PTD in the Huetar Region of Northern Costa Rica

Abstract

In the Huetar North Region of Costa Rica, two separate initiatives were underway with similar purposes. On the one hand, a group of farmers was promoting a movement for farmer experimentation and exchange between farmers about their experiments; on the other hand, a group of extension workers and researchers from the national Ministry of Agriculture were promoting an approach called “Farmer Experimenters” as a new model for technological innovation. Eventually, they met each other and sought ways to join hands. This coming together offered a possibility to broaden (“scale up”) the processes of “PTD” (although the term, as such, was never used). Here, scaling up does not refer primarily to wide-scale incorporation of participatory research and extension into the various formal institutions that support agriculture (research, extension, universities, local governments). Rather, the focus is on strengthening the organisation of producers who want to be responsible for managing the processes of technological innovation: to conduct these processes themselves and to invite the supporting institutions to join them.

This paper has been drawn up by two advisers to this coming together of the two initiatives, not by the farmers themselves. It emphasises the genesis of the union and the lessons to be learnt from it, without trying to hide the numerous constraints.

Introduction

In April 2000, farmer leaders called together people from about 40 farmer organisations (FOs) in northern Costa Rica – women and men, young and old, quiet and talkative. Some of them came from organisations of palm-tree growers, others were producing coffee, pineapples or tubers; also butterfly producers and people raising wild animals were there. It was a very heterogeneous group. Also at the meeting were people who take quite an active part in the process of agricultural development, but on this day they had a clear mandate: to assist, to accompany, to facilitate, but not to lead. These were the technical experts and extension workers of the Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock (MAG) and some researchers. A lawyer was also present, but the task was not to resolve any conflict, for example, related to land or property. The group had come together to create a new organisation with a legal status. They called it CRAE-ZN: “Comite Regional de Agricultores Experimentadores de la Zona Norte” (Regional Committee of Farmer Experimenters in the North Zone), and they wanted to achieve the following:

to contribute to strengthening the existing processes of farmer experimentation in the administrative region of Huetar North;
to establish a system of ongoing support to this rural experimentation, linked to the existing agricultural services, in order to respond to the demands of the FOs;
to design mechanisms to guarantee the long-term financial sustainability of the system.

Between August 1999 and February 2000, the group of FO leaders who had called this meeting had been working hard – supported by advisers in MAG and a local NGO, CENAP (National Centre for Pastoral Action) – to write an 80-page project proposal in which the orientation, goals, organisational set-up and internal structure of CRAE-ZN are explained (Hocdé & Meneses 2000). This intensive and complicated task had arisen out of determined collaboration among several actors: the farmers and their organisations, MAG, CENAP and the French-funded Centre for International Cooperation in Agricultural Research for Development (CIRAD). Together, sometimes encouraged by the extension agents, sometimes with the impulse of the farmers, they pushed the wagon forward. It was not merely a technical task. It was driven by the desire to earn mutual respect and trust and supported by an attitude of huge faith in the final result, an attitude that helped to overcome the numerous difficulties along the way.

This movement of farmers and their organisations aimed at implementing “farmer experimentation” processes at regional level could be called “scaling up” in development terminology. What happened? Why did this phenomenon occur? What is its origin? What has been and is being done? What are the perspectives? What are the constraints? What kind of accompaniment is needed? What questions emerge from this experience? In this paper, we first give a brief introduction to the agro-ecological and human context, emphasising the historical evolution of the two “worlds” involved. We then describe the preparation, implementation and results of their coming together. This leads to a discussion of the lessons learnt. Finally, we expand on certain aspects that we regard as particularly important in the efforts made by many actors in the country to institutionalise PTD, and consider also the constraints to this process.

Agro-Ecological Conditions

Context

Main Actors involved in the Process

Preparation for the Union

Agro-Ecological Conditions

The Huetar North Region covers an area of 9804 km² and has a population of 258,880 inhabitants, 48% women and 52% men. Within the past 15 years, household livelihood systems have diversified from growing only a few crops to a wide range of activities, including some related to tourism. There are more than 300 farmer organisations (FOs) in this region. Most of them want to facilitate the marketing of their members’ products, mainly in non-traditional production lines such as palm trees, root crops, vegetables, citrus and coffee. In addition to the products shown in Table 1, also pumpkins, medicinal plants, butterflies and various fruits are produced. Many FOs would like to improve production techniques and management of financial and natural resources as well as labour. Some would like to move into organic farming.

Table 1: Main types of agricultural production in Huetar North Region

Crop	Area (ha)	No. of producers
Citrus fruit	20,000	400
Kidney bean	15,000	4,500
Rice	12,000	160
Palm tree	9,000	2,000
Sugar cane	9,000	900
Root crops and tubers	11,500	5,000
Pineapple	8,500	1,500
Maize	3,000	2,000
Livestock	230,000 (grazing area)	6,000
Tilapia	not known	250
Banana	850	550
Papaya	300	160

Source: National Council of Production (CNP) Huetar North Region, 1999.

Humid tropical forest prevails. Annual average rainfall ranges between 3000 and 4500 mm, the average temperatures are between 25ºC and 30ºC and the average amount of sunshine per day ranges between 4 and 6 hours. The soils (Inceptipsol and Ultisol) are volcanic in the mountain ranges and alluvial on the plains, with a low level of phosphorus (10 ppm) and moderate or low fertility. The landscape is very diverse, ranging from flat to steep (slopes of 0–50%).

