Ef/!t~f,~

( M (ollinson and FA0 LOO0 A c,~t,dog~rc recorti tor thi\ I~ook is rivriilahle from the British Library, London, UK.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data A h~stor\ Oi t,irmlng s\,stenls rescclrch / ccjited by M.P. Collinson.

11. ( 111. Inc.lt~clc~i l~~l~l~oqraphic; I I rctcrcncc.~ (1). ). lSl3K 0 - t j i 100-405-0 tc1lk. l ) ~ ~ p c ~ r ) 1 . Agr~c [I l t i ~ r ~ i l \ \ \tcsms--Kesc~,irch tiistory. I. ('ollinson, M.1'.

1 ,\4i( l i c ~ c ~ l 1'. 1 5404.5.505 t i 57 I000 0 30',; '--(lc2 1 9C1-4L82 7

CI P ~ ' 1 1 / ~ / ; 5 / 1 ~ ~ ~ 1 /o;rlt/\, I ) \ : ('A131 I'ul)lishing, ,I division o i (.At1 Inte,rn,ttion,~l CAKI I'ul~lishing, ('A13 Intc~rn,ltionnl, W,~Ilingford, Oxori O X 1 0 Illlt, IJK Td: +44(0)1401 8 11 1 1 1 , F'ix: +44(0) 140 1 < $508, Ern,lil: c,~l~it~'cahi.org ('ABI I'ul)lishing, 10 t 40th Strcet, S ~ i ~ t c , 120 1, New York, NY 1001 6, IJSA Trl: +I L I L 481 701 H, f-,lx: + 1 L 12 Ot10 700 1, tni,iil: c,il)i-n,ioC~'c-,iI)i.org Food ;~nti Agric ulturc Org,l~iiration of thr, llnitccl N,itions (FAO), Vi,llc tlcllc Tc,rnic di (:,lr,ic.,~Il,~, 001 00 Komc,, I t ~ l y Tcl: + $0 00 5705 1 , F,lx: + 10 Oh 5705 1 1 51, Em,lil: wcl~m,lstt~r(~~)t,lo.org Wrl~sitc: httl~://www.C,lo.org

1513N 0 051 Yc) 405 0 (( Al3l) - li,lrd covor c,(l~~ion 1513N 02 5 104 1 I I 0 (FAO) - p,iperl),~c k r3tlit1on 1-hc designations cmployc~ti ' ~ n d thc l~rc~sc~nt~ltion of rn,itcri,~l in this ~)ul)lic tion on tlo not iniply the c~xl)rc~ssion o i ,lny opinion wh,itsocvcr on the part ot the Footl and Agriculture (>rg~lniz,~tio oi the Uriitc~d N,~tions concerning th(, Ie,gal status ot ,iny cocrntry, territory, city or ,lrcv or of its ,luthoritic~,, or concerning thc tlclirnit,ition of i t s frontiers or l)ountl,lrics. I hc des~griatroris 'de~ve~lopcti' ,ind 'ticvclop~ng' cconomlcs are ~ntendeti tor statistic,~l (onvenlencc ,ind tlo not nc,c t~ss,lr~ly express ,I jutlgrnient about the \t,lge re,lchecl I)y a p,irt~cul,ir country, tc,rritor\i or are~i 111 the development process The, vicws cxpresscti licrein arc thosc ot the autliors an(l do not necessarily represent thosc of the Foocl ,inti Agriculture C)rg,~nir,ltion of the United Nations. All rights reserved. No part of this puhlic,ltion may bc reproduced in any form or IN ,iny means, electronic-,111y, nicchanic,llly, hy photocopying, recording or other- \\ is?, without the prior perniis5ion o i FAO.

T\ [ m e t I)\ Columns Des~gn Ltd, Kc,ltl~ng Printed and bound In the UK bv Ridtllcs Ltcl, Cu~ldtord and K~ng's Lynn

Contents

Contributors' Biographies

;\bbreviations and Acronyms

('1iaptc.r 1 Introduction Ilrlki, ('ollrrraorr

I';\R'I' I : FSK - IINI)ERS'I'ANI)IN(; I:AKMI

i v Contents

3.4 (;elder analysis: malting women visible and improving social analysis tliltrr!/ Sirfrs I:c81dsti,irr

3.5 Kelating proble~ns and causes in FSR planning Kri1)c~l.t 'l'ripp

P:\KI' 11: THE i\PPI,Itcr 4 FSR i n 'l'echnology C h o i c e a n d 1)evelopment 4. 1 ' l ' l i c ~ al~plic,atior~ of I'SII to tc.chnology cic\~cloprncnt

\1lll . ~ l l ~ i I f l i ! 11111/ /

Contents v

8.2 Orienting research to agricultural development: the ICRA training programme Iiii.11nrcl 1 I ~ w k i ~ t s

8.3 A note: the story behind the 'guidelines' Il7illiirrr1 CZl Slrilnc~r

PART IV: FSR: THE PROFESSIONAI, DIMENSION Editorit~l Introduction 1l4ik(~ ~ ' ~ / / i l l ~ i ~ l l

Chapter 9 The Regional a n d Internat ional Associat ions 2 5 1 9.1 'I'en ycars in the making: the Association for [:arming 251

Syslcrns Rcsc;lrch and lixtension tltrl n/ltrc~Artlrrrr

9 . 2 1:armirlg Systerns I

Contributors' Biographies

EDITOR A N D COMPILER

hlike Collinsori. 'l'hc l i i - \ l till-111 ( ' L . O I ~ O I I I I \ ~ ;ippointcd into t l ~ c I%rilisli 1.olonial ;rgric~~ilt~iriil rcsc;~rc,h sc,r\,ic,cs I l Of,( I. Ililic \z,or-l,cd \ z , i t l l I-cso~ir~~e-poor /\fric;~r~ f:~r~iiel-s for 2 5 yctirs. I'rolii 1915. ;is rcgior~;ll cconomisl will1 ('ISlMYl: l i c ~ lic~lpccl huilcl capacity l i~r or~-kirtii rc~sc~al-c.h \\,it11 syslems perspcclivc~ in the agricull~~r-;il rcsc;rrch instit~rlions of caslcrr~ and soulhc~rn c\l'ric;i. Ilct rc,lircd lo Ihc I l l < i r ~ 1090 a1ic.r 9 years as social scicncc3 adviscv- i r ~ (he sc.crel;~ri;~l of 111c ('or~sullali\rc (;roup li)r Inlcrnaliorlal i\gricull~rr;~l I(c~scw-ch (('(;I,\K), irl W;ishinglon. I)( ' . I:rrr(ril: miltccollir~son 1 (tuconipuserve.c~o11l

CONTRIBUTORS I'onniah Anandajayasekeram. / \ I ~ ; I I I ~ ; I . as he is ~rnivc~rsally I . ; I ~ O M , I I i l l I i r n ~ i n g syslcrns rcse;irc.ll circlcs, h:is directed I:SIi training pro- grammes and ;idvised on nretliods a r ~ d ilistil~i- tional capacity huil(lirlg in i\frica since I9X2. I lc, \\,us a I'ast I'rcsidcnt (11' the Sotrlhcrn i\fric;rn i\ssocii\tion k)r I:SI

Contributors' Biographies vi i

J.P. Deffontaines, Jacques Brossier, M. Barbier, M. Benoit, E. Chia, 1.1,. Fiorelli, M. Gafsi, F. Gras, H. Lemery and M. Roux. The authors are niernbers of the S/\1) researcl-1 1c;lrn in INRA responsible for the Vittel study. I

. . .

V I I I Contributors' Biographies

Kesearch and 1:xtension. lanice is currerltly t'roft:ssor of Ifurnan Ecology at the Sm~edish i l g r i cu l t~~ra l I'niversity. She has spent most of her illterdisciplini~ry career cz~orking on agricul- ture and rural clcvcloprncnt. rnainly in Africa trnci South Asia. She has a p;rrticular interest in conibining p;~rticipatory and 'high tech' appro:~ches and tools. and in ensuring that gender issues. and nromcri prokssionals. ;Ire fully present in the agricult~lral scicrlccs. 1:rrrtril: i an i cc . j i ggens (~~~ I I?~~ t \~ . s l~~ . sc Stuart Kean and M. Creasy Ndiyoi. Sluarl is ;I soci;ll scientist czritli i r ~ l c r e ~ l ~ i l l i rgric~~lturc. rur;rl dcvcloprncnt arld colnrn~~nity-hirsc~cl ncrt- ~ r r ~ r l resource r1i~rriagelilcr1t. I lc, worl

Contributors'

senior administrator in the Ministry of Agriculture. Sri 1,anlt;l. Ile hosted and orga- nixed the 1 9 9 6 international FSRli sy~nposiurn. lirrrclil: miriagr(u~slt.lk Bill W. Shanrr. Bill is I'rokssor Ilrncritus. ('olor;~do State Ilnivcrsity fie was team leader and scnior author of the book. 1.irrrrtirlq .S!lsfcrrrs Kc.sc~rrrc,ll rlr~rl I)cJvr~lo~~rrtc~nt: (;liirlc~lirrc,s /i)r Ilc~~~rlop,iry C'olrrrtric~s. tlc occasionally consults overseas on projects rclatcd to economic dcvcloprncnt. 1:rrtrril: i r~tert lcv(c~:lar~ii~r.coIosli~tc~~c~cl~~ Hilary Sims 1:rldstein. Ililary is t.lic, 'l'raining Specialist a1 Ihe International ('cntcr li)r I

Abbreviations and Acronyms

,\l'ric,;~t~ .\\\oc~itrtio~i 01' l ' i ~ t - t ~ i i ~ ~ ~ S\ \ I C I I I \ Kc\c:~t-cIi I :~ tc~i \ ior i :~~ici~I'riiirii~lg ; \ g r o c ~ c ~ ~ ~ ~ o t ~ ~ i c ~ xorie ; \S~: I I I I . ' ; I I - I ~ I ~ I I ~ S\.\le11i\ . \ \ so i , i :~ t io~~ ;\ssoci;~(ion I'oI- I:;~rming Systclns Iiesc~al-c.h i~tld I:stc~~isior~ !\si:~t~ Kicc I2i~rt1iit~g Sys le r~~s \cl\vorl, i\d;~plivc I

