Farmer Research Committees (also known in Latin America as Comites de Investigacion Agropecuario Local or CIALs ) are an approach to community organizing and agricultural extension, providing rural communities and farmer organizations in developing countries with adaptive research and technology testing services run by volunteer farmers.
Farmer Research Committees do adaptive research experiments to help farmers manage the risk of trying something new that extension has not validated under local conditions. In Latin America, numerous Farmer Research Committees have been particularly effective in evaluating and selecting new varieties and multiplying seed, enabling large numbers of farmers to access a new variety at low cost, improve their food security, generate employment and increase their income. On a lesser scale, Farmer Research Committees have worked on small machinery, fertilisers or pest and disease control regimes, enabling the adoption of cost-effective strategies in which local farmers have confidence. Farmer Research Committees may have an important role to play in rural communities' adaptation of their agriculture to climate change and globalization because they increase community-level innovative and adaptive capacity by strengthening its human and social capital.[2]
In contrast to Farmer Field Schools which are intended to transmit proven extension recommendations to farmers using experimentation for discovery learning, Farmer Research Committees set out to generate new recommendations. Their results are usually a novel blend of what was already known and what was unknown, drawing on both indigenous technical knowledge and external resources. Farmer research committees and farmer field schools can be highly complementary, as is discussed in more detail below
Costs
Most of the costs of establishing a Farmer Research Committee are a one-off investment incurred during the first year for training and a petty cash or inputs fund for operations.
Training of a facilitator, who may be a salaried extension professional or a para-professional farmer, involves a 5-day, on-site course and then follow-up visits by trainers to reinforce field practice. In Latin America, trainers use cellphones and the internet to mentor trainees. Numerous professionals experienced in Farmer Research Committee training exist in Latin America.[3]
Training a Farmer Research Committee involves learning by doing: in the first planting season (usually 4–6 months in the tropics), the facilitator mentors the Committee through a six step process. In the second season, the majority of steps in the process are delegated to the committee, the facilitator's visits are reduced significantly and costs drop by as much as 50 percent. By the third planting system, a Committee is mature and can run its own process with minimal contact with a facilitator.[4] Some mature Committees in Latin America have been running their own process in this way for over 5 years.[5]
In Latin America the start-up fund for Committee operations can range from US$25 to US$200 in cash or kind, depending on the costs of experimental inputs not available locally.[6] The average yearly cost for running a Committee was estimated at US$325 over six years in the late 1990s.[7] In approximately 50% of the 200 or so farmer research committees established in Latin America by 2003, 50 percent had maintained or increased the size of this fund, in some cases by selling seed of new varieties they were recommending, in other cases from local contributions.
Farmer Research Committees need a lively and sustained communication with external sources of information and technology to keep on bringing innovations into their experiments. When cellphone coverage exists this can be achieved through cellphone contact and this helps to reduce costs further. A facilitator can support from 20 to 50 mature Farmer Research Committees, depending on distances between them and the availability of cell phones.
Farmer Research Committees enable a research and extension program to improve its relevance and at the same time, expand its coverage at low cost, or reduce its costs for existing coverage. Extension costs can be reduced while quality improves because the committee is a mechanism which encourages farmers to assume some of the costs of adaptive testing and extension of technologies. After training, a Farmer Research Committee takes over the implementation and evaluation of on-farm trials over a multi-year period with minimal outside facilitation, and assumes the job of informing its community of its results on a regular basis. When Farmer Research Committees recommend locally-proven seed and input-use practices, they and their neighbors know they can have confidence in this information, and this accelerates adoption and innovation. At least 200 pilots of this methodology in Latin America demonstrate the type of support needed to keep a mature farmer research committee running over time and how this enables a small number of technical professionals to accelerate and expand acres of the poor to innovation.
Why are farmers organized in farmer Research Committees willing to assume some of the costs of adaptive testing and extension? The answer lies in thousands of studies of agricultural technology adoption by poor farmers in developing countries. These show how some farmers in a community will always conduct small-scale experiments on their farms[8] to check out whether a blanket recommendation or a technology package from an extension agent actually works in their conditions These studies also show how other farmers will wait to see how these experimenters fare before they too take the risk of innovating. This makes sense because the poor are usually farming in highly unpredictable and risky production environments, for which it is extremely expensive for an extension system to develop precise recommendations. The best these services can do is to come up with technologies that, on the average, are likely to do well. But poor farmers need–and practise—precision farming: they deliberately maximise diversity within small areas on their farms to protect themselves from the risk of a bad season in one micro-environment, or one disease or pest or crop or variety. As a result, farmers are rightly cautious about adopting blanket recommendations, and they do their own on-farm testing to check these recommendations out.