Context

Main Actors involved in the Process

The main actors that initiated and are now involved in the PTD process in Huetar North are the following:

Þ Farmer organisations:

· The Programa Campesino a Campesino (PCaC) or Farmer-to-Farmer Programme, represented in Costa Rica by the Mesa Regional Campesina (MRC, Regional Farmers Board) and made up of the following FOs in Huetar North: Coopellano Azul, APRODEGUA (Producers’ Association of Guatuso), UPPROCCHI (Small-Scale Farmers Union of the Canton Los Chiles), APROSAMA (Association of Farmers, Foresters and Similar Producers in San Marcos de Cutris) and ARAO (Regional Association of Organic Farmers);

· UPANACIONAL, an organisation of small- and medium-scale farmers constituted at national level; it promotes a “Rural University”;

· other regional organisations of producers who are not members of the above-mentioned organisations, e.g. AGROPALM (Palm Tree Agro-Industrial Association), FUFUMRAMA (Association of Butterfly Producers), GEMA (Ecological Women’s Group of El Abanico) and ASOMU (Women’s Association) Santa Elena;

Þ Public institutions:

· The Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock (MAG), through a handful of extension agents and specialists in the Regional State Office Huetar North and the National Extension Office, with the support of PRIAG (Regional Program for Reinforcing Agronomic Research on Basic Grains in Central America);[3]

Þ Non-governmental organisation (NGO):

· CENAP (National Centre of Pastoral Action) has played a strong role in training farmers and extension agents in organic farming; they regard experimentation as a means to put learning into practice.

Two movements separately born

Context

Preparation for the Union

Changes in capacities and roles of the different actors in PTD

Farmers’ involvement

Formalising linkages among the actors involved

Two movements separately born

The Farmer-to-Farmer movement in Costa Rica originated in the 1980s from various exchange visits between farmers from Costa Rica and neighbouring Nicaragua and led to farmers in northern Costa Rica using technologies from Nicaragua. A cornerstone of the movement is the “promoter farmer”. The farmers had little trust in the public extension service, questioned the dominant technological model for agriculture and linked up with national and international NGOs that promoted farming without chemical inputs.

Meanwhile, from 1992 onwards, MAG – with the support of PRIAG – was building up a methodological approach to innovation development in the Brunca Region in southern Costa Rica. This approach is called “Agricultores Experimentadores” (Farmer Experimenters, FEs) and is characterised by the participation of farmers in research and in disseminating the information generated through the research. It recognises the key role that farmers play in managing technology development.

From 1994 onwards, the MAG Regional State Office Huetar North (DRHN) – likewise with PRIAG support – began to follow this approach in an effort to give better service and come closer to the agricultural producers. The experience started in one canton (Upala) by identifying farmers who were: innovating, local sources of information, able to communicate well with others and willing to carry out experiments. This gave an opportunity to discover the topics of research being done informally by farmers and the links to problems of agricultural production (e.g. high production costs, excessive use of pesticides, soil degradation, environmental damage, low profitability of production). Together with the MAG extension agents from the region, these farmers worked out a plan for joint experimentation and training activities.

In 1994–95 the local team (FEs and the MAG extension agents) organised some meetings in order to share the results of the experiments, inviting some farmers from other localities. These exchange visits became a way to find new FEs and, thus, to enlarge the team. Apart from these meetings at local level, the MAG-PRIAG project arranged some trips for the farmers and extension agents to the south of the country (Brunca Region, Pejibaye), to Panama and to Brazil (to see green manuring, cover cropping and direct sowing). In 1996, DRHN decided to expand the Upala experience to other cantons where MAG offices showed interest in promoting farmer experimentation. In order to facilitate this expansion, it organised several workshops on this topic for its extension staff. The various activities (joint experimentation, methodological and technical training, exchange visits, documentation) – despite many deficiencies in coordination and although this process was not the consequence of a formal “vertical” instruction within MAG – succeeded in creating a hotbed of farmers and extension agents involved in new foci of attention, bringing together technical staff from different MAG departments and from the universities.

In 1999 the MAG extension staff decided to celebrate a Congress of Farmer Experimenters in Huetar North Region (Hocdé & Meneses 1999) – according to MAG, the first such congress in the region, according to the PCaC farmers, one of several that had been celebrated in the region but better advertised by MAG. Of greatest importance was the recognition given in this congress to the FEs. Table 2 shows the paths that were taken by the FOs and the public sector institutions up to the meeting of these two different “worlds”. Table 3 shows the directions and contributions of these two “worlds” (farmers and their organisation in the left-hand column, the public sector in the right-hand column) towards PTD within CRAE-ZN (central column).

Table 2: Evolution in the “worlds” of farmer organisations and the public sector (1980–2000)

Period (years)	Criteria	Perspective of farmer organisations (FOs)	Perspective of governmental institutions
1980–90	Production model	Diversification, food security, environmental damage	“Return to the land”, market-based high-external-input agriculture
	Agenda / relations	Antagonistic or paternalistic relationship with Government	International loans and implementation of Structural Adjustment Programme
	Research and extension	FO focus on an agenda of market demand	Vertical mode
1990–95	Production model	Monoculture for export causing environmental degradation	Search for alternatives to conventional agriculture
	Agenda / relations	FOs make more proposals	Government encourages FOs to enter into dialogue
	Agenda / relations	FOs and Government in process of coming closer to each other	Change in attitude of extension agents; organisational development approach
	Research and extension	Farmers become involved in designing training, extension and experimentation programmes	According to farmers’ problems and needs
	Research and extension	Development of production practices to reduce environmental damage	Transition to horizontal mode
1995–99	Production model	FOs promote alternative production activities to agricultural export model	Search for alternatives to conventional agriculture
	Agenda / relations	FOs arrange negotiation frameworks and agreement with Government institutions	Modification of policy and institutional guidelines
	Agenda / relations		Dialogue within the institutions
	Research and extension	FOs develop own programmes, research methods and technical innovations (promoter farmers)	Knowledge and experience of the farmers are re-discovered and valued
		FOs make own diagnosis and develop stronger capacities of analysis, discussion and planning	Development of farmer experimentation programmes
			PTD