Abbreviations and Acronyms xi

ICTA IIIRC I FAD II:SA Il1111FSK-E I I ('A I lrl'A IK ll,Cf\ Il,K!\I) INRA I I'M IKfYI' I l i l ) IRK1 ISNf\R YARI: ZARI V\RS YIi1 YKM Ol)/\ 01, olll; 01:Ii ORS'I'OM

(1s OSII l'lI/\ I'SNRM I'SI' 1i1) IIIMISI' KISI'AI, I(M1) 1iMIl:I KMIRI l i l i f \ KS s'\l\l~s1i-l~ S ;\C'('I\ R

S,\NRIlM C'KSP

Institute of Agricultural Science and 'l'echnology ((;ualcrnala) International Ueveloprnent Kesearch Center International Fund for i2griculturalI)cvelopment Internationt~l Farming Systems Association (fi)rnierly i\FSKli as above) Intrti-F-Iouschold and FSR-E Case Studies I'rojcct Interamerican Institute for Cooperation orr i \ g r i cu l t~~rc Inlernational Inslilutc of 'l'ropical i \ g r i cu l t~~re Indigenous Irns and I)cvcloprnrnt (within ln 'K~\ , I:rar~cc) Sustainable ;\griculture and Natural Kcsource and Illr\~ironment Man:~gcrncnt ('ollabort~tivc liesearch I'roject Sustainable Agriculture Kesearch and l

Foreword

Janice Jiggens, Past President of the International Association for Farming Systems Research and Extension

i\s I'rcsidc~nt of the, .\xsoc.i;~tion lor- I'arriiirlg Systelns Kesri~rcli i ~ n d I:stcnsio~l I.\I:SI

... Foreword X I I I

to the refinement of the concept of 'recommen- dation domains' and methods of informal survey that Mike Collinson and his colleagues were applying a t the time in the central provincc.

Much of my tield work in Zambia turned into an exploration of alternative rnctliods, culled from whatcver source book or cxpcri- enced person then av;~ilablc to me. But i t did not kel likc 'good' research. I was learning more than 1 had ever done bcl'orc. but hour could I prcserit this linowlcdgc in a way that \n,otrld convince nly own pcer group?

'li)wards the end of rny stay i r ~ %;~rnbia Kobcrt C'harnbcrs and I worked togelher o n a I3asic Needs rnissiori spor~sorcd by thc~ International I , a b o ~ ~ r 0rg;lnixatiorl. 'I'hc lorig trek up to the shores of I,ake I3angwculu gave us arnple time fir discussion of these cluestiorls. \vtiich Kohcrt himsclf nr;ls also ponderir~g arld cxplorirlg. along with rnany others, ;IS I later realixcd. A tiax;~rdous canoc trip across the lake brought us to the old 'got11 wonran'. Shc rern;~ins in my nicrnory as ou r tutor in what later heccrme known as participatory appraisal methodology. Wc worked n,irIi her li)r a day using tcchniqucs still rctgardcd :IS innov;~tivc. a ~ ~ a l y s i n g the r n a ~ ~ a g ~ r n e ~ r t of hcl- goats \zhicli i\rcre rcnowncd li)r thc>ir t \ ~ ~ i t i s i ~ r i c l good lic;~lth. atid n,hich she sustained through the cat-cllrl recycling of waste t ~ n d tlre use ol' tr;rdilior~al herbs she grew hersell:

'l'hese l i~rn~at ive cxpcricnccs i~ddcd in a srriall \\,ay lo t l ~ e rivcr of :~ccornplishrnent docu- mented in this book by bringing together I:SK perspectives, gender analysis and participatory methods.

KEY ASPECTS: FSR-E, GENDER ANALYSIS A N D PARTICIPATORY

METHODS

. \ s the experiences of rese;~rchers around the I\-orld during the 19 80s dcrnonstrated, there is iiiuch to be gained by marrying these three \\-ays of learning and cooperating. On gender ,inalysis Feldstein and jiggins' concluded that using gender a s ;I focus resulted in a better Liescription of the system as a whole and ipencd the door to a greater understanding of

the opportunities to technical innovation. Gender adds a little complexity for a lot of insight, while participatory process and tech- niques enable farming systems researchers to engage more effectively with members of farm- ing communities.

'I'he marriage of IW-K, gender analysis and participatory methods has, to a considerable extent, become common practice. [:our strcr~gths stand out. 1:irst. the quality of thc ir~forrnation is bettcr because it is richer, rnorc deeply contcxtualixed and yet amenable to ;rggregation. 11 is focused yet cost-effective across scale, where 'scale' is understood as a recornmendatior~ dornain. Second, in cornbina- lion they can le;ld lo the rapid discovery of con- tradictions such ;IS the points ~ r l i e r c experience diverges, cz,ticrc> inforrr~;~tion is inconsistcr~t and whcrc. intcrprc,tatior~s vary. Where there is con- vergence, consis1erlc)i ;rrld agreement, one can proceed will-1 corllitlcnce along well-established p:rthw;rys: whcre there arcx cor~tradictioris, assumptions ;Ire challenged anci further invcsti- g ;~l io l~ is required. 'l'liis is the opportunity for genuinely rlew theoretic:~l and practical Itnowl- cdgc to clncrgc. Ke\licw of experience suggests that the combination of 12SK-1: plus gender analysis p l~rs participatory methods, prompts disco\,cv-y by ol'li'ril~g three dift'crcnt 'windows' illto c.oniplcx situ;rtiorls2. 'I'hird. thc comhina- tion of pc~rspccti\~cs and methods li)cuscs at1c.n- tion o n cot~st ra i r~ts ;rncl opporturlitics, rt~thcbr than problems. 111 rny view. the elnpliasis or1 problcrns in :rgricultural research has beell a Iiirlclrance to dcvclopr~~ent, if only because i t providcs such poor inspiration for cl'l'ort and for spccilication of the potential for change in agri- cultural reality. I!ilially, the upplication of thcsc methods has dra\vn attention to the important and necessary teclinology-led gains that car1 be achieved with poor people living in variable. diverse and uricertairi criviroritrients.

Ilowc\~er, the cornhiriation does have a nunl- ber of n~eakriesscs. At the theoretical level, thinking about sys tcn~s cloes not have to be sys- ternic to he useful. Rut a t the practical level. i f the research and technology developrnerlt objec- tive is in some way to change the systern, then thc mcthodologic;~l toolbox must include the tools of researching farming as a n human activ- ity. Best practice research is generating a rich and constructive case book of the participatory

methodologies esscrltial to systemic changc. More commonly however. these niethodologies seem to be applied mechanisticially or in an extractive manner. giving rise to f:~ilures in the change process'. While lip-service rnight be paid in research proposals to the role of women in farming systems, the sad I'act is that this remains a male-domin;rted area anti FSli is still 1 ; ' . a ~ l ~ n g in the proper haridlirlg of this essential ingredient.

'I'here is a third arca in which I W - t pr;~cticc fr~lls short of its potential, perht~ps bcci~use of its strong historical rools in farrn rnanagerncrit 'conornics. licscarch 11;1s highlighled the cxtcrlt to which an accomplished end-of-setason svsterii 'clesigr;' is the desired ol~tcomc of rcsponscs to rt\lcxnts unli)l(iing through t l ~ e seasoti. M'hcrevcr the degree of ~rnccrtainty is high. the, tc~ndency t o ,~sscss . , , . . , farrriir~g iri terrii.; of pcrfc)rr~~;rricc is partic~rlarly rnarl,c~d4, hut this tcndcnc! i \ ;~lxo to be h u n d in more. highly contrc~ll~cl p r o d ~ ~ c - tiori cn\,ironments'. (;i\,cn thex importance to reso~lrcc-poor furn~crs of managing uncc,r- tainty, greater attentior1 shoul(1 be p;~id lo thc overall irnplic;~tions of dryland fr~rrnirlg.

I3est practice points the way, li)r cxarnplc through cxarriirlatiori of stratcgics for copirig with v;~ryirig seasorial conditions and the rules wtiicl~ guide farming choices. ('ox 1.t ill." con- ductcd elegant rcsearcli among dryland wllcat I~ r rne r s in riorthcrn ( ] ~ r c c ~ ~ s l a r ~ d ~41 ic l i r-e\~c;~ls much aho~rl thc r ~ ; ~ ( u r c 01' cor~tirlgct~t decision malting iri corlditior~s of ~rrlccrl;~intq: 'l'hcy Sound dc.cisions to bc basc>d on a rathc,r small riurnber of sirnplc rule sets which \'verc: nested: triggered hy evcrlts: iritcrcorincctc.d: liril\cd to aclditional sets, stable, in rctsponsc to stress (such ;IS prolongecl clrought): adaptive to lorig-lerm trends in systerri states: irltcrprctntivc: ; ~ r ~ d su11- portivc of sirnultarlcous n~ariagcrncr~t of multi- ple indicators of system pcrli)rriiance.

I\ focus or1 thc rn;~n;~gcrnent of ur~c.crtainty also suggests 21 need for greater cniph;~sis in FSK-F, practice on collaboration between farm- ers and scientistsi. lks t practice has, in fact, already moved in this directiorl. a movement rcinl'orccd by crncrging concerns about the rela- tion bctnrccn on-farm developments and land- scape scale resource rnanagerncnt. FSK-li is now being ch;~llcnged to investigate the relationships among on-farm systems development. ecologi- cal systems management and agricultural pol-

icy effectsx: and apply participatory applied research a t farm and community levels to nat- ural resource management.

