to be an important topic in the socio-cultural lifeworld of smallholders. Men are spending long days working on their fields, while women are responsible for the housekeeping and assist the men in the field if necessary. Women are often working by hand on the fields for several hours per day. Children support their parents as much as possible because they are indispensable in the labour-intensive farming system. Children tell something about the family-status; the more children the richer the family can be. If children become older, they can earn money by off-farm activities and the boys could possibly start their own farms.

Family interdependencies Wives and husbands are influencing each other during the on-farm decision-making because they share the household responsibilities. Also, a change in the farming system will lead to changes for both of them because wives are also working on the fields. Another important aspect, mentioned by technicians, is the relative high influence of wives who are generally the head of the family. Husbands are more willing to sell their crops, while wives are usually more conservative, focused on own production to feed their children and animals. As a result, many family households are quite cautious concerning potential changes in their traditional farming system.

Technical assistance Technicians are deployed by the Ministry of Agriculture to spread knowledge about sustainable farming practices, no-tillage in particular, among the smallholders in Paraguay. Every technician has around 10 committees within a certain district, with a responsibility of assisting more than 100 smallholders. In general, a technician is visiting each smallholder every two weeks, to attend a committee meeting or to conduct an individual farm visit.

Capacity-building Smallholders have generally low education levels and live far away from the cities, which causes narrow knowledge-based social networks. The technician appears to be the only one having knowledge concerning the management of soils and the use of the no-tillage system. Therefore

the technician is seen by smallholders as the key person for information transfer and knowledge-building. Since smallholders mention they have a low know-how about new (sustainable) farming practices, technical assistance is necessary for the success of the no-tillage system. The technician is a direct source of knowledge and provides practical information in a personal atmosphere. An important issue here is the understanding of information; the personal attention is increasing the understanding and learning processes among smallholders. Further, the technicians are providing machinery and other tools, on behalf of the Ministry, to share within a smallholder committee. How to use and treat the machinery is also explained by the technicians. The machinery is adapted to the field circumstances of smallholdings and useful to practice no-tillage techniques. The main equipment provided is the vegetation flattener, the subsoil-tool as extensive plough, the seeding machine, and the herbicides sprayer.

‘Powerful friendships’ With technicians as smallholders’ most important source for capacity-building, concerning information and materialistic needs, the technicians’ focus is quickly adopted. The strong focus of technicians on commercialization, to increase the crop production by means of the no-tillage system, causes that many smallholders start trying to practice no-tillage. During interviewing, it was observed that smallholders feel honoured to be visited and are impressed by the ‘intelligence’ of the technician. This was expressed by the constantly repetition of ‘sir’ and the way the smallholders are silently sitting in front of the technician. This can partly be explained by the low know-how and few financial possibilities of smallholders. However, it also suggests a power relationship. This sort of hierarchy together with the ability of a technician to decide what knowledge to provide and what not, leads to the domain of power issues and inequalities. However, technicians are generally quite close with their smallholders; technicians are often seen as a ‘friend’, which enables the technician to ‘come closer’ and spread his/her enthusiasm about no-tillage. It appears that the technicians who are in closer contact with their smallholder committees are more successful in transferring their enthusiasm. These smallholder committees seem more energetic and enthusiastic to apply and continue with no-tillage techniques. This is illustrated by the correlation table 6 where a positive relation between the adoption rate of no- tillage and the level of friendship between smallholder and technician can be noticed, however not significant. Thus, the better the friendship between a smallholder and his/her technician, the higher the adoption rate of no-tillage of this smallholder. In addition, friendships may assumed to become of a higher level over longer time periods when smallholders and technicians are getting to know each other better.

Smallholder committee Technicians are responsible to form and inform the smallholder committees and therefore technician, committee and smallholder are closely interlinked. Technicians are assisting smallholder committees and especially the leaders of these committees. Smallholder committees are useful for technicians because it is a more accessible way to reach more smallholders at the time by means of committee meetings.

Group bonding It appears that smallholder committees create bonding between the smallholders in one committee. Smallholders in committees face more interdependencies than before which lead to the need of more communication and better organization. It appears that information and experiences are exchanged among the members of each committee and the organization of

selling opportunities and production topics are taking place, like the sharing of equipment for cultivation. The continuous face-to-face contacts with other smallholders, who are friends and most often family members living quite close to each other, are creating feelings of shared responsibilities. Because members know each other for years, generally already before the start-up of a committee, it can even be suggested that committees create environments of trust. In these environments members feel safe to express themselves and dare to take the step to innovate with each other. The motivational support of committee members will trigger smallholders to use and continue the no-tillage system. However, a demotivating atmosphere can occur too if the committee becomes disorganized. This is clarified by the large positive and significant relation found in the correlation table 6; the stronger the group bonding among committee members, the more smallholders are continuing with no-tillage. Thereby, group bonding may assumed to become stronger over a longer time period when committee members become better adapted to each other. Further, a negative trend, but not significant, appears between group bonding and age. Weaker group bonding at older ages can be explained by the reasoning of older smallholders. They are starting to work less on their fields and subsequently the need to use no-tillage becomes lower.