Table 3: Directions and contributions of PCaC and MAG towards PTD in CRAE-ZN

Criteria	FOs in PCaC	CRAE-ZN	MAG
Target groups	Farmers	FOs and individual farmers	Small-scale farmers
Lines of action	Decreasing the vulnerability of smallholder economies in the face of globalisation. Food security. Farmers’ knowledge as a source of wealth. Experimentation by farmers.	Decreasing the vulnerability of smallholder economies in the face of globalisation. Strengthening FOs’ possibilities. Research according to FOs’ needs.	Research and extension for PTD. Local development.
What do they experiment on?	Site-appropriate or organic farming. Fair trade.	According to limitations and potentials of FOs: - low-external-input and organic farming - connecting research to market and agro-industry.	Conservation agriculture. Agriculture in transition.
How do they experiment? Doubts/worries	Network of promoter farmers. Support team of MNC. Strengthening vs destructive or destabilising process?	Local and regional planning of experimentation by CTEs within FOs. Promoting interaction between FOs and scientists/extensionists	Working plan for FOs. Regional Committees of FEs working with public-sector institutions. How to switch from positive but isolated meetings of FEs to regional plans for farmer experimentation as part of Annual Operational Plans for extension?

Acronyms: CNP: National Council of Production; CTE: Technical Committee for Experimentation; FE: Farmer Experimenters; IDA: Institute of Agricultural Development; MNC: National Farmers Board (Mesa Nacional Campesina).

Changes in capacities and roles of the different actors in PTD

Over the years of building up to a process of PTD, many activities such as workshops, courses and exchange visits were carried out with the aim of strengthening the farmers’ capacities. These activities involved FEs, potential users of the results of their experiments, leaders of farmers’ groups and sometimes youths and children. The types of training given in different phases are shown in Table 4; although included in the table, the emphasis on communication and negotiation techniques was relatively weak. Table 5 shows the roles of the different actors in PTD.

Table 4: Evolution in the training of farmers and extension agents

Actor	1994–1998	1999–2000
Farmer experimenters	Introduction to experimentation	Functions and training of CTEs
	Analysis and elaboration of proposals for experiments on the basis of work carried out by Fes	Setting up webpage
	Communication techniques
	Conflict management
	Making plant extracts
Extension agents	Farming system management	Functions and training of CTEs
	Techniques of adaptive research	Setting up webpage
	Communication techniques
	Conflict management

Table 5: Roles of the different actors in PTD

Actor	Role
Farmer experimenters	Proposing, designing and implementing experiments and disseminating the results
Other farmers informed of new technologies	Adopting the new technologies, if suitable for their situation
Lead FE	Making project proposals and negotiating with others (FOs, public and private institutions) to support the projects
Extension agents and specialists at regional level	Support to proposing and designing experiments, facilitating communication, documenting results of the process
Professionals at national level	Institutional and logistical support

Farmers’ involvement

The process of farmer experimentation means, by definition, that farmers are involved in the different activities. They are the ones who teach other farmers about their experience and results (farmer-to-farmer extension), while the extension workers facilitate this process. Table 6 gives an overview of how farmers were involved in the different components of PTD.

Table 6: PTD activities and farmers’ involvement

Activity	How do they participate?	Which farmers?
Designing the proposals for experimentation	Proposing what to investigate and why, based on problems identified in the production process; determining together with extension agents and specialists what to observe and measure, and when and how to collect the information	Research-minded farmers (FEs), farmers facing the same problems and lead FE of the group
Working out and negotiating the proposals	Describing background, targets and expected results, and methods and tools to carry out and evaluate the work, making budget	FE groups and lead FEs
Implementing the research	Providing the inputs, land, labour, knowledge and experience.	FE groups
Disseminating the results and experience	Presenting the results, receiving feedback from the other actors	FE groups and lead FEs

Formalising linkages among the actors involved

Already in the first phase (1994–97), the FEs, extension workers and research scientists drew up a plan of operations each year. This document outlined the different activities that these three groups of actors had agreed to carry out together. Elaborating the annual plan was a precondition for obtaining financial and logistical support from the PRIAG project. In the second phase (1997–99), some further formalisation of linkages could be achieved here and there. In the third phase (1999–2001), CRAE-ZN was created to serve the FOs, so that they could take on the leading role that had been formerly allocated to the public-sector institutions. It is hoped that CRAE-ZN will evolve into a strong regional instrument for elaborating regional programmes of farmer experimentation and research according to new roles of family farming and the institutional environment at national and international levels.

Collective Experimentation as a Learning Platform

Activities and Methods

Monitoring and Evaluation

Activities and Methods

Over the years leading up to this union, a range of activities has been implemented such as identifying experimenting farmers, problem diagnosis, preparing proposals for experimentation and research, workshops to analyse the results and to plan activities, farmer exchange visits and meetings, and building up a “strategic view” for collaboration. Here, we highlight the events that, in our opinion, were most important: 1) the workshops for analysis and planning, and 2) the farmer exchange visits and meetings.

The workshops for planning, presenting, discussing, analysing and evaluating the results of the farmer experimentation are usually held at a site close to the FEs’ communities. The FEs, extension agents and research scientists take part. Each of these three groups introduces its work and proposals. At the time of planning, the participants as a group decide whether to approve or exclude each of the proposed activities. In other words, the FEs pronounce their opinions about the work of the scientists, these pronounce their opinions about the work of extension workers, and so on.

To bring optimal results, the farmer exchange meetings need to be well structured in three phases: before, during and after each event. The lead FEs of each group organise the exchanges. The results are innumerable; examples can be found in Hocdé and Byron (2000). The methods are highly participatory, with farmers in the forefront. In most cases, the FEs explain the implementation and results of the experiments, while the extension agents and specialists play only a supporting role.

Collective Experimentation as a Learning Platform

Some FEs are good at designing new proposals, others are good at communicating. The former are the technical leaders, while the latter are the negotiators. The same division of roles can be found among the extension agents and specialists. Table 7 describes the roles of the different actors in implementing PTD.