A linal problem lies in the field of FSR-H ctlu- cation. For many yeiirs I sh i~red the frustrations of field personnel in trying to tu rn the human products of specialist ~lniversity degrees into systcrns thinkers with ; ~ t least some competence in working with furmcrs on system develop- ment. My early efforts at the llniversity of (;uelph in Ontario to taltc the lessons of the lield hael< into acaderni;~ to producc a gcneratiori of profc~ssiont~ls competent in I:SK wcrc positive at the human le\,cl. 'l'he students reacted enthusi- astic;~lly to participatory rnc~thods. intcrdiscipli- rial-!, Ic;~rl~irlg a n d systcii~s tlliriliing. l3ut. tic~.;pitc~ tlie good\\.ill rid \ ~ ~ p p o r t of key indiviti- ~ra ls . ~~ndo l rh tc~d barrier.; rcrnained i l l thc rigidi- tic\ 01 dc.p;~r-tmcntaI struct~lrc~s. thc dcl'er~cc of intcllectu;~l territory ;inel the prohlems of rccon- (.ilirlg s!.stems-oriented courses a ~ ~ d the ncecls of students \vithin the existing s t ~ ~ d y pr-ogr;irnrne. , \ I (;uclph. marly of the tiil'licultics of rigidity hctwccn dcpartrncnts have beer1 cased by the recent crcation of arl irltcrdisciplinary I'hl) ofli.rcd through a new 1:aculty of 1:nvironrncntal Ilesign ;~n( l Kurnl 1)evelopriicnt.

As one, ~ f h o is directly irivolvc~d ;IS ;I rie~nr- corner lo university lilc 211 the Sn~edisli Ilrrivcrsity of i\gricultcrral Sciences. what riiost strikes me, is the irrelevaricc~ of rii~rcli of n rh ;~ t is 011 01'11.1- ; i t universities. \Ian!. studcnls rcs[~oritl hy linding thrir o~vri path\\.ays of learning thr-o~rgli iril 11i1i. scll-study reading groups and by making off-cali ip~~s lirilts to community- i ~ n d I';~rmcr-baseti ac t io~i . 'l'he regular prograrnmc is \vliat tI1c.y have to d o to qualify. not nrh;~t thcy m7ant to do to Ic ;~rr~. ILleanm,hilc~, collahorativc initiatives amorig cot~litions of those with a per- sonal comrnitrnent to chiungc processes are cre- ating new institution~tl s t r u c t ~ ~ r e s arld rictnrorlis which bypass cxisting structures'.

It is encouri~ging to find that even in tlie linancii~lly titrrd-pressed educational environ- ment of eastern and southern Africa, such innovations are occurring. For example. ;I con- sortia of non-government organizations whose activities fbcus on various forms of ecological farming in partnership with farmers and in col- laboration with the llniversity of Zimbabwe, have now developed a degree course which sup- plements classroom study informed by systems

thinking with periods of field work with the par- ticipating NGOs.

SOME EXAMPLES AND LESSONS FROM BEST PRACTICE

1,orrrrrirlg Tog(~t/r(~r, by l lagmann. Murnrira and Churna in 1 99hI0, docu~ncrlts the devcloprnent and extension of soil and water conservalion technologies in Masvingo arid C'hivi. Zirnbabmv. 'I'his example of a new approach was called krrt~rrrc,~/tr ( to try) by the I'r~rmcrs - a translatior1 of 'resc:~rch' into Shona. I t was based on dia- logue, on hrrncrs ' own real time, on wholc-sys- t a n cxpcrirncrlls ~und on ;I s trcngthcnir~g of sc.lf-organiztrtior~i~l cap;~city at cornniunity level. After two seasons each participatirlg L~rmcr. brsiclcs tied ridging, had at Icast two other trials ongoing, selected fronl arnorig expcrimcrlts sug- gested by projcct stafl', local rc.scarcl1 stations and farmer irlrlovators, or arising out ol' discus- siorl of I~rrriers ' indigenous linowlcdgc. More than 1 0 options li;~ve c~ncrged li-om this join1 procr3ss, includirlg rnccllanical, agronomic. bio- logical and water savingiirrigalio~l 111e1hods and tcchnologjcs. \Yithirl three seirsor~s li-0111 1992-9 3 , at Ic;~st SO'X, of Ihc total of I I 3h households within orl? ~rd~riinistrative unit in ('hivi 1)istrict mrcrc pr;~ctising soil and mr;lter conservation. 'l'llc irnporttrnt lessons irlc.luclc tllc nccd to focus on intcgratcd li~rld hush~ i t~dry since individual tccli~iiqucs cannot ovcrcornc. thc diversity of condilio~ls nor ;rlone gcncr;~tc s u l ' l i ~ i ~ n t cconornic bcnelit. the value of k ~ r m c r in\~olvemcrit right li-om the start i r l extending. enriching and validatirlg the portfolio of experi- rncntution and cmerging options, and the rlccessity of supporting ir!stitution;~l and orgkl- nixational development (czrilhi~i communilics but also within resctrrch and extcrrsio~l agcw cies) in order to support participatory process.

I,c,rrrrrirr:g to /,cTttr-rr lblit/r I:trrrr~c~rs, by llamilton in 1995". focuses on a projcct in s o ~ ~ t h e r n C)ueellsland. This provided invaluable input into research on the dereloprnent, use and cf ic ts of providing farmers with better tools Sor rnonitor- ing and interpreting system states and trends. as the basis for informed decision making u'ith regard to I'allow management. The project iiras based in a region where 1 .8 million ha of the

total cultivated area of 2 million ha was desig- rlated as a 'needs protection' area in the face of widespread soil erosion. In the space of 4 years, thc interventions raised thc percentage of dry- land wheat farmers in the vulnerable areas who had adopted one or rnore l';llloczr management practice from 30'XI lo 75'X, - some 1 600 farmers. 'I'his success was the more remarlcable for being achieved through a period of deepening drought and ccorlorrlic liartiship. An interdisciplinary team of scicrltists and cxtcr~sion advisers worked with I';~rnlers on joint systcnls analysis, and throlrgh periods of so~nctirnes pairll'ul and con- Ilictual rc,flcctiorl on what was being learned arld Ilow thcb lei~rrl i~lg process nrils occurrirlg. A series 01' tools nrcbrc devised, i~gi~irl lilrgely i r l collabor;~- tior1 with l':~rmcrs, to e n h ; ~ r ~ c c individual a r ~ d sh:rrcd Icarr~irlg about systerns st ;~lrs and pcrl'or- niance. 'l'hcsc included: a rainfall si~nulator, a soil corer. I low Wet ( a computcr-aided clctcisiorl support tool). the F;~llow Managcrnent (;arnc (which allows players lo expand o n and intcr- rogate scc,narios gc~nc>r:rlcd hy thc usc of tI1c olhcr three, lools) arid LVith and Without ( a user fricndly cx)~nparalivc 'conomic analysis tool). 'l'llrce Iessorls stand out: the import:rncc of pill!- ing c,xplicil ;~tlc'ntior~ lo I:SI( processes, thc powcr of slirnul;~tirig shared I\rlom~lcdgc crcatiorl and tllc' nccd li)r sc,icncc> leaders and policy malicr-s to accept that t11c process will not lead to irdoptio~i of uniform or- standardixe(l resolutio~is across ; i r l ccosyste~n. I

xvi Foreword

and the life systems ~ ~ h i c h support it. In the inclusive direction in which it is evolving, FSR-E provides a franielz.ork for understandirig, and thc processes and tools Ibr pursuing the agenda f i r human survival captured by Gocthc, who might he regarded as a n early rncnihcr of the l.'SII-l.: family in the following stanza:

COMMISSIONING THE BOOK 111 I 9 9 1 J was honoured to bc clected ;IS I'residcnt of the 1Al:SRlI. One of rny ~ n a i r ~ t;~slis du r i l~g 111y term as I'rcsidcnt, apart f ron~ ;I per- manent strugglc with linancing, was the orga- nization of the 14th In tcr r~;~l ion;~l Symposiurli in Montpellicr. I:ri~r~ce. ;~longsidc, ou r 1:rerlch hosts. One issue had been taxing the Ilo;rrd of tlie i\ssociation and ils rncmbcrs sinccl 1989 - tlie writing of a hislory of l hc as so cia ti or^, arrd 11erhaps ;I history of I:SI< in gcncral. I!I\O, it1 the

person of Karl Ikiedrich, then Head of the Farm Mariagcmcnt and Production Economics Ikanch, had offered support for the history within thc context of FA0 promotion of an FSII- based approach to development. but possible authors and editors were all were too busy 'I:SK-ing' to talte on the job. 'l'hcn, in 1)ecemher 1 9 9 4 , at hlontpellier, it all came together. Karl I!ricdrich and 1 rile1 with Milie Collinson. / \ l tho~rgh ;In FSII vctcr;ln ;ind enthusi;rst. rllilic's comniittmcnts over the last 1 0 yctrrs had inhibited his involvement in AI!SKI: and he was attending only his third o r fourth (tic carl't rernemher!) syrnpositrrn of the I4 that had been held. Now Iiow~ver, tic W;IS due to rctirc and lie committc,ti h i ~ ~ ~ s c l f to the cornpil:rtic~n and cdit- ing of a n history of I!SK on his retircmcnt. I le linirlly retired in early I9'1h and has dc~roled 111ucl1 of his tirnc, since to linding contributors and to coaxing their contributions frorii thcrli. .l'liis is Ilic result - 40 contributions from 50 of tlie cz,orld's lctrding proli.ssionals. froln som? 1 0 countries - an inclusive sufccp of thc spcctrurn of prokssions and contincr~ls involved in I!SI

Chapter 1

Introduction

Mike Collinson

1.1 FSR TERMINOLOGY ANDDEFINITION

Even within the choir of advocates there haslong been controversy on terminology in farm-ing systems research (FSR)1. It raised its headagain during the preparation of this book. Ihope I have outflanked the controversy by refer-ring to FSR and its applications. FSR itself isdefined as a diagnostic process; a basket ofmethods for researchers to elicit a better under-standing of farm households, family decisionsand decision-making processes. Its applicationsuse this understanding to increase the effi-ciency in the use of human and budgetaryresources for agricultural development, includ-ing research, extension and policy formulation.These are important applications, both for thosecountries which rely on the traditional agricul-tural sector to drive their economic develop-ment, and for other countries where that sectoris small in terms of population, but where asocial conscience demands measures to combatrural poverty.