Close personal relationships The social networks of smallholders are heavily influenced by the Ministry of Agriculture; the technician and the members of the committee are the people smallholders are most in contact with concerning the no-tillage system. Besides these influential relationships, smallholders mention other people they are talking with about their no-tillage system. Smallholders are regular in contact with members of other committees and with other technicians. Also family members, friends and neighbours, either applying or not applying no-tillage, are people with whom smallholders are talking about no-tillage. This ‘talking’ refers mainly to the informal exchange of experiences concerning the use of the no-tillage techniques and their results.

It appears that increased social contacts and communication are ensured among every smallholder participating in a smallholder committee. The increasing amount of (new) close relationships enabled smallholders to gather more and diverse information. While the knowledge levels of smallholders increase by technical assistance, information is spread and repeated within committees in a more informal and intensive way. The increased exchange of information and experiences through farmer-to-farmer diffusion, either or not supported by technicians through farmer-to-extension contact, causes better understanding among the committee members. Together with understanding , friendship with the technician and, especially, group bonding appear to play key roles concerning the motivation of smallholders. From the correlation table 6 a very positive and significant relation appears between group bonding and friendship with a technician. This indicates the complementary roles of stronger group bonding within a committee and better friendship between a smallholder and the technician. Most probably these two variables, both motivational factors, are affecting each other which makes the final (positive) effect on the adoption rate of no-tillage even larger.

5.1.2 Indirect relationships The Ministry of Agriculture Looking at the technicians more in-depth, deployed by the Ministry of Agriculture, gives some clarification about their background and their working environment. Technicians are primarily gaining knowledge by their education at the school of agriculture, mostly followed by university. Starting to work for the Ministry, either DEAg or GTZ, means that a technician has to follow several courses about soil management and capacity-building. Every year a big conference in the country or a neighbouring country is organized, where every technician should be present. Depending on their own interests, the technicians will inform themselves about more specific topics by reading books. Within the Ministry, the work can be roughly divided into administrative and field tasks. Both tasks are executed in the local office of the district where the technician is working. Because there are many smallholders and the weather circumstances make it often impossible to go into the field, difficulties for permanent and intensive assistance arise. Many technicians do have an agricultural background through which they have already practical experiences and are very dedicated to their work. However, the wages are not that high, which results in a lack of motivation among several technicians, expressed in, for example, not buying fuel for their motors or cars. Another event noticed within the Ministry of Agriculture is the ending of projects what will happen with the GTZ project in October 2010. Technicians will lose their jobs and their smallholder committees will be transferred to the DEAg, where probably not enough technicians are working to take care of all the committees. It should also be mentioned that GTZ and DEAg are not cooperating intensively and sometimes even a sort of competition is noticed. Last but not least, the leaders of the Paraguayan government are changing regularly and corruption is noticed, which makes the political system unstable and so the agricultural policy towards smallholders insecure (Arévalos, Espinola, Da Silva 9).

9 Interviews Mario Arévalos, Gerardo Espinola, Jorge Da Silva, technicians, November 2009

5.2 Modes of communication 5.2.1 Knowledge-building Communication is the process by which actors create and share information with each other in order to reach agreements and mutual understanding. Actors communicate by means of certain communication modes. Each communication modes is effective in reaching specific aims depending on the approach used, varying from personal contacts to mass media (Rogers, 2003). Concerning the transfer of information to smallholders there are different activities, communication modes, noticed. These are mainly organized by the Ministry of Agriculture, aiming to ensure self-sufficiency among smallholders as well as to promote crop production to sell on the market; technicians call this ‘auto-sustainable’. The intensity and types of information transferred from the Ministry to smallholder is focused on the knowledge-building of smallholders and can be divided into three stages: farm days, committee meetings with technician, and farm visits.

Farm days Farm days are organized throughout the whole Eastern Region during the whole year; a smallholder visits a farm day generally once or twice a year. On a farm day general information about the no-tillage system is provided. On these farm days smallholders are divided into small groups who are visiting demonstration parcels, explained by a technician. Afterwards, a lottery and barbeque is held next to where smallholders have the opportunity to visit information stands. The main aim of a farm day is to make smallholders aware about and motivated for no- tillage by sharing experiences among a group of more than 100 smallholders. Besides, a farm day gives the opportunity to impress smallholders with the interest of the Ministry for this specific group of people.

Raising awareness Smallholders mention the exchange of information and becoming aware of the results of other smallholders as most important to visit a farm day. Getting to know the results and talk it over with other technicians is important for smallholders’ motivation. Further they learn a lot from the demonstration parcels; it enables smallholders to evaluate their own fields and to get more ideas how to treat their own fields. In general, smallholders appreciate the farm days because they get to know different and broad information about the no-tillage system.

Committee meetings with technician Smallholder committees meet once or twice per month with their technician. The main aim of these meetings within a small group is to build smallholders’ capacity by increasing their understanding and subsequently their know-how. New information is provided by the technician and updates are given and discussed by smallholders about the results and problems faced with the no-tillage system. The technician will make notes for administrative purposes and supplies, like seeds, are recorded. For a technician it is time-saving to visit a group of smallholders instead of individuals.

Shared learning The most important aspect to join a committee meeting with the presence of the technician is that knowledge is explained by the technician while it can immediately be shared among the members at the same time. More specific information and help is provided and the

understanding of smallholders increases within a small group. Other beneficial aspects of having committee meetings with the technician are the exchange of experiences and ideas with each other and to get additional information if necessary.