Table 7: Roles of the different actors in the implementation process

Actor	Activity	Role
FEs and promoter farmers	Designing and implementing proposals; disseminating results	Negotiator, implementer and channel for dissemination of technologies
Lead FEs	Preparing proposal and negotiating financial and logistical support	Negotiator
Extension agents and specialists	Proposing, implementing and negotiating proposals; disseminating results	Negotiator, implementer, facilitator and channel for disseminating technologies

Figure 1: Evolution of FE-scientist interaction in bean research in 1991–98 in Brunca Region

Farmers

< 1980

Farmers

Farmers and researchers work separately

1980–93

FEs’ fields Benefits

Text Box: Researchers (MAG) Text Box: § …
§ …
§ …

-         …

-         …

-         …

             1994–97

The MAG researchers experiment in FEs’ fields, using the local varieties as control. Every actor has his own experiments. The FEs also try out the varieties proposed by the scientists. The site of interaction between the FEs and the scientists is the experimental plot. The benefits are mutual.

FEs

FEs

FEs’ fields

Research station

           Text Box: Researchers (MAG, universities)

-         …

-         …

-         …

-         …

1998– 99

After observing the benefits of the local bean varieties, the scientists negotiated with the FEs to sow and evaluate the varieties on the research station, which became the site of interaction between FEs and scientists.

Strengthening Capacities at Farmer Level

Monitoring and Evaluation

Research scientists and extension agents visit the experiments carried out by the FEs. They give relevant feedback “on the spot”, and may also give some orientations to the lead FE. Sometimes, they sum up the session at the end. The FEs collect the information about their experiments in workbooks. The tools used to collect the information to serve as a basis for evaluation are similar to those used in the follow-up process (semi-structured interviews, discussions among the participants etc).

Generally, the experiments are designed for comparison between treatment and control plots. The farmers keep track of technical and economic results such as plant protection, soil improvement and yield estimates, although the total benefits of the technologies tested exceed these aspects. In contrast, scientific research focuses on recording and analysing data and can sometimes become very complicated. The experiments carried out by the FEs are very weak in terms of generating data that can be analysed scientifically, but they generate a great deal of enthusiasm. How can the experimental process be improved in terms of data collection and analysis? This is one of the major challenges in the PTD process.

The extension workers and scientists are responsible for documenting the technologies developed in this process. They do this in the form of reports. In the case of the FE Congress, the proceedings include the results of the farmers’ experiments (Hocdé & Meneses 1999). In exceptional cases, the FEs make reports on the visits themselves. To illustrate the interaction in the field between the FEs and scientists, Figure 1 gives an example participatory plant breeding in beans in an area in southern Costa Rica (Hocdé 2000).

Results and Impacts

Strengthening and Spreading Innovations and Innovation Capacities

Sustainability of the Process of Local Innovation and PTD

Overall “Cost-Benefit” Comparison

Learning from Field Experience

Documentation

Adjustments Made as a Result of Learning

Lobbying to gain project support at policy level

Strengthening Capacities at Farmer Level

Throughout this process, the FEs gradually change and assume new responsibilities. They not only experiment with crops and livestock; they are also involved in processing the products, environmental protection, biodiversity management, sale of services (eco-tourism) and cultural activities (painting, crafts). Table 8 gives an overview of how the capacities of farmers have been strengthened.

Table 8: Capacities strengthened at farmer level

Topic	Strengthened capacities
Research	Identification of the problems
	Preparation of proposals
	Data collection and analysis, and presentation of the results
	Drawing up proposals on new themes such as: 1. Making ginger candies, making shampoo from medicinal plants; 2. Conservation of biodiversity; 3. Sustainable or organic farming and soil management; 4. Seed improvement and production; 5. Assessing the quality of river water.
Selling products and services	Participation in national and international workshops to promote product sales
	Making contacts with national and foreign tourists
	Constructing and managing buildings to offer food and accommodation
Cultural activities	Painting and craftwork
	Negotiating their sale
	Participating in national and international fairs
Negotiation	With private companies and public institutions (MAG, universities, Institute of Technology, CNP) about research topics: drying medicinal plants; assessing water quality; marketing ginger products, medicinal plants etc. Negotiating financial and logistical support from public institutions, private firms, NGOs and FOs; drawing up collaboration agreements between FOs and public institutions.
Negotiation	Negotiating with national and international firms for sale of products, as well as envisioning new locally processed products.

In a presentation at the World Bank in Washington DC in 1999, Mr Alexis Bermúdez, President of the Producers’ Organisation of Concepción in Brunca, stated that the process of farmer experimentation has strengthened the capacities of FO leaders in various ways: “… losing the fear to speak in public, having the ability to go outside and expllain our work, be able to handle “our” experiments, knowing how to work together with the scientists in our plots and in their experimental stations, improving our analysing ability, explaining, negotiating with the companies, with the scientists, proposing, carrying out and evaluating research projects; further to the experimentation, knowing how to manage ourselves in collecting and commercialising our products, in dealing with credits…” (Hocdé et al 1999).

Strengthening and Spreading Innovations and Innovation Capacities

According to the FEs, technology development is useful not only to generate solutions for problems in traditional production activities. In the last years, the FEs have been giving this process a new focus by working in some completely new areas, such as a) community management of forest reserves to re-establish biodiversity, b) raising butterflies and frogs, c) preparing and using plant extracts to control pests and diseases, d) preparing and using organic fertilisers (liquid and solid). An example is given in Box 1.

Box 1: Farmer innovation in adding value to production

In February 1999 a female member of ARAO (Regional Association of Organic Farmers), one of the organisations in CRAE-ZN, attended the international fair on organic products Biofach in Nuremberg, Germany. This allowed ARAO to understand the huge potential that its products have. The ginger from Costa Rica proved to be better than the ginger from other countries. Some months later, buyers from Italy contacted ARAO with an order for 4000 kg/month of baby ginger and asked that the ginger be processed and made into sweets in Costa Rica, thus adding value in the country of origin. The product had to be organic (i.e. using organically-produced sugar or molasses). That put the creativity and inventiveness of the producers in ARAO to the test. The new experts in making the sweets decided to extract juice from sugar cane and obtain the molasses. Through further experimentation, they produced also ginger syrup and a dehydrated jelly, for which the CNP then carried out market research.