I have tried to give the book diversitythrough the number and origins of its contribu-tors, and coherence through its structure.While the application of FSR in developed coun-try agriculture is occasionally illustrated, thebook is primarily focused on FSR in its originalrole, with small, resource-poor farmers in devel-oping countries. The origins of contributors aresometimes deceptive. Europeans and North

Americans write about experiences in Africa,Asia and Latin America, for expatriates indeeddominate the early history of FSR, itself per-haps a factor in the resistance to change ininstitutions in many developing countries. Anexpanding professional capacity there began tomake itself felt in FSRs application and evolu-tion in the 1980s, yet institutional change isstill perhaps the single biggest constraint towider application. Similarly, the early days ofFSR are male dominated but the number ofcontributions in the book from women demon-strates how they have increasingly assertedthemselves in agricultural development.

The book is divided into five parts (each withan editorial introduction) and 12 chapters, eachwith several contributors. Part I of the book triesto capture the origins and the essence of FSR; itsconceptual framework and some of the methodscentral to the understanding of the farming ofresource-poor communities. It begins with con-tributions from a group of pioneers fondlylabelled the old dogs. Part II examines the appli-cation of FSR understanding to the choice anddevelopment of technology, to the planning andevaluation of extension, and to policy formula-tion. Part III focuses on efforts made to incorpo-rate FSR into agricultural research andextension systems in Africa, Asia and LatinAmerica. It also covers the essential companionto institutionalization; the training of profes-sionals in FSR. Part IV looks at the organizationof FSR professionals, with contributions on the

CAB International 2000. A History of FarmingSystems Research (ed. M. Collinson) 1

growth of associations and networks in Africa,Asia and Latin America, as well as on theAssociation for Farming Systems Research andExtension (AFSRE), subsequently renamed theInternational Farming Systems Association(IFSA). These accounts are complemented bycommentaries from professionals in agronomy,farm management and rural sociology on theinteraction of these disciplines with FSR. Thefifth and final part of the book turns to thefuture. Current practitioners discuss cuttingedge methods and applications in FSR and thefinal chapter looks at the lessons of the past andthe possibilities for the future. It sets out howFSR has moved toward its original goal a betterunderstanding of small farmers and, as sys-tems applications in agriculture proliferate, askswhether it still has a distinct role. The editorialintroductions to each of the five parts outlinethe contributions and offer a personal commen-tary on the theme covered. Where appropriate,this summarizes the evolution of that theme,highlighting both progress and unresolvedissues. Three unresolved issues pervade the edi-torial introductions and take centre stage inChapter 12; the scope of FSR, its place in the R &D process, and strategy for institutional change.

1.2 THE ISSUE OF SCOPE

FSR was one of a number of threads from sys-tems thinking that reached into agricultural R& D in the late 1960s and early 1970s. Cropmodelling, dominated by the disciplines ofphysiology and agronomy, was another innov-ative thread, as was cropping systems research,recalled by Dick Harwood in Chapter 2 asunderpinning the origins of FSR in Asia.Eagerly grasped by a variety of constituencies,the early, tight focus of FSR rapidly widened.Texts on systems and agricultural develop-ment, including those by Penning de Vries,Teng and Metselaar in 1993, Dent andMacgregor in 1994 and CIRAD in 19962,demonstrate the growing range of systemsapplications in agriculture. It has becomeunclear, perhaps even confusing, to practition-ers, how FSR is best viewed within that spec-trum. Proliferating constituencies for systemsapplications in agriculture, and confusion overthe scope of FSR have arguably distracted fromits practice and institutionalization.

FSR was an innovation in the researchprocess, emerging from field practitioners, anearly effort to bridge the gap between the needsand capacities of small, resource-poor farmersand publicly funded agricultural researchestablishments. Early in the book, foundermembers of the FSR family talk about its ori-gins. The common threads through the differ-ent accounts leave no doubt that in the 1960sand early 1970s the same problem was widelyidentified across the developing world; tech-nologies recommended as a result of agricul-tural research investments were, in general,inappropriate to the priorities and circum-stances of small farmers. Field practitionersrecognized the importance of the problem andtargeted a better understanding of small farm-ers and the way they make decisions, as a pathto its solution. Their concern for appropriateimprovements for small-scale, illiterate andresource-poor farmers was the origin of FSRand remains its foundation.

But FSR has also been elaborated, and forsome confounded, by the scrutiny of academics.Development theorists, often economists, havecriticized the narrowness of conceptual frame-works pinned together by practitioners preoccu-pied by technology adoption. These originallyignored such issues as intra-household equity,population dynamics, intergenerational equityand sustainability, and the wider macro and pol-icy linkages that these imply. Imported meth-ods, driven mainly by academics doing researchto add to theory, or to test out methods in newcircumstances, have sometimes diverted profes-sional attention from the operational circum-stances of developing countries, the modestinstitutional capacities and thin budgets withwhich FSR professionals were wrestling. A noto-rious example in farm management was thequest to apply linear programming to the small-farm sector in the 1960s. Promoted by the havetool will travel brigade, usually from academiain the USA, it has not yet made a significantoperational impact in developing country agri-culture. Its failure has been due to the intensivedata collection efforts required, and the veryhigh costs of bringing the results of program-ming to bear on farm units with such low levelsof income that even major improvement wouldoffer little return for the costs of the researchand advisory process.

2 Chapter 1

1.3 FSR AS AN INNOVATION IN THE R & D PROCESS

Still today, a generation on, in many of thecountries where the small-farm sector remainscrucial to both the national economy and to theenvironment, the research/farmer interfaceremains a critically weak link in the develop-ment process. Thus, despite a 25-year history,FSR remains an innovative component in theprocess for agricultural R & D. The prolongedgestation for FSR reflects the forces governinginnovation particularly innovation in publicinstitutions in developing countries, and isitself a lesson for both governments and aidagencies. There has been great difficulty in fit-ting FSR into agricultural institutions. Is this afailing in FSR as an innovation, or are thepower dynamics and the entrenched institu-tional and professional interests in nationalagricultural R & D too formidable for change?Has the timing of its introduction been inappro-priate? The book examines these importantongoing issues. Indeed, the history of FSR is acase study of the dynamics of institutionalinnovation in developing countries.

The introduction of FSR has been compli-cated by:

The need for changes in professional atti-tudes and institutional orientation and orga-nization.

The biases of the inherited, often colonial,establishments, in both agricultural educa-tion, research and development; expatriate-driven, Western mind-sets, isolated from thesmall-farm sector, with inappropriatecriteria for success.

Differences between commercial farmers,often driving public programmes in manydeveloping countries, and resource-poorfarmers.

Small farmers do not behave like commercialfarmers. They are not organized to interact withthe wider market economy, nor are they politi-cally articulate like commercial farmers. Thesehad attracted a set of service institutions, forexample in credit and insurance, for protectionagainst the vagaries of weather and the market.These older institutional processes, oriented toand organized for large farmers, cannot operatecost-effectively with small farmers who, in the

absence of an appropriate enabling infrastruc-ture, must manage their environment directly bytheir own decisions and by their activities bothon and off the farm. Small farmers often cannotuse the technologies appropriate for commercialfarmers and always need explicit considerationin agricultural R & D. These insights have givenrise to the development of new investigativemethods to manage the different circumstancesof resource-poor farmers under conditions ofscarce professional and financial resources. Astart has been made in reorganizing agriculturalR & D institutions to implement the new meth-ods and to adjust higher agricultural educationto achieve congruity between the mind-sets ofpeasant farmers and professionals to encouragemutual respect and partnership in agriculturalimprovement.

A parallel feature of the last 15 years, andone which holds great hope for the future, hasbeen the growth of FSR professional associa-tions. FSR associations attract people from arange of disciplines, from agronomy, ecologyand plant breeding to economics, anthropologyand rural sociology. The growth of these pio-neering associations has received much of itsimpetus from the leadership of university profes-sionals, who established an annual symposiumfor FSR-E in the USA in the early 1980s. Thisevolved into the AFSRE and associations andinstitutional networks now exist at the continen-tal level in the USA and Asia, and at the regionallevel in Africa, Latin America and Europe.Several contributions to this book document theevolution of these associations which promoteinterdisciplinary interaction around key prob-lems, encourage independence for professionalsin developing countries and complement alle-giance to discipline with allegiance to people in arefocusing of the R & D process in agriculture. InAfrica, Asia and Latin America FSR associationsare moving professionals out from under thespell of developed country fora, finding their feetin their own context, and helping to bring botheducation and development processes into linewith the needs of local people. It is good to beable to record progress towards these goals. Butit is important to record that these gains remainfragile and there is a danger that governments,courted by the dynamics of growth at any price,may despair of their smallholder constituenciesas an engine to achieve it.

Introduction 3

Appropriate intervention for farm improve-ment remains the heart of FSR. Experiencehas widened the portfolio of interventionsbeyond the early emphasis on technologydevelopment. Accumulating insights into thenature of the traditional agricultural sectorsof developing countries have shaped the evolu-tion of an FSR process for their successfuldevelopment and deployment. The earlyinsights included:

Recognition that vast numbers of smallfarms dominate agricultural sectors in manydeveloping countries under widely diversecircumstances.

Recognition that on one small farm, a majorimprovement of productivity, even 100%, isa small absolute benefit, and costs of achiev-ing it must be low.

Recognition that appropriately qualifiedagricultural professionals are an extremelyscarce resource.

The scope of FSR and the strategy for promotionand institutionalization, perhaps the funda-mental issues of FSR, are revisited in the finalchapter. I hope this book will provide a founda-tion on which a second, or now perhaps a third,generation of farm systems practitioners canbuild.

4 Chapter 1

REFERENCES

1. Merrill-Sands, D., 1986. Farming systems research: clarification of terms and concepts. ExperimentalAgriculture, 22, 87104.Simmonds, N.W., 1985. Farming Systems Research a Review. World Bank Technical Paper no. 43.World Bank, Washington D.C.

2. Penning de Vries, F., P. Teng, & K. Metselaar (Eds), 1993. Systems Approaches for AgriculturalDevelopment. Kluwer, Dordrecht, and IRRI, Los Baos, Philippines.Dent, J.B & M.J. Macgregor (Eds), 1994. Rural and Farming Systems Analysis European Perspectives.CAB International, UK.CIRAD, 1996. Systems Oriented Research in Agriculture and Rural Development. Lectures and Debatesfrom an International Symposium, Montpellier, France. CIRAD-SAR, Montpellier.