Farm visits of technicians Because every smallholder and every farm field is different, it is of importance that smallholders receive more specific information at times. Individual visits of technicians in the smallholder fields happen generally once or twice a month. This frequency is somewhat unrealistic because this it is very labour-intensive for technicians. Technicians themselves mention that they are sometimes only coming by for a small talk; other times he/she will visit the fields of the smallholder (Arévalos, Espinala, Da Silva 10 ). In the field, the technician is evaluating together with the smallholder to help him/her to improve the use of no-tillage for better results. The status of the fields are discussed, through which both technician and smallholder learn more about the use of no-tillage. Twice a year the responsible for the allocation of seeds, fertilizers and herbicides joins the technician to record the quantity needed per smallholder and per committee.

Specific knowledge Smallholders perceive farm visits of technicians as useful because specific and missing information is provided and the farm management of the smallholders is evaluated and corrected. Smallholders evaluate the provided information as being of high quality because of the precise and practical information. Also, the farm visits are done regularly through which the learning processes of smallholders are constantly stimulated. Together with the technician the smallholder is able to make diagnostics and future plans for the fields. Lastly, the consultation helps smallholders by explaining how to use the equipment to make them work more effective.

Other communication modes appeared during the interviews with smallholders, which are supporting the three main communication modes organized by the Ministry of Agriculture as mentioned before.

Committee meetings without technician Generally every week or twice a month, a smallholder committee organizes a meeting without the presence of the technician. Smallholders describe these meetings as ‘consultation meetings’ where relevant information is exchanged and discussed. This concerns the organization about shared equipment, production and selling topics and other news. It is also motivating for smallholders to have ‘shared farming’ practiced in a dynamic group, applying the quite complex no-tillage system.

Radio program MAG Most smallholders are listening to the radio program broadcasted by the Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock a few times per week. This radio program broadcast every day early in the morning the updates in the Paraguayan agriculture. The aim of this radio program is to support the technicians through providing additional general information. The parts smallholders like to hear are the dates of farm days and the weather forecast. Furthermore, smallholders appreciate the repetition of general information about (sustainable) land use and the updates given to

10 Interviews Mario Arévalos, Gerardo Espinola, Jorge Da Silva, technicians, November 2009

complement their own knowledge. By means of the radio program smallholders learn more because of new, additional and repetition of information.

Facilitating technologies Since the use of modern technologies are stimulated by the Paraguayan economy, many smallholders own a mobile phone and a motor bike nowadays. This enabled smallholders to improve their organizational and transport capabilities. By means of mobile phones the permanent contact between people is compacted whereby, for example, the organisation of meetings is better arranged. The use of a motor bike facilitates the transport to different activities through which smallholders enlarge their living space. Because money is needed to pay and maintain these technologies, the awareness of smallholders increases that they have to produce and to sell products. It appears that smallholders applying no-tillage are earning more money through which they can easier pay their bills. Also, these smallholders are sometimes even able to replace their wooden house for a house made of stone.

Cooperations and organisations Several smaller and bigger cooperations can be found in the region Caazapá. When a smallholder is joining a cooperation, the smallholder becomes motivated to increase production because of earning more money if the amount of products offered to the co-operation increases. However, smallholders are often producing too less to be of interest for a commercial cooperation. Therefore, local organisations are more interesting to smallholders because they can sell their products here in smaller amounts before these products will be sold in larger amounts to the cooperations. However, not many organisations can be found in Caazapá and not many smallholders are joining as they are focused on self-sufficiency. The largest organisation found in Caazapá is Nueva Vision , set up during the project of Prodesal between 2000 and 2005. Unfortunately, the organisation was getting less interest during the succeeding projects of the Ministry of Agriculture and therefore the organisation is lacking impact for selling opportunities among smallholders. Currently some smallholders are voluntary trying to start up Nueva Vision again, as they realize that crop production becomes more profitable when selling the products in higher amounts to the commercial cooperations. Also, the Paraguayan economy causes that even smallholders become aware of the importance of selling products and earning money. Besides, no-tillage will become more interesting for smallholders, and especially for smallholder committees, while joining these organizations, as their production levels become higher through which the selling price increases and their incomes rise (De Dios Monges 11 ).

11 Talk with Juan de Dios Monges, director of Nueva Vision, 25 th of November 2009

5.2.2 Communication preferences Types of communication It appears that information is commonly spread through listening to and talking and discussing with each other in a direct manner. Types of information used during farm days, committee meetings and farm visits are posters and booklets. These include mainly pictures and some text, distributed to support the verbal information since it gives smallholders the opportunity to look through the information afterwards. Considering the high percentage of illiteracy among smallholders, more pictures than texts are provided. Also, smallholders have Guaraní as their native language which is hardly used for writing, which makes it difficult for them to read. Pictures are preferred as they clarify the information provided and help to realize the reality. Therefore watching is an important form to support the information which is given through talking. This form of communication is most often mentioned during the farm visits of the technician as well as during farm days where demonstrations of fields take place with signs and pictures supporting the explanations. Some technicians are using pictures or even audiovisuals during the smallholder meetings to clarify and to support verbal information. Overall, smallholders mention direct communication with direct contacts as the most useful because it enables them to exchange information through which they understand and learn the most. Apparently, direct communication is the best way to contact smallholders and motivate them, through learning, how to apply no-tillage.