Farmer Research Committees harness a huge, underutilized resource: the time and money poor farmers spend tinkering with technologies they don't fully trust or understand. This is why experimenting farmers willingly volunteer as Committee members, even if they are very poor, and why they are willing to absorb the costs of adaptive testing done in Committee. A Farmer Research Committee socializes the local experimentation that is ongoing on every farm to some degree, and makes this activity more systematic, better informed and more efficient for a larger number of beneficiaries. Farmers who volunteer and are elected to be members of Farmer Research Committees are nominated by their communities because they are known to be already investing in a lot of their own local experimentation. When these farmers experiment in a group, they can replicate their experiments and learn much faster, so the return on their time and other investments increases in group experimentation compared with the idiosyncratic experimentation they do on their own.
Function
A Farmer Research Committee can be elected by any kind of client group or organizations wanting to test and adapt agricultural technology: for example, a community, a rural self-help group, a producer association or a cooperative. The committee researches and advocates for designing, evaluating, and recommending appropriate technologies for the local community, while reporting back regularly on its results and use of funds.
A committee can include anywhere from four to 40 members, depending on the community's size and agricultural operations, and is decided by election. Planning Farmer Research Committees can be greatly assisted by combining the use of a Geographical Information System (GIS) with wealth ranking, a participatory rural appraisal (PRA) tool. An extension system should have at least one Farmer Research Committee per recommendation domain and organize regular contact among Committees for exchange of results.
Diagnosis and planning
Once elected, a committee organizes a diagnostic process in which all its clients participate to identify a local priority for research. Topics include for example, testing crop varieties, pest control regimes, fertilisers, livestock feeding strategies, producing and marketing new products or alternate soil erosion control technologies. The most important feature of a Committee's research topic is that it tries to solve an important local problem and that there is no readily-available and reliable knowledge of how to solve it already in existence. The diagnostic process involves the Committee in talking to experienced farmers in their locality and visiting experiment stations, agricultural input suppliers and extension offices. By the end of the diagnosis they either have found a solution to the problem or have found several alternative solutions and are not sure which one will be best.
Experimentation
If the Committee finds that locally-proven technologies are available, it asks farmers experienced with the technology to help them with community-wide training. If however, Committee members are not sure about what will work locally, then they work with their facilitator or extension agent to design an experiment that will compare several unproven solutions. These may be of local or external origin. Farmer Research Committee experiments typically begin with several treatments compared with local practice tested on a very small scale. Over time, the number of treatments is reduced and the size of the experimental plots is increased until one or more technologies are being validated at commercial scale. Committee experiments are usually replicated on the members own farms but the Committee members may also ask other farmers to join in and plant or evaluate experiments.
Farmer Research Committee experiments are evaluated using methodology for farmer evaluation of technology (Guererro, Ashby & Gracia, 1993). This can be applied by farmers to very large or small numbers of treatments to generate a qualitative ranking based on their own criteria for evaluation. The ranking is easy for farmers to understand and report back to the committee's clients. At the same time a statistical package of the analysis of rankings is available for use by technical extension staff, if desired.
Reporting back
Reporting back involves a Farmer Research Committee in making a regular, formal report on its activities, its results and how it has used its funds to its community or client group. This is a crucial activity that socializes what has been learned from the diagnosis and experimentation by the Farmer Research Committee. Sometimes facilitators neglect this step and focus on developing the capabilities of the committee members, but this gravely under-exploits the committee's potential for wider impact and means that dissemination of the knowledge they generate is unnecessarily restricted to the committee. In addition, reporting back is essential for keeping the Committee accountable for its use of funds and relevant to local priorities.
Committees that are reporting back often invite local politicians, input suppliers, business people and experiment station researchers to this meeting. This is especially useful once a Farmer Committee has validated technology at commercial scale and farmers want to expand production. Some Committees have in this way, convinced local politicians to contribute to their operational costs or to sponsor more committees. Some Committee members have been elected as local political representatives, expanding the credibility of Farmer Committees and demand for their services.