Part I

FSR Understanding Farmers and Their Farming

EDITORIAL INTRODUCTIONMike Collinson

In my general introduction in Chapter 1, I skirted the historical controversy on terminology by dis-tinguishing the process of farming systems research (FSR) from its applications in technologydevelopment, in extension, and in policy formulation. Part I of the book, in two chapters, deals withthe development of the FSR process in its role of understanding farming systems.

THE CONTRIBUTIONS

Chapter 2 features personal accounts by fiveold dogs of the experiences which drew theminto the development and promotion of FSR inthe late 1960s and early 1970s. They recapturethe insights which convinced them that FSRcould improve the relevance of conventionalagricultural research to the situation of count-less small farmers in the developing world. Thecontributions vary from personal, even anecdo-tal, to semi-formal. Each offers lessons andmany of the issues raised from the 1960s and1970s remain issues today.

The contributions are from German Escobar,working in Latin America, Pete Hildebrand incentral America, Dick Harwood in south-eastAsia, David Norman in west Africa, and myself ineast Africa. German, David and myself are farmeconomists, with Dick the only thoroughbredagronomist. I have to mark Pete down as hybrid;an agricultural economist by training, much ofhis best known work has been in the analysis ofstability in biophysical parameters important tofarmers. Some of the most telling points made inChapter 2 are listed in Box I.1, all arise in morethan one account, and some arise in all five.

Even in the early days linkages were impor-tant and some of these commonalities can beattributed to the interactions that occurredacross continents. German Escobar mentionsthe influence of Hans Ruthenburg1, anotherold dog, and both he and Dick Harwoodacknowledge the value of interacting withDavid Norman in formulating an approach to

the problem of non-adoption by small farmers.Yet much was clearly spontaneous. All five olddogs overlapped in the timing of their conver-sions to FSR, all were focused firmly on thesmall resource-poor farmer and agriculturaltechnology. It is as though the bones of theprocess were buried around the world but weredug up by the old dogs from one continent tothe other, sometimes in a different sequence.

Chapter 3 also has five contributions. Theseaddress the conceptual framework and fouraspects of methodology I judged as central to anin-depth understanding of farm systems: typol-ogy or characterization, diagnostic methods,gender analysis as a neglected dimension ofdiagnostics, and the crucial step from problemidentification to an understanding of thecauses. Robert Hart analyses the evolution ofthe conceptual framework for FSR. My contri-bution on typologies highlights how new meth-ods for reconciling physical and humanattributes are contributing to a revolution intypologies for agricultural development. JohnFarrington reviews the evolution of diagnosticmethods and asks how far farmer participatoryresearch (FPR), as a less extractive, more colle-gial approach, is a development of FSR or analternative to it. Hilary Feldstein describes thegradual acceptance of gender analysis, a diag-nostic method to capture the understanding ofgender roles in the household and on the farm.Finally, Robert Tripp, a colleague with the eco-nomics staff of the International Maize andWheat Improvement Center (CIMMYT) in the1970s and 1980s, delves into causal analysis, a

CAB International 2000. A History of Farming 5Systems Research (ed. M. Collinson)

step in the diagnostic process to help ensurethat on-farm experimentation, the most expen-sive step in the on-farm research (OFR)sequence, is attacking the most relevant issuesin the most appropriate way.

None of the contributions here is a manualon how to do it, there are plenty of these. Eachis a commentary on the evolution of ideas inthese defined areas of the FSR process, aimedtowards the understanding and improvement ofsmall-farmers systems.

A COMMENTARY

Perhaps the most telling change over time is theshift from the farm system per se as a framework,to a hierarchy of systems within which the farm-ing system is one of a number of levels, a changepioneered by Robert Hart2. In his contributionhere he uses communities and watersheds asexamples of wider systems in a hierarchy.

One important consequence of the widerframework is the diversity of perspectivesembraced. Decision makers at all levels in thehierarchy have different views on a given issue,shaped by their varied roles: communities maytake a different view from individual farmers onthose on-farm activities with impacts beyondthe farm boundaries externalities in the econ-omists jargon. Policy makers need to reconcilethe perspectives of many such communitieswhile pursuing aggregated interests at the localor national government levels. The diversity ofperspectives is synonymous with the concept of

multiple stakeholders. It illustrates why FSR hasmoved from formal to informal farmer surveys,to embrace farmer participatory methods,stakeholder analysis and conflict resolution.The hierarchy of systems also responds to ear-lier criticisms of FSR, including its failure toembrace long-term sustainability and toaddress the important interaction with policy.FSR needs to reconcile the wider perspectives athigher levels of the hierarchy with the ways inwhich it helps farmers improve their welfare.Again this highlights its scope, an issue takenup in the concluding chapter of this book.

For those operationalizing such frameworksover the years the phrase the farming systemsapproach has been a valuable shorthand. Onreflection, in some circumstances, the phrasehas perhaps been counterproductive. Certainlyit has been an anathema to the ears of theresearch establishment, carrying as it does theimplication that FSR is an alternative to the tra-ditional process. In serious circles FSR hasalways been perceived as a supplement, or com-plement, to the existing process. It is clearly nosubstitute for reductionist experimentation. Yet,partly because its promotion was sometimesperceived as confrontational, its role in focusingand interpreting more formal experimentation,both on and off the research station, hasremained controversial. Insensitive promotionmay have been one of the most serious hurdlesto institutionalization. Use of the wordapproach perhaps originated in the early com-petition between agencies in promoting their

6 Part I

Box 1.1. Common insights from the early days of FSR.

The limited adoption of research recommendations by small farmers, yet their obvious skills in man-aging their environment with limited resources

Priorities in research set from a researchers perspective, based on the need to get the most out of thecommodity under local biophysical conditions

The contrasts between farming methods on research stations and on the surrounding small farms, andbetween the evaluation criteria used by researchers and by small farmers

Small farmers willingness to learn and to change, and the way they make these changes; by tryingout new ideas on a small scale and adapting these, often quite radically, to their own circumstances

Low professional/farmer ratios and the need to deal with numbers of farmers together The farming system as a basic unit for agricultural R & D The trade-off between coverage and intensity of effort, and the search for cheaper methods; qualita-

tive versus quantitative investigation to provide understanding The difficulties of interdisciplinary research and capacity building in new methods The problem of social scientists, often new, junior, recruits, criticizing the products of senior mem-

bers of the established research disciplines with which they need to collaborate The value of learning through experience

own paradigms. Although FSRs application totechnology development has four agreed stages diagnosis, design, implementation and evalu-ation there have been contrasting approachesto its operationalization and practitioners haveattempted to categorize these, as in Normanand Collinson, 19853. One illustrative contrastis between the Tropical Agricultural Center forResearch and Training (CATIE) and CIMMYT.

The CATIE approach was labelled formal,quantitative and rigorous in the early 1980s. Itwas characterized by intensive data collection,parameter measurement and computer model-ling. Analysis held all options open across thesystem and all model parameters were poten-tially variable embracing the dynamics of sys-tem evolution and the opportunities for changesin policy, and avoiding some of the criticismsmade of less sophisticated approaches. In con-trast the CIMMYT approach was labelledinformal and qualitative. This purposefully putto one side large areas of the system as itfocused in to detail on maize or wheat. It movedfrom an understanding of the climate, marketsand policies facing local farmers, through anunderstanding of farmers strategies in manag-ing their system, to analyse how the specificpractices used to manage the maize or wheatenterprises were dictated by this wider context.The CIMMYT approach was pre-focused, clos-ing down options as understanding grew ofhow maize or wheat management was shapedby its system context. The CATIE/CIMMYT com-parison also illustrates extremes in the searchfor acceptable compromise between theoreticaldesirability and operational possibility.

Characterization is an important first step inthe FSR process of description and analysis. In thecurrent literature the term characterizationoften seems to replace diagnosis, but properlyalludes only to the description, or profiling, of dis-crete units, such as the agroecology and the farmenterprise pattern. It does not, on the whole,assume an understanding of the farming system.Many development programmes are still imple-mented by administrative units, even though ithas been clear since the early 1960s that survey-ing of any sort using administrative boundaries,cannot, except serendipitously, differentiate typesof farming. Since surveying across farmingsystems confuses description and thoroughly con-founds understanding, the grouping of farmers

into types by profiles of the systems they operatetakes on particular importance. Essentially ameans of stratification, it seeks to maximizedifferences between types and minimize sourcesof variation within them. No stratification deviceis perfect and the farming system is no exception.Beyond this, important parameters such as yieldswill often express variation more strongly at thefarm rather than the farming system level, parti-cularly across systems within the same agro-ecology. From year to year these yield variationshave a major impact on the relative performanceof farmers operating the same system.

Historically, biophysically derived zones havedominated typing in agricultural R & D, mainlyin the identification of uniform zones of landand crop potential. While it is true that a rela-tively narrow set of activities offers the bestphysical potential for any area, a much widerset of economic production opportunities typi-cally exists for the area. From a purely land useperspective, the physical performance of thiswider set may be relatively poor, some may eventhreaten the integrity of the resource base.Nevertheless small farmers choose activitiesthat are economically superior from the widerset. CIMMYTs recommendation domains(RDs) of the late 1970s were a pioneering stepin defining groups of farmers for whom thesame changes would be relevant. Since thenwidening acceptance of the link betweenpoverty and environmental degradation is forc-ing further reconciliation between traditionalphysically based definitions of zones, in terms ofclimate and soil, and people-based definitions.

In diagnosis proper, the unravelling of thecomplexity of the household has been an impor-tant step towards better understanding. Whathad historically been seen as the farmer wasovertaken, as understanding improved, by theinteraction, and indeed negotiation, betweenhousehold members for access to resources andcontrol over output flows. The credit for unravel-ling this tapestry and for earning genderanalysis a place in the FSR, goes to a relativelysmall group of intrepid women who kept theireyes, and their actions, firmly on the unacknow-ledged role of their gender in traditional agricul-ture. Prominent among the group, both for theirarticulation of the issue, and persistence in itspursuit in the field, are Hilary Sims Feldstein,Janice Jiggens, Joyce Moock and Susan Poats.