Communication rankings Asking smallholders to their preference to get information about no-tillage, several answers were given. These answers are presented in appendix V, subdivided into the amount of smallholders per adoption category , together with the scatter-plots used to create this table. Many smallholders spontaneously mentioned all activities , which immediately suggests the complementary way the different communication modes collaborate. Close second are committee meetings with the technician present followed by farm visits of the technician , both explained by smallholders as the most practical and understandable ways of receiving information for learning purposes. Also, these meetings are organized on a regular base what causes a constant information flow. Taking into account the adoption categories, smallholders seem a quite homogenous group in their communication preferences. They also mention that they are satisfied with the various communication modes and their frequencies offered. This suggests that communication modes are appropriate for all smallholders and are not a direct cause for a smallholder to decide to abandon the no-tillage system. Taking into account smallholders’ age and the years of no-tillage applied, it appears from the correlation table 6 that these variables are positively and significant correlated. Thus, it can be stated that older smallholders have more no-tillage experience. It may be suggested that younger smallholders, with less no-tillage experience, have a greater need for individual assistance in order to increase their understanding. This did not came out during the analysis, because most smallholders in this research are generally between forty and sixty years old. Smallholders with a middle age prefer committee meetings with the technician present , or they mention that all activities are important to them.

5.3 Knowledge processes 5.3.1 Information exchange Knowledge is present in all social situations; it can be seen as a product of interaction and dialogue between actors, and is influenced by previous ideas, images, beliefs and values (Long, 2001). Knowledge provided by relations and through communication modes may be assumed as important aspects to the adoption of no-tillage. Social networks, consisting of direct and indirect relationships and exchanges, allow smallholders to gather and interpret information about the no-tillage system and to exchange and discuss this with others. Extension services are involved in the knowledge process through the generation, acquisition, utilisation and transformation of knowledge. The availability of and access to information could increase awareness and understanding, however; information should also fit into the socio-cultural lifeworld of smallholders (FAO, website). The relevance, appropriateness, accuracy and usefulness of information are important aspects concerning the success of adoption (Goddard et al., 2008). It may be assumed that smallholders keep their farming objectives in mind, while perceiving the information about no-tillage.

Information provided In-depth information provided by a technician towards a smallholder can roughly be divided in the information given by the committee meetings and to the individual smallholder through farm visits. After a technician acquired a smallholder committee by motivating and informing a group of smallholders, the technician will explain the conditions of the contract which will be signed by all members of the committee. From then, the technician will give explanations on a regularly base about how to apply no-tillage. Two information stages can be distinguished as the no-tillage system needs an introduction period of about one and a half year before the farming system is in real use. The first information stage consists of explanations about what types of green manure cover crops exist, which cover crop should be used for each degraded soil type, and a work plan for crop rotation and densities of cultivated crops is included. The technician will visit the fields with the members of the committee to show and to explain the management and preparation of the soil for no-tillage. After this introduction period it may be assumed that smallholders are well-informed and able to apply no-tillage correctly on their fields. During the second information stage, the technician will evaluate the fields with each smallholder to discuss what is missing or going wrong. Later, topics like crop rotation and combinations of green manure cover crops will be explained in more detail. The total information period needed for smallholders is assumed to be more than six years (Arévalos, Espinola, Da Silva 12 ).

Access to information From the correlation table 6 a large positive and significant relation is found between the quantity and lack of information, which is logical as a lower quantity of information is most probably also causing a lack of information, and vice versa. The Ministry of Agriculture plays a key role concerning the availability and the access to information as the Ministry arranges and organizes all activities according to the promotion of no-tillage. This suggests that the Ministry is responsible for any inconvenience among smallholders concerning the lack, quantity and quality of information concerning no-tillage. Taking into account the duration of information provided, there exists a positive trend, but not significant, between age and the lack of information. This

12 Interviews Mario Arévalos, Gerardo Espinola, Jorge Da Silva, technicians, November 2009

means that older smallholders generally face a smaller lack of information than younger smallholders. This can be explained by the fact that older smallholders in this research generally applied no-tillage for more years, which the correlation coefficient between age and years of no-tillage applied suggests. Because the Ministry is in contact with these older smallholders over a longer time period than the younger smallholders, older smallholders have had a longer period of access to information. Subsequently, older smallholders have gained more knowledge nowadays than the younger smallholders in this research. Apparently, accessibility to information is causing increasing knowledge levels among smallholders, encouraged by several communication modes and contents of information.

