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.
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:
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.
Main
Actors involved in the Process
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%).
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.
Changes
in capacities and roles of the different actors in PTD
Formalising
linkages among the actors involved
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 |
|
|
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 |
|
|
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 |
|
|
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 -
connecting research to |
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 po |