FSR Understanding Farmers and Their Farming 7

Despite the increasing pervasiveness of mar-ket forces, non-market objectives putting foodon the table day in day out, with family foodpreferences more or less satisfied depending onthe vagaries of the season continue to drivemany of the actions of the majority of smallfarmers. The direct management of riskthrough the enterprise pattern and farm man-agement practices, rather than through marketinstitutions offering overdrafts, credit andinsurance, as they do to commercial farmers,dominates management strategy. Thus, even infarming systems where market access offerscash earning opportunities, subsistence andsurvival goals often take priority in the alloca-tion of family land and labour. I believe thereare still relatively few situations in the tradi-tional farm sector where market opportunitiesare so valuable that basic needs goals andstrategies are subordinated to their exploitation.Understanding the specifics of these goals andstrategies for each important farming system isthe key to identifying interventions which arevaluable to farmers, to designing relevantextension and credit programmes, and to thesensitive formulation of policy.

The search for cost-effective methods ofgaining understanding led to the developmentof rapid rural appraisal, informal surveys inwhich representative farm families and farmergroups are engaged in conversations withresearchers that are allowed to flow, oftenguided by the farmers. Initial conversations inthe process are descriptive, later ones, usuallywith other families, are analytical, seeking veri-fication of hypotheses set up from the earlierdescriptions in order to unlock family prioritiesand farmer management strategies4. The evolu-tion of diagnostic methods for FSR was accom-panied by strong professional debate at eachstage. Two social science schools emerged, thehard data modelling school, exemplified by theCATIE approach within FSR, and more broadlyby researchers using formal economic modelsor seeking to contribute to development theory.The place of modelling within FSR remains anissue and is discussed further below. The scien-tific credibility of the informal approach whichemerged in FSR was questioned by natural sci-entists in agricultural research institutions.Battle was engaged between natural scientistscritical of the qualitative research methods, and

FSR practitioners horrified by the preoccupa-tion with precision and apparent unconcern forrelevance in agricultural research. Qualitativeunderstanding has been legitimized by systemswriters5. Further, occasional rigorous compar-isons of results from informal and formal sur-vey work showed no significant distortions ofreality from an informal approach6.

Bridging the gap between diagnosis andaction has long been acknowledged as aweakness both in FSR and in FPR. CliveLightfoot (Chapter 11.5) has termed it the sowhat syndrome we have an insightfuldescription of local farming, but where do we gofrom here? I regard causal analysis as anotherof the key contributions from the InternationalAgricultural Research Centres (IARCs). Thiscame from a collaboration between the CIM-MYT economics team of the 1980s and CIATagronomists7. It is a technique to carry theprocess from the diagnosis of problems to theidentification of solutions, in a sense, the ful-crum of OFR. It may involve experimentationby natural scientists to determine physicalcauses, or research by social scientists to iden-tify economic and cultural ones. In his contri-bution Robert Tripp also distinguishesproximate and ultimate causes, and, whilewarning against pursuing the causal chain adinfinitum, brings out the value of understandinga number of links to multiply the strategies andoptions for solution. It is a technique which Ibelieve has taken its place among the best prac-tices of contemporary diagnosis in FSR.

CONCLUSIONS

The better understanding of farming systemshas both improved old paths for farm improve-ment and identified new ones:

Shaping new technologies to the culturalcircumstances and resource constraints ofthe existing farming system.

Creating a better understanding of develop-ment dynamics, particularly the watershedbetween increasing the area cultivated andyield intensification as land scarcity grows,and the benefits of wider market accessallow greater relevance in interventions.

Reinforcing farmers own strategies for man-aging uncertainty and raising productivity.

8 Part I

Seeking greater flexibility of action for farm-ers in the face of climatic and market uncer-tainty.

Looking beyond the system itself to thosefactors influencing farmers decisions abouttheir system. Breaking resource constraintsby action off the farm, at a higher level inthe hierarchy.

Revising community or policy decisions tochange farmers incentives and encouragepractices that reduce resource degradation.New institutional orientations can be particu-larly effective where degrading practices are aresponse to market and price uncertainty.

Developing strategies for the introduction ofnew market production opportunities.

Three issues persist with the process for under-standing small-farm systems. The first, muchthe most threatening, is superficial diagnosis.Continuing weakness in current diagnosticpractice jeopardizes the credibility of theprocess and inhibits its mobilization in develop-ing country institutions. Superficial diagnosis isalso closely related to the second issue; whethersound systems understanding adds value in thediagnostic process over and above collegialfarmer participation. Both this and the value ofquantitative models in FSR are questions cloud-ing a conclusion on best practice.

Superficial diagnosis

In the early days of FSR some agronomistsmoving off-station into on-farm experimenta-tion simply brought their old programme of sta-tion-based experiments with them, ignoringdiagnosis. Diagnosis was also often decried byextension and development professionals whoinsisted that they knew all there was to knowabout their farmers. It is a tendency which haspersisted and one which is encouraged bysuperficial problem identification from FSRteams; low yields, poor soil fertility or cropdisease are scarcely insightful. Poor training,partly a result of the rush to climb aboard theFSR bandwagon or perhaps gravy train ofthe early 1980s, has been responsible and thefact that there are still relatively few profession-als aware of what qualitative diagnosis can pro-vide is a reflection of the slow pace of change inuniversity curricula. Good diagnosis depends ona sound grasp of the principles of agronomy,

production economics and farm management,and on disciplinary interaction.

It is worth looking briefly at the sort ofinsights which emerge from good diagnosis.Examination of background information on cli-mate and soils, markets and institutions is anessential basis. It builds up an understanding ofwhat local farmers must manage, and helpsidentify the facets of the farmers environmentthat create problems. Risk management plays alarge role in resource-poor farmers decisionsand is a key area for diagnosis. A good exampleis within season rainfall variability in drylandagriculture. In southern Zimbabwe, CIMMYTcollated rainfall data for a 30-year period bypentads8. Analysis identified three patterns ofwithin season drought: some 30% of yearsshowed a significant delay in the onset of rains,some 30% showed an early finish, and some40% a 3-week mid-season drought occurringanytime within the 3-month period from earlyDecember to the end of February. Some yearsshowed more than one type of drought, othersshowed none.

The main starch staple for the system wasmaize. The analysis of rainfall data provided asound basis for discussion with farmers on howthey managed the uncertainties these patternscreated. Losses from drought were a well under-stood risk in local farming and farmersresponses on the occurrence of the three typesof drought were related back to the rainfall datafor verification. Farmers reported making aseries of two, three, four or more plantings overthe period November to February, increasingthe chances that one or more plantings wouldnot be caught by drought in a critical period ofgrowth. Later plantings were made with earlymaturing varieties. Those early plantings criti-cally damaged by delayed onset, or by early mid-season drought, were replanted with earliermaturing material. These demonstrate bothpre-emptive and reactive risk managementstrategies. Farmers routinely make severalplantings with maizes of differing maturityperiod in anticipation of drought. Replanting,on the other hand, is a reaction to droughtoccurrence. These strategies benefited from thepolicy of government purchase of maize at afixed price, common to many African countriesuntil the late 1980s. Farmers could not over-produce maize, it was a winwin situation for

FSR Understanding Farmers and Their Farming 9

them. Strengthening their strategies fordrought management in maize, both pre-emp-tive and reactive, offered an important focus foran improvement programme, an importanceenhanced by the opening of markets understructural adjustment initiatives.

A vital thread running through the diagnos-tic process is the interaction between biologicaland social scientists. Interdisciplinarity is wellestablished between breeders, pathologists,physiologists and agronomists in classic agri-cultural research the new element in FSR isthe social scientist. One early rendering of theinteraction ran like this:

The biologist brings to the diagnostic process a per-ception of the ideal technical management forcrops in the conditions of climate and soil underwhich farmers are operating. The social scientistbrings an understanding of farmers priorities andthe constraints operating on them, limiting theways in which they can adjust their management.The biologist evaluates the background informa-tion on natural conditions to assess crop potentialand management practices likely to be important.The social scientist evaluates background informa-tion on economic, cultural and institutional condi-tions. The biologist learns about farmermanagement practices and identifies changeswhich would better exploit biological potential. Theeconomist learns why farmers are doing things theway they are and identifies when resources areavailable and when limiting. In interpreting thesurvey work the biologist puts forward idealchanges from a technical point of view and esti-mates the likely improvement in yield. The socialscientist assesses their possible profitability andtheir compatibility with the ways farmers currentlyallocate their resources to realise family priorities9.

Although they remain offstage here, interac-tion with farmers is central to the process.

Participation versus systems understanding

Public attention and much funding has shiftedfrom FSR to participatory research in whichfarmers are seen as full, indeed dominant part-ners. Most of us follow Robert Chambers inadvocating empowerment for small-scale farm-ers10. Empowerment, however, has an affinitywith community development. Both conceptsare abstract and require operational goals andprocesses beyond themselves for their imple-mentation. Technology generation includes just

such a process and was adopted as one vehiclefor implementing the participatory concept.FSR best practice has absorbed many methodsfrom the participation portfolio. However, at theextreme it can be argued that much of theprocess adopted as a vehicle for empowermentby participators has been usurped by them.There is an insistence that farmers and commu-nities make the decisions and that agencies ser-vice these. Like early FSR this seems to neglectthe need to reconcile local, national and indeedglobal interests. It also seems, rather like theextreme advocates of indigenous knowledge, todeny that outside knowledge will have a keypart to play in providing sustainable livelihoods.Recently cracks have appeared between rhetoricand reality in participation. Some were high-lighted by Rhoades in 1998: the social scientistwho attempts to raise analytical points aboutstratification, differential access to power andresources, and other social shaping dynamicsare accused of being top-down and then aremarginalised by turf guarding NGOs11. It is anissue to which we return in further editorialsand in the final chapter.