Need for information Investigating the opinions of smallholders about the quantity and lack of information faced resulted in different answers. Concerning the quantity of information provided, smallholders generally mention they receive enough information, however; more is always necessary. This is because the hardest part for smallholders is to understand the information; therefore, individual direct assistance is important to improve the learning process of smallholders. The continuous and intensive information flows and the different communication forms whereby information is provided, like technical assistance and committee meetings, are most contributing to the sufficient quantity of information. Further, several smallholders mention they are lacking information about other and new opportunities of applying no-tillage techniques. The flexibility and actualization of information is a point often mentioned. Also specific and detailed information is lacking which could contribute to the sustainability of soils on the long term. However, smallholders also mention that a technician cannot know everything and therefore full and up-to-date information about no-tillage is almost impossible to get. Some smallholders do not directly focus on what information is missing, but mention they are facing a lack of motivation. Further, it may be assumed that smallholders have different information needs during the adoption phases from awareness phase till the continuous use of no-tillage. Younger committees mention the need for information as the most important aspect in the opportunity to apply no-tillage. After four or five years it is expected by the Ministry that all parts of the no-tillage system have been discussed and are applied and understood by a smallholder. Smallholders in the oldest committees mention that they have less need for information because they have more knowledge through the information obtained over the years. However, they also mention that with less information the application of no-tillage is becoming more difficult. Even after a couple of years some technical assistance seems necessary as the no-tillage system is in development and constantly upgraded to, for example, better combinations of green manure cover crops. Thus information is still needed, but especially with regard to specific and up-to-date information, for example about the management of continuing no-tillage over the years. In general, it can be stated that the continuity and intensity of the information provided is of high importance.

5.3.2 Impact of information The role of social aspects A negative and significant relation is found in the correlation table 6 between group bonding and the quantity of information faced by smallholders. Thus the stronger the group bonding, the lower the quantity of information is evaluated; and the weaker the group bonding, the higher the quantity of information is evaluated. Also, a negative trend, but not significant, exists between group bonding and the lack of information. This means that stronger group bonding results in a greater lack of information and vice versa. Further, a negative trend, but not significant, is noticed between the friendship with the technician and the quantity of information faced. If the friendship between the technician and a smallholder is better, the quantity of information faced by a smallholder is lower. To summarize, it appears that if group bonding is stronger and friendship with the technician is better, both social aspects, the quantity and lack of information are negatively evaluated. During interviewing it became not exactly clear why these variables are correlated, but it may be assumed that the social aspects are influencing smallholders in how they evaluate their information. From field experiences, it was noticed that the stronger the group bonding and the better the friendship with the technician, the more smallholders are enthusiastic and willing to learn. These smallholders are practicing no-tillage more intensively on their fields and highly appreciate the information which is provided by the technician and shared by the smallholder committee. Therefore, it can be suggested that these smallholders are most ‘ambitious’ and have a greater need for information. Subsequently, these ambitious smallholders evaluate the quantity and lack of information more critically than smallholders with weaker group bonding and/ or lesser friendships with the technician. Thus the stronger the social aspects, the more smallholders will not get satisfied with the information they get from their technicians.

The role of information The negative correlation coefficients could also be referred to the socio-cultural lifeworlds of smallholders. Although the availability of and access to information increases awareness and understanding, information should also fit into their lifeworlds (FAO, website). As Derpsch stated, cited by Goddard et al.: “Information needs to be relevant, locally appropriate, true and useful in order to generate impact amongst smallholders” (Goddard et al., 2008). The no-tillage farming system is changing the traditional way of farming rigorously which makes it more difficult for a smallholder to understand this farming system. It could be that new information is not directly perceived as relevant and useful, because the objectives higher crop production , less erosion and less working hours are not directly visible when applying no-tillage. Smallholders could doubt if the information is really true and appropriate for reaching their farming objectives. Therefore, it can be suggested that smallholders are struggling with information about no-tillage. Smallholders did not mention any remarks concerning the quality of information. As they are not knowing that information could be better, or maybe they are not willing to mention this, they perceive a low quantity and a lack of information. Although information is assumed to be important to the decision-making of smallholders, from the correlation table 6 it appears that the quantity and lack of information are not very related to the adoption rate of no-tillage. Information is important to smallholders’ knowledge-building but is not causing remarkable differences when taking into account their decision-making concerning the use of no-tillage.

6. DISCUSSION

Using the cognitive framework of Röling (2005) could help to discuss the decision-making and learning processes of smallholders in Caazapá. The cognitive framework presented in chapter 2 is shown below again as a copy of figure 4. Learning is defined by Röling as “a change in the composition of, and mutual relationships among, the elements of cognition” , by which the cognitive elements are emotion , perception , theory , and action . Practically, the framework explains smallholders’ decision-making process: based on smallholder’s farming objectives (emotion ) and influenced by relationships ( perception ) and the knowledge he/she has ( theory ), a smallholder makes a certain decision ( action ). This happens within a certain environment: the socio-cultural lifeworld of a smallholder. The decision-making process is constantly reframed because the elements will be changing over time. Subsequently, a smallholder will continuously interpret and form new opinions. Therefore, a smallholder has an every-day learning process through which the decisions he/she makes could change.

Figure 4 (copy). Cognitive framework, adapted from Röling (2005)

Emotion The ‘emotion’ of smallholders can be referred to smallholders’ personal needs and farming objectives. Kessler (2006) states that the willingness of smallholders to innovate in conservation measures increases by targeting at priorities and preferences of smallholders, focusing on production technologies, and investments in social services and social organization. During this research it appears that the reasons to use an innovation as the no-tillage farming system are personal and depends strongly on smallholders’ motivation. The no-tillage system should comply with the farming objectives in order to be of interest for smallholders. The most common farming objective mentioned is higher crop production , followed by less erosion and less working hours . Although it appears that the no-tillage system often comply with smallholders’ farming objectives, subjectivity of smallholders could influence their decision- making through which (continuous) adoption will not occur (Kessler, 2006). Röling (2005) states that mindset , referring to intrinsic motivation, is probably the main reason why farmers do not

change or return to traditional soil management practices. The social context appears to be an important issue to the adoption behaviour; no-tillage should not only comply with the farming objectives but should also fit into smallholders’ socio-cultural lifeworlds. Tillage agriculture, with the traditional use of the plough and fire, has been the norm for hundreds of years. Goddard et al. states: “Smallholders that are not convinced about the long-term benefits of a no-tillage system will always find a reason for tillage” ( Goddard et al., 2008). As the socio-cultural lifeworlds are based on traditional lifestyles and practices, it appears to be very difficult to change the mentality and culture of smallholders.