The results of farmers’ experiments and new practices (e.g. direct sowing by machine, butterfly production, new varieties, crop diversification, organic farming) are spreading slowly. The FEs are gradually taking on more responsibility in handling their experiments, but their efforts are very restricted by the economic conditions. For instance, they do not even have enough money to buy the bus tickets to be able to visit each other in the region. The process of building the CRAE-ZN project is, in itself, evidence of how local capacities have been strengthened.

Sustainability of the Process of Local Innovation and PTD

The FEs are aware of the need to ensure sustainability in local innovation, but this is not easy, because production and marketing conditions, customers’ tastes etc can change but the farmers do not have access to information about this. They also do not have access to resources that would allow them to hire the necessary services in order to improve their socio-economic and agro-ecological conditions. Innovation requires investment. Nevertheless, the FEs and their organisations have made great efforts to keep up the innovation process in their farms and communities. Some of them carry out experiments using their own resources; others write proposals with the support of scientists and negotiate the necessary financial support; some FOs make agreements with research centres in universities, the MAG Regional State Office of Research and Extension, and private industry.

It was with the enthusiasm of commitment that the FEs set up CRAE-ZN in August 1999. They wrote a project proposal and submitted it to different donors in an attempt to obtain the funding they need.

At the same time, being aware of the constraints that their own work has faced, they stress the urgency of involving young farmers and schools in the process of local innovation and PTD.

Overall “Cost-Benefit” Comparison

Thus far, no overall calculations or even estimates have been made of the real costs and benefits of this approach. The FEs contribute their land, equipment and infrastructure, as well as their knowledge and experience to the PTD process; in addition, they invest time, as do the scientists and extension agents who are working with them. The type of contributions being made by the different partners in PTD is shown in Table 9, using the example of an exchange visit. A calculation based purely on monetary inputs and outputs would probably show a lack of balance, with the former being more than the latter. On the other hand, in specific cases such as described in Box 2, the benefits generated by farmers’ experiments have been calculated. This does not give a monetary value, however, to the intangible benefits such as the pride and increased self-confidence of having produced one’s own innovation.

Table 9: Distribution of costs for exchange visit on “Organic Livestock”

Cost	Who contributes?
Payment of professional staff	Farmers (collection of money from all involved)
	Farmer organisation (which has access to some resources)
	Supporting NGO
Food	Farmers (collection of money from all involved)
Food	Farmer organisation
Transport	Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock (MAG)
Equipment	Farmers, NGO, MAG

Box 2: “This is my own innovation” – Limpo grass in the Atlantic Region of Costa Rica

Livestock-keepers in the region benefited little from the research station’s work. However, through the tenacity of an experimenting cattle grazier reinforced by the vision and creativity of an extension worker, Limpo grass – that had been present in the research station for nearly a decade and finally discarded – was introduced onto some 300 ha. Limpo grass can support twice as many livestock as [the traditional pasture grass] Ratana and as a result farmers have been able to double their meat production and make a profit of about US$ 200/ha. Annual profits equivalent to US$ 60,000 are already being made throughout the region as a result of the knowledge of Limpo shared at the first FEs’ workshop.

Source: Hocdé & Chacon (2000)

Learning from Field Experience

No activities were carried out on a regular basis with the specific purpose of learning together from the experience. However, extension agents use the different workshops as opportunities to raise issues of farmers’ research. From the farmers’ side, the process of developing the CRAE-ZN project has been one of the most productive ways, together with the congresses and exchange visits, to learn from experience.

CRAE-ZN has planned activities in the coming months designed to sharpen a “strategic vision” of its future, the type of agriculture that the farmers want to work towards, and how to organise themselves in the face of globalisation. These will doubtless offer good opportunities to deepen the learning from the experience made thus far. There is general agreement about the benefits of regular self-evaluation, but its implementation depends on the willingness of the leaders, and the skills of both farmers and professional staff to force all involved to stop for a moment, step back and examine what they have been doing.

Documentation

The process of documentation of the process and the resulting information is one of the weakest aspects on the part of both the FEs and the extension agents who support them. Numerous drafts of papers and reports have been written, but few have been finalised. These are some of the initiatives and what has been produced thus far:

Þ In 1995 the extension agents and FEs of Upala made a video about the initial experience of the FEs, entitled “Invent, invent, invent!” (PRIAG 1995);

Þ In 1996 the MAG National Extension Office organised a workshop to reflect on the FE process in two small areas of the country, involving also some MAG extension agents from other regions;

Þ In 1998 a Belgium NGO (VECO), the farmer organisations UPPROCCHI and Coopellano Azul and the Women’s Organisation of San Miguel de Guatuso documented the results of three years (1995–97) of farmer experimentation in the project “Rural Development in the Guatuso Plains” (PCaC 1998);

Þ In 1998 about 20 extension workers from Huetar North and Brunca Regions supported FEs in documenting their own experiences; about 40 FEs volunteered to do this, but very few cases were published (Bermúdez 1999, Mena 1999, Solis 1999);

Þ In 1999 the National Extension Office proposed that all extension workers in the country organise FE Congresses in their different regions. Five of the eight regions accepted the challenge. The staff in charge of these events spent two days analysing and documenting the experiences (Camacho & Rivera 1999);

Þ The National Extension Office started to formulate a national plan to support farmer experimentation; this would have allowed systematisation of the process but was not continued for institutional reasons;

Þ Some researchers at the National University (Department of Agricultural Sciences) tried to compare the different experiences in farmer experimentation in the countries of Central America;

Þ In 2000 the development of the CRAE-ZN project gave farmers and professional staff an opportunity to analyse their experiences as a basis for building their new project (Hocdé & Meneses 2000).