Quantitative modelling as a diagnostic tool

Although the value of qualitative understand-ing is now widely accepted, modellers continueto press their case for the use of quantitativesocioeconomic models within an FSR context.Against my own history of moving away fromquantitative to informal surveys to reduce costsand gain coverage in terms of the systemsresearched for a given tranche of manpowerand budget, this almost seems sacrilegious.Modelling apart, experience shows there are anumber of valuable roles that hard data canplay; verification of informal survey conclu-sions, including quantification of the incidenceof farmer priorities and strategies across thepopulation. Evidence of impact is valuable, eventhe simple recording of adopters over time.However, as Roberto Quiroz and his colleaguesdemonstrate in Chapter 11.3, and as Dent andothers have long argued, models can make avaluable contribution to understanding, partic-ularly in ex ante evaluation of the impact ofinterventions on the existing system. Questionsinevitably arise: can modelling be reconciledwith a low cost approach to small-farm

10 Part I

improvement still necessary in many develop-ing countries where professional manpowerremains limited? With what specifications ofobjective function does formal modellingimprove on a sound qualitative understandingof the system? Is the degree of improvementworth the extra cost and effort of intensive datacollection?

My own conclusion is that the application ofquantitative modelling has advanced a greatdeal since the 1970s, particularly in the ease ofanalysis. The data requirements, however,remain heavy and expensive for local applicationin an FSR context where professional manpoweris scarce and budgets low. Also, for those small-farm systems still dominated by subsistence pro-duction, representation of the objective functionremains weak. For me it is too hands off and

has too many pitfalls to advocate its incorpora-tion in routine FSR diagnosis. That said, it isimportant to recall that many early practitionershad a farming systems perspective imbuedthrough an involvement in socioeconomic mod-elling. The important problem of superficialdiagnosis in current FSR practice suggests mod-elling might have a valuable role in training. Asestablishments mature, the idea of using thestaff deployed in the field for experimentation tocollect the detailed data for modelling is attrac-tive. The goal might be a portfolio of models formajor farming systems for training in both farmimprovement and policy analysis, and for policyanalysis itself. There is a good case for universi-ties developing and using locally relevant modelsto ingrain a farming systems perspective intotheir agricultural students.

FSR Understanding Farmers and Their Farming 11

REFERENCES

1. Ruthenburg, H., 1980. Farming Systems in the Tropics, 3rd edn. OUP, Oxford.2. Hart, R.D., 1982. An ecological conceptual framework for agricultural research and development. In:

Shaner, W.W., Phillipp, P.F. & Schmehl, W.R. (Eds) Readings in Farming Systems Research andDevelopment. Westview Press, Boulder, Colorado, pp. 4458.

3. Norman, D. & M. Collinson, 1985. Farming systems approach to research in theory and practice. In:Remenyi, J.V. (Ed.) Agricultural Systems Research for Developing Countries. ACIAR, Canberra.

4. Collinson, M., 1974. Transferring technology to developing economies: the example of applying farmmanagement economics in traditional African agriculture. World Development, 2(2), 937.Hildebrand, P., 1976. Generating technology for traditional farmers: a multidisciplinary methodology.ICTA, Guatemala City.Rhoades, R., 1981. The Art of the Informal Agricultural Survey. Training Doc. 19822, Social ScienceDepartment, CIP, Lima.

5. Checkland, P.B., 1981. Systems Thinking, Systems Practice. John Wiley, Chichester.6. Franzel, S. & E. Crawford, 1987. Comparing formal and informal survey techniques for farming sys-

tems research: a case-study from Kenya. Agricultural Administration and Extension, 27, 1333.7. Tripp, R. & J. Woolley, 1989. The Planning Stage of On-Farm Research. Identifying Factors for

Experimentation. CIMMYT and CIAT, Mexico, D.F. and Cali.8. CIMMYT & Government of Zimbabwe, 1981. Report no. 5. Demonstrations of an Interdisciplinary

Approach to Planning Adaptive Agricultural Research Programmes. CIMMYT, Nairobi.9. Collinson, M., 1981. A low cost approach to understanding small farmers. Agricultural Administration,

8, 43350.10. Chambers, R., 1994. The origin and practice of Participatory Rural Appraisal. World Development, 22

(7), 95369.11. Rhoades, R., 1998. Participatory Watershed Research and Management; Where the Shadow Falls.

Gatekeeper series no. 81. IIED, London.

Chapter 2

FSR: Origins and Perspectives

2.1 MY INITIATION INTO FSR IN LATIN AMERICAGerman Escobar

Neglect of the peasant sector brought an emphasis on the use of FSR methods in the field by organizationswith a social conscience. As a young professional 22 years old, as you can imagine, I found the opportunityto share my theoretical training and political ideas with very small farmers living in poor conditions verystimulating.

2.1.1 Introduction

The introduction of the farming systemresearch (FSR) approach in Latin America andthe Caribbean (LAC) was not an organized,monolithic event, but a rather haphazard,serendipitous process. It was introduced as apart of a rural development effort to reach atarget population of small farmers who weretraditionally neglected by the agriculturalresearch system. The initial elements used wereon-farm experiments rather than formal sys-tems approaches, and most projects were imple-mented by agricultural researchers trained intraditional disciplinary methods with no knowl-edge of systems theory. FSR began in a range ofresearch and rural development projects withinexisting institutions, and these, like the man-power, were organized to operate the more tra-ditional approach. These institutions pursuedthe conventional process; field research activi-ties were identified and designed by seniorresearchers working on an experiment station.Extension agents provided small farmers withtechnical recommendations based on nation-wide research results which, in the best sce-nario, included a trial from the local region.

It can rightly be claimed that FSR in LAC ischaracterized by heterogeneity in its applica-tion, its methodology and its institutional con-

text. The initial introductions of FSR were con-centrated in the Puebla project in Mexico, theCaqueza project in Colombia and at the TropicalAgricultural Center for Research and Training(CATIE) in Guatemala. I was fortunate enoughto have personal experience in each of thesethree: I was a young professional in the forma-tion of the Caqueza team and went to thePuebla project for in-service training. Later, fol-lowing the Caqueza project and graduate work,I moved to CATIE which was assembling astrong team of systems researchers. This paperis a personal interpretation of the initial devel-opment of an FSR approach in Latin Americaand it is a difficult task for a practitioner used towriting up experiences in the most formal waypossible; a defensive strategy adopted to pre-empt the permanent criticism from biologicalresearchers of the lack of science in FSR appli-cations!

The political context of development in LatinAmerican countries played a strong role in howFSR was introduced. Neglect of the peasant sec-tor brought an emphasis on the use of FSRmethods in the field by organizations with asocial conscience. As a young professional 22years old, I found the opportunity to share mytheoretical training and political ideas with verysmall farmers living in poor conditions verystimulating. In those early days of the 1970s,

CAB International 2000. A History of Farming 13Systems Research (ed. M. Collinson)

FSR relied on readily available methods andthere was limited interest in conceptualizationor the evolution of theory. Some description ofthe political context is important to understandthe fragmented and ad hoc emergence of FSR,followed by an account of some of the experi-ences in the three projects which made animpression on me. Finally, some comment onthe evolution of the FSR concept and itsmethodology is offered. This is perhaps the mostdifficult part, since the rapid evolution of theconcept often contradicts the interpretation ayoung technician made some 25 years ago.

2.1.2 The context of agriculturalresearch in LAC

Although FSR became a phenomenon in theearly 1970s, changes in the LAC agriculturalsector during the 1960s influenced its applica-tion. The national agricultural research insti-tutes (NARI) established in the 1960sinternalized a strong influence from the USAland grant system through technicians trainedin the USA and in research cooperative pro-grammes supported by the USA in Mexico andColombia in the 1950s1. Agricultural researchwas disciplinary and crop-oriented, and itsinstitutions were designed to operate throughresearch stations. From the beginning, prioritieswere set from the supply side, mainly inresponse to the import substitution policies ofgovernments and the scientific interest ofresearchers. The publicized success of the GreenRevolution supported by the InternationalAgricultural Research Centres (IARCs) rein-forced this traditional approach.

In the 1960s the contribution of agriculturalproducts to the gross national product (GNP)and the increasing importance of the multilat-eral agencies made agricultural research animportant area for national policy. These policieswere driven by the need to produce cheap foodfor the urban and industrial sectors and supportservices such as agricultural credit, marketingand some physical infrastructure, were strength-ened to complement agricultural research andextension. During the 1960s land reform andagricultural development projects, implementedin most LAC countries, highlighted the gapbetween USA agriculture and LAC, on the onehand, and the traditional small-farmer subsector

and the commercial subsector on the other.Strengthening the extension services and theNARIs with the collaboration of the interna-tional community was not sufficient to closethese gaps. NARIs did reinforce their research onrural issues that were known to influence pro-duction and technical change among farmers.Programmes such as agricultural economics,communications, adult education, social organi-zation and home economics were incorporatedinto their structure. This required the skills ofsocial scientists and other growing professionsthat could contribute new information aboutfarm organization, farm production strategies,land tenure and related issues, farmers organi-zations, their priorities and values, their commu-nication systems and their off-farm activities.This new information improved the analyticalcapacity of NARIs, while better definition of thetarget population improved their responses.

Both land reform and agricultural develop-ment projects put extensionists and someresearchers in the field with farmers. The orga-nization of these projects brought together, per-haps for the first time in LAC, most of theavailable agricultural support services as well astechnical teams from different institutions anddisciplines. Though it could not be hailed as acoordinated effort, technicians in this workingenvironment vigorously identified with thesmall producers, land reform beneficiaries andsettlers. With hindsight it was probably a keystep in transforming research to reach smallfarmers. At the same time, new information onfarmers production strategies, technical prac-tices, the social organization of production andlocal markets brought new evidence of the pro-ductivity gap and the missing link between agri-cultural research results and the capacity ofthis traditional subsector to assimilate and uti-lize technical information.

The influence of multilateral agencies wasmore evident on the design and implementationof the Integrated Rural Development (IRD) pro-jects initiated at the end of the 1960s. Thesewere specifically aimed at improving productionand living conditions of small traditional farmersthrough agencies and policies designed to helpthe consolidation of the industrial sector. In anumber of countries these IRDs were importantcomponents of national development policy, andin some cases, as in Brazil, Colombia, Ecuador,

14 Chapter 2

Honduras and Mexico, this lasted until the mid1980s. Most IRD schemes posted interdiscipli-nary technical teams in the field as well as sup-port institutions. Although rural developmentcomponents other than technical change wereconsidered important, increasing agriculturalproduction and productivity usually became thecentral focus, supported by credit programmeswhich were redesigned for this purpose.Implementation increased the evidence of thelimited use of the existing technology in the pro-duction conditions of small farmers.