Perception Smallholders’ ‘perception’ is formed by the relationships and exchanges in their lifeworlds. An increased social interaction and knowledge transfer between technicians and smallholders is assumed to positively contribute to a common problem; smallholders who start to apply no- tillage without enough information on how to do it (Derpsch et al., 2001). Many smallholders perceive no-tillage as a difficult farming system to understand, whereby they mention the importance of personal technical assistance. Bewket (2007) states, instead of extension services, that smallholders should see the relevance of new technologies by using smallholders’ indigenous knowledge within a participatory approach. This will motivate and empower smallholders in their self-confidence and belief in the appropriateness of a new technology. The opportunities for farmer-to-farmer diffusion, for example by means of farmer organizations, could also get more attention in Caazapá. Technicians seem essential for the continuous flow of new and up-to-date information, but this is also caused because there are no other opportunities to gain knowledge. However, in Caazapá it appears that smallholders are impressed by their technician from the Ministry which probably support technicians in their credibility while motivating smallholders to use no-tillage. Also, it appears that the closeness to the technician and forms of group bonding, facilitated by the technician, are highly influencing smallholders’ decision-making. Smallholders regularly mention that information provided by the technician and to be shared within their committee increases their ‘understanding’ and ‘motivation’. Apparently, stronger relationships cause better understanding through which the motivation to apply no-tillage increases. This concerns intrinsic motivation; the ways how smallholders are getting enthusiastic to apply no-tillage and not to give up when something failed during the application. It appears that, additional to smallholders’ motivation from their own farming objectives, stronger relationships are intrinsically motivating smallholders to continue with the no-tillage farming system.

Theory During the time of no-tillage applied, the learning process of a smallholder is constantly re- shaped by their own experiences and the ongoing interactions with others. Together with their own ideas, images, beliefs and values, a smallholder will interpret the information and will form opinions (Long, 2001). The effectiveness of extension services in this learning process has often been discussed, partly because it is one of the costliest methods to information transfer. Despite that technicians are believed to be smallholders’ most important information source, other research (Glenndinning et al., 2001; Derpsch et al., 2001) suggests that technicians do not always play a key role in technology transfer. Also in this research information is not a key factor in smallholders’ decision-making. Although the availability, content and quality of information are important aspects, other studies have also not always shown that information correlates with adoption (FAO, website). Often smallholders evaluate an innovation not on the basis of

information provided by experts, but through the subjective evaluations of close personal relationships (Rogers, 2003). Therefore, the role of technicians and the Ministry should be seen as ‘facilitators’ who are supporting interactions between farmers in order to reach ‘farmer-to- farmer’ rather than ‘extension-to-farmer’ diffusion. The Ministry is putting lots of efforts in organizing several activities in order to motivate smallholders by getting them in contact with no-tillage and other people. By means of various communication modes, information is exchanged in informal ways through which smallholders’ knowledge-levels increase. During this research it became not really clear how each communication mode is becoming effective. Rogers (2003) mentions that mass media is effective in creating understanding and knowledge, and interpersonal channels are more effective in forming and changing attitudes towards a new innovation and thus in influencing smallholders’ decision-making (Rogers, 2003). Glendinning et al. (2001) states that the mode of communication is important and, to be effective, needs to be customized for each target group. Target groups were also assumed to be found during this research based on household characteristics like age and years of no-tillage applied; however, smallholders seem a quite homogeneous group of farmers having the same interests and preferences.

Action Referring to the cognitive framework, appropriate behaviour will be chosen by smallholders based on their farming objectives ( emotion ) and the influence of relationships (perception ) and the knowledge they have ( theory ). Asking smallholders why they continue with the no-tillage system, they often mention higher crop production , less working hours and less erosion . Taking into account the reasons to continue no-tillage, it appears that smallholders’ decisions are related to how the no-tillage system complies with their desired farming objectives. Further, smallholders become intrinsically motivated by their social relationships and the communication modes which are increasing smallholders’ understanding. The reasons to abandon the no-tillage system are changing priorities , like a focus on another project of the Ministry. Other smallholders mention they became older and started to work less through which no-tillage became of less importance. Other reasons vary between problems in the committee , reduced sense of responsibility due to a lack of land property , and no further obligations to accomplish the no-tillage goals after the contract was finished. Taking into account these abandonment reasons, it can be suggested that smallholders who abandoned no-tillage were not intrinsically motivated. This could be the consequence of weaker social relationships, but moreover it seems that extrinsic motivation have played a key role from the beginning. The understanding and perception of erosion problems and conservation measures are seen as important preconditions to the adoption behaviour of farmers (De Graaff and Kessler, 2008). However, some smallholders seem to have started with no-tillage because of the financial incentives and not because of erosion awareness. Receiving payments could have been an important reason for smallholders to start with no-tillage, which is basically not wrong as it is also a trigger to convince smallholders to start with no-tillage. But in the end, it appears that the abandonment of no-tillage followed. The extrinsic motivation became lower after the three-year contract ended and apparently these smallholders were not personally convinced. Even smallholders who are continuing with no-tillage could have been extrinsically motivated to start no-tillage through the incentives of technical assistance who is providing payments, equipment and knowledge. However, it may be assumed that these smallholders were also intrinsically motivated, or at least became convinced during the application of no-tillage through their personal experiences and positively influenced by their relationships in the meantime.