In these efforts at documentation, some lack of balance can be observed: much more emphasis is given to documenting the changes among the farmers and their organisations, overshadowing the changes that have taken place in the world of the extension agents.

Adjustments Made as a Result of Learning

The most important change that has come about as a result of the experience has been the efforts of the FOs in Huetar North Region to come together and set up CRAE-ZN. This is a qualitative step, from individual and sometimes isolated FEs to larger groups and even to a union of organisations that deals with farmer experimentation and deliberately tries to involve more actors. It is a transition from farmers and extension agents facing the day-to-day problems to a group of people who wish to build a long-term project and therefore have to develop a strategic vision for this long term. They dedicate farmer experimentation to a project of livelihood and society that they are building together. It must be admitted, however, that CRAE-ZN is moving only very slowly, on account of a lack of funding, which also prevents sufficient reflection on the process.

Institutionalising the Approach

Long-term training plans

Integrating PTD into the curriculum of education and training centres

Organisational change to support institutionalisation of PTD

Key people

Involvement of public-sector professionals

Farmers’ interest in the process

Decisive factors

Difficulties in the institutionalisation process

Lobbying to gain project support at policy level

Once the CRAE-ZN project proposal had been written, it was presented to the authorities in MAG. Lobbying is, in fact, an investment because it means that the FOs must set aside some resources for this purpose. Lobbying about farmer experimentation – or any form of agricultural research, for that matter – is unusual for these organisations, which are used to negotiating with politicians about matters of immediate urgency, such as rural credits, product prices etc. According to the figures of Costa Rica’s Ministry of Science and Technology, the country invested merely 0.31% of the Gross National Product in agricultural research in the year 1997, and there is a trend toward a decrease in investment in technological innovation. It was in view of this situation and in an effort to reverse this trend that the farmers and their organisations decided to set up CRAE-ZN. To be able to carry out lobbying activities effectively, CRAE-ZN needs to: 1) clearly understand what the situation is, 2) develop alternative options, and 3) have a clear long-term strategic vision.

Long-term training plans

Many farmers expressed the opinion that the training, in the past, was usually oriented to very specific activities that had little impact. The funds were exhausted before they could design long-term training plans to enhance the PTD process and the research capacities of the FEs. The planners of CRAE-ZN therefore designed a training guideline, adapting the curriculum to each actor. Table 10 shows the proposed contents of the training.

Table 10: Content of training for the different actors involved in the PTD process

	Actor	Content
Farmer experimenters (FEs)		1. Why do the natural phenomena occur? 2. Causes and effects of production problems 3. Creativity as an alternative way of solving problems 4. Farmer experimentation managed by FOs: long-term view 5. CTE (Technical Committee for Experimentation) in an FO: what is it? how does it work? 6. Annual Operational Plan: organisation, preparation, design, negotiation, implementation 7. Designing experiments 8. Exchange visits by FEs and CTEs 9. Extension agents as active intermediaries between FEs and professional staff 10. Information exchange 11. Technological progress: biotechnology, biologic control, biodiversity etc 12. Local innovation and other non-farming actors 13. Local innovation, women and youth 14. Local innovation and a territorial view of the region 15. Local innovation, health and environment 16. The art of negotiation and lobbying 17. Vision of agriculture 18. Human relations and conflict management
Young farmers		1. What is agriculture? 2. What do you expect from agriculture and what do you contribute to it? 3. Why do the natural phenomena occur? 4. Creativity as an alternative way of solving problems
Managers of CRAE-ZN		1. How FOs manage farmer experimentation 2. Research contracts between FOs and research centres 3. Dealing with the farmer experimentation process in an entire territory 4. Constructing a “strategic view”. 5. Handling and disseminating information 6. The art of negotiation and lobbying 7. Research administration and management 8. Human relations and conflict management
Extension agents and specialists		1. Creativity as an alternative way of solving problems 2. How FOs manage farmer experimentation. 3. Methods to support processes of experimentation and research in the field 4. Vision of the agriculture 5. Technological progress: biotechnology, biological control, biodiversity etc

Integrating PTD into the curriculum of education and training centres

Apart from some isolated cases, too little has been done thus far to improve the curriculum in agricultural education and training. The Department of Agricultural Sciences in the National University uses the FEs as resource persons in student training. In 1992, MAG concluded an agreement with the National Open University (UNED) to train its professional staff in extension approaches and methods, including “Principles of on-farm research and extension”. Some agricultural colleges in Huetar North encourage the students to experiment with potential solutions that could help their parents on their own farms.

The EARTH (School of Regional Agriculture in the Humid Tropic) is one of the institutes that contributes more intensively to the process. It sends students to visit the FEs and also gives short, specialised courses to FEs, offering technical options to address some of their concerns. Unfortunately, lack of time has prevented the setting up of contracts between the FEs and this academic institution.

Some of the rural schools include environmental studies in their curriculum, and bring examples of farmer experimentation during this period. Similarly, the project “Tres Amigos” (“Three Friends, implemented by APROSAMA with funds from the Netherlands Embassy) has developed some activities together with pupils in the rural schools. The NETA (Niños Ecologistas de Tres Amigos = Ecologist Children of Three Friends) are children of FEs and practise environmental protection on small plots of land in their villages.

Organisational change to support institutionalisation of PTD

At regional level, some initiatives have been undertaken to support the institutions that want to become involved in some way in promoting farmer experimentation. In 1999, CENAP concluded an agreement for cooperation with the Costa Rica Institute of Technology (ITCR). In most cases thus far, individual persons rather than entire institutions have been involved; these individuals try to make links between each other and within their institutions to support and enrich the process. This is also the case in the University of Costa Rica and the National Autonomous University, as well as in some cooperation projects (e.g. GIIAS: Grupo Interinstitucional para la Agricultura Sostenible, Inter-institutional Group for Sustainable Agriculture).