Farmer Field Schools
The principal mechanisms for dissemination of Farmer Research Committee's results and recommendations are their day-to-day contact with neighbors and their Report Back meeting. However, local farmers may need training in how to implement the committee's recommendations or if the Committee finds a solution that needs no further experimentation, nobody in the community may know how to use it. Running Farmer Field Schools to provide training using Farmer Research Committee recommendations is highly advantageous as it gets locally-relevant, locally validated knowledge out to a larger number of farmers than the committee can usually contact on its own.
↑ Jaquiline Ashby; Ann Braun; Teresa Gracia; Maria del Pilar Guerrero; Luis Hernandez; Carlos Quiros; Jose Roa (May 2000). "Investing Farmers"(PDF). ciat.cgiar.org. Archived from the original(PDF) on 22 February 2012. Retrieved 27 March 2012.
↑ Ashby, J.A., Gracia, A.T., Del Pilar Guerrero, M., Quiros, C.A., Roa, J.I. and Beltran, J.A. 1995. Institutionalizing farmer participation in adaptive technology testing with the "CIAL." ODI Agricultural Research and Extension Network. Network Paper 57.
↑ J. A. Ashby, A. Braun, T. Gracia, M.P. Guerrero, L.A. Hernandez, C.A. Quiros & J.I. Roa. 2001.Investing in Farmers as Researchers: Experience with Local Agricultural Research Committees in Latin America. CIAT, Cali, Colombia.
↑ Ashby et al., 1995; World Bank Agriculture Investment Sourcebook. Module 2 - Local Agricultural Research Committees
↑ A. R. Braun, G. Thiele and M. Fernandez.2000. Farmer field schools and local agricultural Research committees: complementary platforms for integrated decision-making in Sustainable agriculture. ODI Agricultural Research and Extension Network .Network Paper No.105:12
↑ Richards, P. 1985. Indigenous Agricultural Revolution.Ecology and food production in West Africa. London:Hutchinson; B. Haverkort, J. van der Kampand A. Waters-Bayer (eds) 1991. Joining Farmers'Experiments: Experiences in participatory technology development. London: Intermediate Technology Publications
Citizen participation or public participation in social science refers to different mechanisms for the public to express opinions—and ideally exert influence—regarding political, economic, management or other social decisions. Participatory decision-making can take place along any realm of human social activity, including economic, political, management, cultural or familial.
The International Rice Research Institute (IRRI) is an international agricultural research and training organization with its headquarters in Los Baños, Laguna, in the Philippines, and offices in seventeen countries. IRRI is known for its work in developing rice varieties that contributed to the Green Revolution in the 1960s which preempted the famine in Asia.
Texas A&M AgriLife Extension Service was formally established in 1915 after the 1914 passing of the Smith-Lever Act and in conjunction with Texas A&M University. Originally named Texas Agricultural Extension Service, then later Texas Cooperative Extension, the name Texas AgriLife Extension Service was adopted on January 1, 2008. A&M was added to the agency name on September 1, 2012 as a result of a Texas A&M University System change to strengthen the association with Texas A&M. The primary mission of AgriLife Extension is to provide educational outreach programs and services to the citizens of Texas. In conjunction with Texas A&M AgriLife Research, the Extension faculty members conduct research and bring practical applications of those research findings to the people of Texas.
Agricultural extension is the application of scientific research and new knowledge to agricultural practices through farmer education. The field of 'extension' now encompasses a wider range of communication and learning activities organized for rural people by educators from different disciplines, including agriculture, agricultural marketing, health, and business studies.
Agricultural education is the systematic and organized teaching, instruction and training available to students, farmers or individuals interested in the science, business and technology of agriculture as well as the management of land, environment and natural resources.
Participatory action research (PAR) is an approach to action research emphasizing participation and action by members of communities affected by that research. It seeks to understand the world by trying to change it, collaboratively and following reflection. PAR emphasizes collective inquiry and experimentation grounded in experience and social history. Within a PAR process, "communities of inquiry and action evolve and address questions and issues that are significant for those who participate as co-researchers". PAR contrasts with mainstream research methods, which emphasize controlled experimentation, statistical analysis, and reproducibility of findings.
A farmer field school (FFS) is a group-based learning process which has been used by a number of governments, non-governmental organizations, and international agencies to promote integrated pest management (IPM). The first FFSs were designed and managed by the UN Food and Agriculture Organization in Indonesia in 1989. Since then, more than two million farmers across Asia have participated in this type of learning.