General lessons learned Every smallholder was treated as a specific case, with own farming strategies and perspectives, however; smallholders are also taking part in committees through which some similarities were faced. It appeared that every smallholder has his/her own reasons to continue or to abandon the no-tillage farming system. Despite the group bonding noticed within smallholder committees, smallholders do have their own reasoning and thoughts and therefore grouping of smallholders is hardly possible. Types of smallholders in this research were distinguished based on the adoption rate, but still then many differences and similarities were faced. Therefore, every smallholder should be treated as an individual, even if they are cooperating in one, for outsiders a heterogenic, group of farmers.

Future and open questions - What can we consider as the ‘continued use’ of the no-tillage system according to the adoption phases among smallholders? - Could the development of cooperations and organizations help to provide and spread information and to motivate smallholders to use no-tillage? - How can we increase awareness among smallholders and intrinsically motivate them to use no-tillage and show them the benefits of the farming system?

7. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

This research presented the influence of the social network on the decision-making behaviour of smallholders in Caazapá. Relationships, communication and information are taken into account to answer the main research question concerning the influence of social network characteristics on the use of no-tillage. In order to investigate possible differences between the smallholders involved, both smallholders who continued and abandoned the no-tillage farming system were taken into account. They were divided into three adoption categories based on smallholders who: abandoned no-tillage; applied less than 50% of their cultivated fields with no-tillage; applied more than 50% of their cultivated fields with no-tillage. It appeared that the Ministry of Agriculture plays a key role in the promotion of the no-tillage system among smallholders. Large efforts are made in order to built capacity through the provision of equipment and by increasing the knowledge-levels of smallholders. It appeared that the social networks of smallholders are enlarged by the technicians of the Ministry who are establishing and assisting smallholder committees. Three conclusions can be drawn according to the influence of the social network:

1. Group bonding within a committee as well as friendship levels between smallholders and technicians appeared to be influencing factors. Increased motivation and understanding is encouraged by stronger social relationships on which the continuous use of no-tillage follows. 2. To enable smallholders to acquire diverse information, the Ministry provides various communication modes. These communication modes are supporting the efforts made by technicians to increase smallholders’ motivation and understanding. Communication focused on face-to-face contacts, like farm days and committee meetings, are perceived by smallholders as most useful. 3. The availability, access to, and the quality of information are important aspects for knowledge-building, however; information appeared not to be a key factor in the use of no-tillage. Smallholders mention the importance of gaining knowledge but it does not influence their decision-making.

The high influence of direct relationships and the direct communication preference of smallholders can be related to the socio-cultural lifeworlds of smallholders, consisting of a low know-how and based on mutual help. As information is not influencing smallholders’ decision- making, it is suggested that the constraints to continuous adoption among smallholders in Caazapá is mainly a socio-cultural problem. Intrinsic motivation, mindsets, of smallholders can be considered as the most important factor concerning their decision-making. Especially stronger relationships within the social network of smallholders, supported by diverse communication modes, appeared to intrinsically motivate smallholders.

Based on this case-study research, two recommendations can be made. First, the Ministry of Agriculture should potentialize farmer-to-farmer diffusion as it can be a useful addition to the current time- and labour-consuming policy. Especially the development of farmer organizations in the region could be a good opportunity to motivate smallholders by getting them in contact with new relationships. Moreover, in order to increase the effectiveness and the sustainability of projects and programs, a long-term planning focused on the continuous use of no-tillage among smallholders should be developed by the Ministry.

REFERENCES

Bewket, W. (2007) Soil and water conservation intervention with conventional technologies in northwestern highlands of Ethiopia: Acceptance and adoption by farmers, Land Use Policy, No. 24, pp. 404 – 416

Derpsch, R. (1998) `Historical review of no-tillage cultivation of crops’, In: Working Report No. 13: The 1st JIRCAS Seminar on Soybean Research, No-tillage Cultivation and Future Research Needs, 5 -6 March 1998, Iguaçu Falls , JIRCAS, Brazil, pp. 1 – 18, viewed 28/09/2009, http://www.rolf-derpsch.com/notill.htm#1

Derpsch, R., Florentín, M. and Moriya, K. (2001) Importancia de la siembra directa para alcanzar la sustentabilidad agricola Ministerio de Agricultura y Ganadería, San Lorenzo, Paraguay

Derpsch, R., Florentín, M. and Moriya, K. (2006) `The laws of diminishing yields in the tropics’, In: ISTRO - INFO, 17th ISTRO Conference, 28 August – 3 September 2006, Kiel, ISTRO, Germany, pp. 1218 – 1223, viewed 28/09/2009, http://www.rolf-derpsch.com/notill.htm#1