At national level, extension specialists are convinced of the value of supporting farmer experimentation. In 1997, staff from different disciplines (e.g. agronomy, sociology, anthropology, animal husbandry) working in different government institutions (MAG, University of Costa Rica, National Autonomous University, National Open University, Ministry of Environment and Energy etc) set up the Asociación Nacional de Extensionistas Agropecuarios y Forestales (ANEAF, National Association of Extension Workers in Agriculture and Forestry). This association encourages discussion and analysis between the FEs and their organisations, on the one hand, and extension agents and specialists in agriculture and forestry, on the other, to agree on their respective roles in processes of technological innovation for rural development.

Key people

The key people who have promoted the PTD process were the pioneer FEs, whose work showed the path to follow. After that, every new FE who joined in – especially the women – also played an important role in consolidating the path that had been indicated by the pioneers. Some extension workers and scientists accompanied the FEs in this risky process. The different heads of departments in MAG allowed the extension agents enough room to express their creativity and to put efforts into constructing the process. A few extension agents took the risk. The MAG technical coordinator in Huetar North played and still plays an essential role in motivating his colleagues to expand the local experiences throughout the region, to seek the necessary support, to promote farmer experimentation combined with formal research, and to keep looking for solutions to the problems that continue to arise.

Although the initiative originated at regional level, the National Extension Office has played an important role by contributing methodological and conceptual elements (MAG 1998) and some financial and logistical support.

The process would have been even slower if MAG had not been able to rely on a European facilitator from PRIAG. He contributed methodological elements, encouraged the FEs and extension agents, proposed new activities, found resources, and involved the farmers and professional staff in his addressing his concern to combine formal research with farmer experimentation in a strategic vision.

Involvement of public-sector professionals

The few extension agents who were involved in this process gave it all their efforts. The MAG-PRIAG project provided financial resources to experiment, arrange meetings, engage in learning activities etc, but the money was not the most important factor. The first people involved in constructing the PTD process had neither relevant experience nor relevant training. They had to be creative, to read documents, to expand some concepts themselves, to learn as they went along. The success of the process depended on more than just participatory techniques; it demanded a change in attitude among all the actors.

Over time, a working relationship could be built up that is based on trust and cooperation among FEs, leaders of FOs, extensionists and scientists and in which the most important aspect is the collaboration. All contribute their best and work with commitment and mutual respect, and the merit belongs to everybody. Now the farmers easily communicate with the extension agents; they feel free to phone to anyone’s home at any time on any day of the week. They gather in their communities, discuss with each other and with outsiders and agree to do things together. This process is built on a firm basis, even though not all colleagues in the public sector share this behaviour and appreciate the efforts put into supporting FEs.

Working teams made up of members from two different worlds has been created, but it has not been easy. The progress that has been made thus far in integrating a PTD approach into institutions of Huetar North has been due in large part to a handful of extension agents and scientists who believed in the necessity to change their way of acting. The farmers regard these people as “our friends”.

However, the progress has also been due to the institutional situation over the past ten years. Costa Rica is a country that still counts on public extension services to support small- and medium-scale farming. During an entire decade, the MAG extension services have continued – irrespective of the changes in the political administration – to support the process of making extension more participatory. This was achieved through different projects, both national and bilateral or international (e.g. MAG-PRIAG , MAG-GTZ, MAG-FAO) in different parts of the country and with different actors, modalities and approaches. At the same time, the public-sector extension staff reflected internally about the role and the future of an extension service firmly based on active farmer participation, and drew up an official document containing policy guidelines that are clear in their rules and procedures (MAG 1998).

It is a general policy of MAG to support existing FOs and to create others. This is a task primarily of extension, which also promote new projects to consolidate these associations of farmers. This required a change in the extension approach from working with producers as individuals to working with groups of producers, strengthening the capacities of these groups to the extent that the extension services pass from “working for the FO” to “working with the FO”. Some national financial organisations are also promoting, in their way, the processes of technological innovation by small-scale producers, e.g. by supporting transition and diversification. As a consequence, the extension staff is well disposed to participatory approaches. Extension managers stress the leading role of farmers and their organisations in technology development of technologies and the importance of strengthening capacities for local innovation.

Farmers’ interest in the process

Conventional technology generation and transfer did not meet the needs of small- and medium-scale farmers (low-cost technologies, organic farming with low level of external inputs, satisfying consumers’ preferences, adding value to production). Many farmers are not keen to do research themselves, but have no choice because no one else does research to meet their needs. To be able to face the challenges of the current crisis, the farmers and their organisations cannot simply wait for solutions to their problems to appear. They must be creative, calling on national NGOs and international cooperation and drawing up agreements with institutions, extension agents and scientists that are committed to change. Every time that FEs speak of their reasons for experimenting or verifying their innovations, they explain that they do this to bring about change: “We generate a change… We experiment because: 1) change is necessary, 2) our families need to eat, and 3) the future generations must live,” said the spokesman of one FO.

Decisive factors

The two worlds did not come together as a result of decrees; words can be very well intentioned, but they cannot build anything. In the specific case of Huetar North, an alliance among extension agents, scientists and FEs was built because, over a long period of several years, mutual trust could be established between actors who, at the beginning, did not have the same interests and concerns. There were some ups and downs, but positive solutions were always found. It was very important that some simple but basic principles were applied, such as giving responsibilities to the FEs and their organisations, sharing tasks, agreeing on clear rules, functioning democratically, thinking in a long-term process instead of short-term tasks etc. Once these principles had been applied, using appropriate methodologies and gaining positive results were elements that facilitated and accelerated the process.