These donor-supported projects provided acontext which allowed a number of techniciansto question the capacity of research institutionsto generate technical recommendations for thistarget population. Conceptually, the rationalityand efficiency of small farmers were alreadydemonstrated2. Pragmatically, the rejection oftechnical recommendations by small producerswas a daily reality for the field teams. Somebegan to test different arrangements of knowntechnological packages at the farm level, some-times maintaining practices and componentsalready used by producers3.

The pioneer work in the late 1960s and theearly 1970s in Mexico, Colombia and CentralAmerica was pragmatic; standard researchdesigns, farm trials and biophysical analyseswere utilized. In response to national policies,staple foods (grains) were preferred to high rev-enue crops. Farmers crops were taken as thebasis for designing technological alternativesand the emphasis was on providing support ser-vices, particularly agricultural credit. Fieldteams were formed in most cases by young tech-nicians with no experience. Expatriate technicaladvisors were often involved and the rigid insti-tutional organization was not changed.

2.1.3 Initial FSR applications

Puebla, MexicoMost LAC practitioners recognize the PueblaProject in Mexico created in 1967 as the firstagricultural research activity closely related tofarmers production patterns. Although theexamples of Borgo-a-Mozano, the ComillaProject and the Intensive Agricultural DistrictsProgram in India were known, Puebla intro-duced the on-farm adaptation of productiontechnology developed at experiment stations

which considered farmers cultural and capitallimitations to adoption. The project wasdesigned and technically supported by CIM-MYT, the International Maize and WheatImprovement Center, in partnership with theChapingo Graduate School.

Caqueza, ColombiaIn 1970, the Colombian Agricultural ResearchInstitute (ICA) initiated the Caqueza projectwith the collaboration of the InternationalDevelopment Research Center of Canada(IDRC)4. The field team of the project wasformed by young technicians: agronomists, aveterinarian, a sociologist, a home economist,two advisors from IDRC and a number of fieldassistants trained at the intermediate level.Activities related to on-farm research, exten-sion, planning and evaluation were establishedfrom the beginning. Some researchers fromexperiment stations, graduate and undergradu-ate students, foreign volunteers and some con-sultants carried out research activities in theproject, producing over 100 publications in thefirst 6 years.

Recruited as a team member, I wasinstructed to go to the field and get the regiondeveloped. This missionary approach reflectedtwo key problems. First, senior managers hadno clear idea of the type of project they wanted.Second, the integration of traditionalresearchers in the projects field activities wasnot systematically organized and became amajor difficulty. Several efforts were made bysenior project managers to plan joint researchin the field, but these were weakly implementedthroughout the first 10 years of the project. Theplans for senior researchers to assist the techni-cal team were never realized, and indeed theseresearchers became critical of the validity ofon-farm research. I was sent for in-servicetraining to the Puebla Project in Mexico whichwas very effective in providing training for anumber of young technicians from differentcountries. The Puebla approach and its compo-nents were extrapolated to many other projects,including on-farm technology trials and theanalytical research orientation through stu-dents and university faculty members. Thetraining instilled a much stronger conceptualframework for subsequent activities in on-farmresearch in Caqueza.

FSR: Origins and Perspectives 15

Institutionally, in Caqueza, the major preoc-cupation was to provide the capacity to adapttechnology tested in experiment stations tofarmers circumstances and to obtain highadoption rates among direct beneficiaries.Despite the great efforts made by some mem-bers of the team to develop a framework for theentire project, the farming systems concept wasnever explicit. However, terms such as multiplecropping, on-farm research, multidisciplinaryteams, farmers constraints, farm types, farmproduction components and the understandingof the farm as a decision unit were all used inthe implementation of the project. Most LatinAmerican practitioners at that time wrote forfield colleagues, but their writings were notreviewed by their peers, formally published ortranslated into other languages. Conceptualcontributions to FSR began to be made onlyafter some years of field experience5. In the mid1970s Richard Harwoods writing on his expe-rience in Asia, and David Normans on his timein Africa, offered useful frameworks whichwere, in turn, complemented by learning fromother applications in Latin America6.

The concepts of team and institution, theinstitutional challenges and the strong identi-fication with small farmers were, in my view,the key motivations for the small group ofyoung technicians that began their profes-sional activities in the Caqueza Project. Thelevel of involvement of every one was remark-able, substituting for the conceptual elabora-tion and development theory unavailable tothem. The possibility of constructing a differ-ent institutional model, the open-ended oppor-tunity to learn about small farmers, the searchfor solutions to real problems, alternative insti-tutional instruments and, above all, appliedresearch methods, were powerful reasons tomaintain the professional interest and themotivation required to initiate a long explo-ration of the application of FSR to agriculturaldevelopment.

It has to be said that the socioeconomicdimension still lacked methodological integrity.More than a year was needed to complete aregional diagnostic that made little contribu-tion to the understanding of farmers produc-tion strategies. Indeed, a number of on-farmexperiments were concluded and an extensionstrategy was in place before the results of diag-

nosis were available to the technical team.Technical integration between biology andsocial technicians was a difficult process. Acommon view of the project was shared by allteam members but different working methodsin the field caused important discrepancies.These differences frequently discriminatedagainst social research and, in some cases,resulted in personal conflicts.

One important result of the Caqueza Projectwas the recognition of the need to adapt institu-tions to the circumstances of small farmers. Theproject generated the so-called buffer institu-tions as pilot institutional programmes to facili-tate adoption of recommended technology, andsome changes to institutional services wereintroduced when the IRD projects and, someyears later, the national fund to support ruraldevelopment activities, were put in place.

While I attended graduate school in the mid1970s I became better acquainted with the liter-ature. There were still very few publications clas-sified under FSR but it was a great opportunityto make sense of theory, working approachesand farmers reality. It confirmed the need todevelop methods and institutional arrange-ments to respond to farmers real conditions.

CATIE, Costa RicaIn the early 1970s, CATIE initiated on-farmresearch programmes that evolved into majorapplications of the systems approach with thesupport of the United States Agency forInternational Development (USAID) and largelythrough the influence of Richard Bradfield.These efforts lasted more than 10 years andinfluenced most research programmes at CATIEand a number of institutions, researchers andgraduate students in Central America.

My work with the team at CATIE was thethird major influence in drawing me into advo-cacy for FSR. The CATIE technical team was wellqualified and equipped. It was formed by well-trained agronomists, animal scientists, agricul-tural economists and ecologists with a supportteam for biostatistical data processing. A num-ber of papers, training materials and MSc theseswere published both internally and externally. Incomparative terms, CATIE publications com-bined empirical experiences with conceptualdevelopment and constituted the state of the arton the application of FSR in Latin America in

16 Chapter 2

the early 1980s. A peculiarity of the early CATIEFSR team was the decision to work indepen-dently from the ideas developed at Puebla and inGuatemala. Strong personal attitudes dictatedthe approach developed. It did not incorporatethe Guatemalan sondeo approach, or the ideasof farmer organization and the provision of sup-port services. Since CATIE is mandated forresearch and training only, extension, technol-ogy transfer and institutional adaptation werevirtually absent from the CATIE work schedule.The first exchange of concepts and some experi-ence from El Salvador led to the design of a bigcentral experiment, testing numerous interac-tions and different topological arrangements, atTurrialba station. This generated a number ofnovel ideas among the research team but was socomplex that analysis of the experiment wasnever completed!

After a team member visited the InternationalRice Research Institute (IRRI), the conceptualframework being used there by Harwood andZandstra was introduced into a regional projectthat CATIE developed in Central America. Basicsystem concepts were applied to agriculturaldevelopment, allowing the construction of asystematic body for teaching and training pur-poses7. This conceptual base brought about thedevelopment of different methodological phasesfor applying the systems approach on the field:area selection, diagnosis or characterization,technological alternatives, design, on-farmresearch, validation and dissemination, includ-ing a feedback mechanism to generate results.In every case field work was initiated as anempirical test of a conceptual elaboration8. Theimprovement of production systems based onfarmers practices captured most design efforts,the programme included better understandingof the biophysical relations among plant, soil,water and crop management. Later on, agro-forestry practices for resource conservation andrationalization were developed and added astechnological alternatives for improving farm-ers production systems.

Economic and social analysis became an inte-gral part of the CATIE approach. The economicanalysis of agronomic trials introduced by CIM-MYT was complemented with a range of analyti-cal tools, putting emphases on two aspects:

Farmers constraints due to both farm andoff-farm circumstances.

The impact on farm activities as a whole andthe adoption possibilities.

These analyses were useful to understand theproduction system as a decision unit. The appli-cation of discrete and linear programmingmodels to agroecosystem analyses helped tech-nicians and students understand the basic eco-nomic relationships involved in farmingsystems.

2.1.4 Early evolution of the FSR approach

Since CATIE has a regional mandate, a numberof institutions in almost every country wereinvolved in the application of FSR as well as inthe development of methodology. A consider-able number of technicians were trained onthose concepts and their application, togetherwith students from South America. Projectsfollowing the systems approach were alsoimplemented in a number of countries, influ-enced by either these pioneer examples or bydonors that adopted the approach for the devel-opment of small farming areas in LatinAmerica. Such projects were found for examplein Ecuador, Honduras, El Salvador, Bolivia,Peru and Brazil. Thus the initiation of the FSRapplication in LAC was extremely dynamic andvolatile. Changes in the development process,multiple applications to different conditions,the involvement of the scientific communityand a vigorous exchange of information con-tributed to rapid evolution in the first 10 to 15years. These early changes can be summarizedin four points:

Wider options to be considered in the designof technological alternatives for a farmingsystem.

The adaptation of some research and exten-sion programmes to the FSR approach andthe movement of a number of researchersoff the experiment station.

The introduction of socioeconomic analysesto consider the complete farm as the focusw