Doerfel, M. L., Chih-Hui, L., Chewning, L. V. (2010), The Evolutionary Role of Interorganizational Communication: Modeling Social Capital in Disaster Contexts , Human Communication Research, No. 36, pp 125 – 162

Engel, P. and Salomon, M. (2008) Royal Tropical Institute Amsterdam, viewed 04/08/2009, http://www.kit.nl/smartsite.shtml?id=4616, http://www.kit.nl/smartsite.shtml?ch=FAB&id=4616&Part=InDepth, http://smartsite.kit.nl/smartsite.shtml?ch=fab&id=4616&Part=Resources

Field, A. (2009) Discovering Statistics using SPSS, 3rd ed. SAGE Publications Ltd, London

Florentín, M.A., Peñalva, M., Calegari, A. and Derpsch, R. (2001) Abonos verdes y rotación de cultivos en siembra directa. Pequeñas Propiedades , MAG - GTZ, San Lorenzo, Paraguay

Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), Factors influencing the adoption of conservation agriculture , Natural Resources Management and Environment Department, viewed 18/03/2010, http://www.fao.org/docrep/004/y2781e/y2781e04.htm

Glenndinning, A., Mahapatra, A., Mitchell, C.P. (2001), Modes of Communication and Effectiveness of Agroforestry Extension in Eastern India , Human Ecology, Vol. 29, No. 3

Goddard, T., Zoebisch, M., Gan, Y., Ellis, W., Watson, A., Sombatpanit, S., eds (2008) No-till Farming Systems . Special Publication No. 3, World Association of Soil and Water Conservation, Bangkok

Graaff, J. de and Kessler, A. (2008) Lecture notes Impact Assessment of Land and Water Management , Erosion and Soil and Water Conservation Group Wageningen University, Wageningen

ISTRO (2009) `Proceedings of the 18th Triennial ISTRO Conference’, 18 th Triennial Conference of the ISTRO, International Soil Tillage Research Organization , 15 - 19 June 2009, Izmir, Turkey

Kessler, C. A. (2006a) Decisive key-factors influencing farm households’ soil and water conservation investments , Applied Geography 26, pp. 40–60

Lange, D. (2005) Economics and Evolution of Smallholdings Conservation Agriculture in Paraguay, Mid-term Experiences , report to FAO / GTZ, Asunción, Paraguay

Lange, D. and Moriya, K. (2006) El algodón en la agricultura de conservación de los pequeños agriculturos , Ministerio de Agricultura y Ganadería, San Lorenzo, Paraguay

Lee, D.R. (2005) `Agricultural Sustainability and Technology Adoption: Issues and Policies for Developing Countries’, American Journal of Agricultural Economics , Vol. 87, No. 5: pp. 1325- 1334

Leeuwis, C. (2004) `Innovation as a process of network building, social learning and negotiation: Implications for transdisciplinary research collaboration’, paper presented at Trans-KARST 2004: International Transdisciplinary Conference on Development and Conservation of Karst Regions , Hanoi, 13 - 18 September 2004

Leeuwis, C. and Van Den Ban, A. (2004) Rethinking Agricultural Extension: Co-operation across scientific disciplines and epistemic communities, In: Communication for Rural Innovation , Blackwell, Oxford, pp. 350 – 361

Long, N. (2001) Development Sociology: Actor Perspectives , Routledge, London, pp. 10 - 20

Ministerio de Agricultura y Ganadería (2008) Estadísticas del Ministerio de Agricultura año 2008, Paraguay, viewed 2/10/2009

Ministerio de Agricultura y Ganadería (2009) Campaña Agrícola 2009/2010: Dirección General de Planificación , Ministerio de Agricultura y Ganadería, Paraguay

Ridriguez Alcala, R. and Otter, T. (2008) How joint action can increase production while contributing to Poverty Reduction: a Case study of the Frutika Fruit and Juice Cluster , United Nations Development Programme, Paraguay

Rogers, E.M. (2003) Diffusion of Innovations , 5 th ed. Free Press, New York

Röling, N. (2005) `The role of science in anthropogenic uncertainty’, In: Moving Worldviews: Reshaping sciences, policies and practices for Endogenous Sustainable Development, 28 - 30 November 2005, Soesterberg, Communication and Innovation Studies Wageningen University, Wageningen

Röling N. and Groot A. (1999) Het (on)maakbare van innovatie, In: Basisboek Communicatie en Verandering , Uitgeverij Boom, Amsterdam, pp. 30-57

Sorrenson, W.J. (1998) ‘Economics of no-till compared to conventional cultivation systems on small farms in Paraguay: Policy and investment implication’, MAG/GTZ Soil Conservation Project , Ministerio de Agricultura y Ganadería / Gesellschaft für Technische Zusammenarbeit

Tessari, F.E.L. (2000) The economics of sustainable technology adoption: the case of no-tillage agriculture in Paraguay , PhD thesis, Cornell University, USA

Zwarteveen, M. (2008) Knowing Knowledge, In: Lecture notes Research Approaches in International Land and Water Management , Irrigation and Water Engineering Group Wageningen University, Wageningen