Difficulties in the institutionalisation process

The difficulties encountered in the institutionalisation process are of four main types:

Þ Personal or cultural: a) weaknesses in the education of extension agents and other professionals in the public-sector institutions, b) very little aptitude for change, c) difficulty to establish a stronger link between the two worlds: many academics do not want to recognise the research capacities of farmers;

Þ Learning/training: a) lack of training of the FEs, extension agents and scientists in on-farm experimentation, b) insufficient diffusion of the FEs’ work;

Þ Methodological: a) lack of tools to collect and systematise the information from farmers’ experiments, b) poor quality of some experiments made by FEs;

Þ Financial: the lack of financial resources is, without doubt, the main limitation to pursuing the dreams of the FEs and FOs.

The FOs in CRAE-ZN require a wide vision. Their aim is to solve the problems of all the organisations, not only some of them. At the moment, not all of them have the same vision of farming (for example, not all of them are interested in low-external-input agriculture), although they are willing to participate in the same process. Numerous FOs in Huetar North are still to be involved.

Conclusion

Processes of farmer experimentation that had been promoted in two different worlds gradually came together. Institutionalisation of PTD was not achieved by strengthening the institutions with the mandate of supporting the farmers. Quite the contrary, the sustainability of the process comes through the consolidation of FOs able to manage the process of technology development. A group of agricultural professionals from the public sector accepted this challenge, made allies with the farmers and tried to make their idea work.

The process sometimes went through difficult moments because it rested too much on the shoulders of only a few farmers and extension agents. Using a metaphor from cooking: we have all the ingredients to make the sauce at all the different levels (household, community, farmer organisation, regional, national) but the sauce has not yet become thick enough. The FOs do not have enough strength to push this process on their own, to negotiate strongly with whomever, to find the necessary resources wherever they may be, in the country, the region, abroad etc. They are in need, above all, of financial support.

In MAG, the strongest ally in the process that led to the creation of CRAE-ZN is the extension component at both regional and national level. The process of promoting farmer experimentation does not benefit sufficiently from the presence and contributions of the research sector within the Ministry. There is a lack of interest in the part of many professionals in the public sector, a lack of commitment and appropriate training to raise the quality of the farmers’ experiments and link them with formal research. But is there any other way for the farmers and their organisations to keep working on what they have already started? Farmers and public-sector professionals need to look beyond their own noses. It is necessary to avoid the situation that the wood cannot be seen for the trees. The issue is not merely to generate alternative farming techniques. The originality and the strength of this movement lie in enhancing the skills of both the farmers and the professionals to re-invent a multifunctional agriculture.

Questions for Debate

Farmer-led technology development alternative for government structures?

Farmer organizations and networks took the initiative to the formation of CRAE ZN as a serious alternative to existing government research and development institutions. Extensive lobbying was therefore undertaken to ensure that financial resources, national and international, for agricultural technology development would be directly allocated to CRAE ZN. Have these efforts been successful? What is or can be done to ensure that interest of the farmer organizations in agricultural technical change and CRAE ZN remains high? Can CRAE ZN maintain the PTD fundamental dynamics in its programmes after it has become an institution?

References

Bermúdez A. 1999. “We are not afraid of change”: Concepción de Pilas, Brunca Region. PRIAG Technical Document.

Camacho M & Rivera F. 1999. Systematisation of the experience of the subprogram Farmer Experimenter of MAG/PRIAG in Brunca Region, Costa Rica. National University Change and Rural Development Professorship, Heredia, Costa Rica.

Castillo O, Elizondo FI & Hocdé H. 2000. “It was the first time!” Workshop to evaluate regional congresses of experimenting farmers. Alto de Ochomogo: MAG National Extension Office.

Hocdé H & Hernandez JC. 2000. Una historia de Sacapobres! Elementos para un proceso de fitomejoramiento participativo en frijol en Costa-Rica. In: CIAT (ed.), Fitomejoramiento participativo en America Latina y el Caribe. Cali, Colombia: CGIAR Participatory Research and Gender Analysis (PRGA) Program. CD-ROM.

Hocdé H & Byron M. 2000. Farmer exchanges: beyond the frontiers... Let us become futurists! San Salvador: Comunicación y Mercadeo.

Hocdé H & Chacón M. 2000. “This is my own innovation”: the history of Limpo grass. ILEIA Newsletter 16 (2): 31–32.

Hocdé H & Meneses D. 1999. Proceedings of the First Congress of Farmer Experimenters in Huetar North Region. San Carlos: MAG.

Hocdé H & Meneses D. 2000. Producers’ organisations and management of innovation processes: CRAE-ZN, Huetar Norte Region: Project Document for Collaboration of Producers’ Organisations. San Carlos: CNP / CIRAD / CENAP.

Hocdé H, Bermúdez A, Hernández JC & Chacón R. 1999. Farmer experimentation, research and producers’ association: the Concepción de Pilas Producers’ Association case, Brunca Region, Costa Rica. Proceedings of the Workshop on Strengthening Producer Organisations, 28–30 June 1999, World Bank, Washington DC.

MAG. 1998. Policies, guidelines and strategies for the service of the national extension system. Alto de Ochomogo: MAG National Extension Office.

Mena M. 1999. The birth of a farmer, Veracruz, Región Brunca. PRIAG Technical Document.

Meneses D & Aguirre JP. 1999. Experiences on processes of extension and participatory research: case of Huetar North, Costa Rica. Workshop on Mutual Learning about Participatory Methods, October 1999, The Hague, Ministry of Foreign Affairs of The Netherlands / Agriterra / Ecocooperation.

PCaC. 1998. Farmer experimentation in the North Region of Costa Rica. Women’s Association San Miguel de Guatuso, UPROCCHI, Coopellano Azul/VECO. San Rafael de Guatuso, Alajuela, Costa Rica.

PRIAG. 1995. “Invent! Invent! Invent!” A history of farmer experimenters in Upala. 40 min. [in Spanish].

Samper M. 2001. Experimentation and knowledge exchange among farmers: case study and comparative analysis. Doctoral thesis, Faculty of History, UNA (in press).

Solis E. 1999. And... experimenting farmers reveal their experiment: the experience of William Berrocal Retana, Upala, Costa Rica. PRIAG Technical Document.