Agricultural research in Israel is based on close cooperation and interaction between scientists, consultants, farmers and agriculture-related industries. Israel's climate ranges from Mediterranean (Csa) to semi-arid and arid. Shortage of irrigation water and inadequate precipitation in some parts of the country are major constraints facing Israeli agriculture. Through extensive greenhouses production, vegetables, fruits and flowers are grown for export to the European markets during the winter off-season.
Participatory rural appraisal (PRA) is an approach used by non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and other agencies involved in international development. The approach aims to incorporate the knowledge and opinions of rural people in the planning and management of development projects and programmes.
Participatory technology development (PTD) is an approach to learning and innovation that is used in international development as part of projects and programmes relating to sustainable agriculture. The approach involves collaboration between researchers and farmers in the analysis of agricultural problems and testing of alternative farming practices.
Participatory GIS (PGIS) or public participation geographic information system (PPGIS) is a participatory approach to spatial planning and spatial information and communications management.
Bidhan Chandra Krishi Viswavidyalaya (BCKV), also known as Bidhan Chandra Agricultural University, is an agricultural university in West Bengal, India. The university aims to provide higher education in theoretical and technical fields of Agriculture, Horticulture and Agricultural Engineering. It grants Bachelor of Science, Master of Science, Bachelor of Technology, Master of Technology and Doctorate degrees.
Promoting Local innovation in ecologically oriented agriculture and NRM, known as PROLINNOVA, is an NGO-initiated international learning network to promote local innovation in ecologically oriented agriculture and Natural resource management. It is a "Global Partnership Programme" under the umbrella of the Global Forum on Agricultural Research (GFAR). The focus of PROLINNOVA is on recognising the dynamics of indigenous knowledge and enhancing capacities of farmers to adjust to change – to develop their own site-appropriate systems and institutions of resource management so as to gain food security, sustain their livelihoods and safeguard the environment. The essence of sustainability lies in the capacity to adapt.
The net-map toolbox is a social network analysis tool that uses interviews and mapping to help people understand, visualize, discuss, and improve situations in which many different actors influence outcomes. Social network analysis is a research approach used by scholars such as S.D. Berkowitz, Stephen Borgatti, Ronald Burt, Linton Freeman, Mark Granovetter, Nicholas Mullins, Anatol Rapoport, Stanley Wasserman, Barry Wellman, and Harrison White to better understand the implications of the position of individual actors in a social structure.
Participatory 3D modelling (P3DM) is a community-based mapping method which integrates local spatial knowledge with data on elevation of the land and depth of the sea to produce stand-alone, scaled and geo-referenced relief models. Essentially based on local spatial knowledge, land use and cover, and other features are depicted by informants on the model by the use of pushpins (points), yarns (lines) and paints (polygons). On completion, a scaled and geo-referenced grid is applied to facilitate data extraction or importation. Data depicted on the model are extracted, digitised and plotted. On completion of the exercise the model remains with the community.
Agricultural marketing covers the services involved in moving an agricultural product from the farm to the consumer. These services involve the planning, organizing, directing and handling of agricultural produce in such a way as to satisfy farmers, intermediaries and consumers. Numerous interconnected activities are involved in doing this, such as planning production, growing and harvesting, grading, packing and packaging, transport, storage, agro- and food processing, provision of market information, distribution, advertising and sale. Effectively, the term encompasses the entire range of supply chain operations for agricultural products, whether conducted through ad hoc sales or through a more integrated chain, such as one involving contract farming.
An agricultural value chain is the integrated range of goods and services necessary for an agricultural product to move from the producer to the final consumer. The concept has been used since the beginning of the millennium, primarily by those working in agricultural development in developing countries, although there is no universally accepted definition of the term.
The Indian Institute of Sugarcane Research is an autonomous institute of higher learning, under the umbrella of Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR) by the Ministry of Agriculture, Government of India for advanced research in sugar cane agriculture. The Institute is located on Raibareli Road, Dilkusha in Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh, India. While, The Central Sugarcane Research Institute established in 1912 is located in Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu, India. It works also under the Indian Council of Agricultural Research.
A learning alliance is a diverse network of individuals committed to improving knowledge on a specific research topic. Learning alliances are often made up of small networks of public, private and/or civil society actors seeking to further social or political change.
Digital agriculture, sometimes known as smart farming or e-agriculture, is tools that digitally collect, store, analyze, and share electronic data and/or information in agriculture. The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations has described the digitalization process of agriculture as the digital agricultural revolution. Other definitions, such as those from the United Nations Project Breakthrough, Cornell University, and Purdue University, also emphasize the role of digital technology in the optimization of food systems.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply. Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.
