Take it To the Farmer
Take it To the Farmer
Impetus
• Widespread acknowledgment that, worldwide, there are:– varieties (seeds);– cropping practices;– machinery / devices / technologies; – market/other information
Which farmers can use now to:– increase yields;– combat disease, drought, climate variability, reduced inputs, and other
challenges;– limit other risks to their incomes and livelihoods
Alternatives ?
“Offer To The Farmer”
“Work With The Farmer”
“Let The Farmer Decide”
‘Answers’ developed with farmers. Not top-down. TTF is a movement which requires, on the part of partners:
Humility Respect Openness
Creativity Determination
Key Components• Working WITH farmers
– iterative process of showing farmers technology, learning from them, improving / modifying the technology, showing again, etc.
• Regional – countries have different agroeconomic / climatic zones
• Hubs– regional nodes in a network hub.pptx
– (partly) replicable Replic.pptx
• Supporting Communications• Systems approach
– different crops, different agronomic practices, different approaches to mechanization, different cost structures
• Impact driven– easily quantifiable impacts, many in $ terms
TTF
TTF success will depend on
commitment to success by CIMMYT and other TTF collaborators
and joint commitment to TTF principles.
TTF => TTF Mex as part of MasAgro
Worldwide
Latin America
Mexico
The MasAgro initiative
Basic research
Long and mid term impacts
Applied research
Field level impact
Short and mid term impacts
1. TTF
3. WYC 2. IMIC
4. SeeD
Worldwide
Latin America
Mexico
The MasAgro initiative
Basic research
Long and mid term impacts
Applied research
Field level impact
Short and mid term impacts
1. TTF
3. WYC 2. IMIC
4. SeeD
Agroindustria & Agricultores
Dominican Republic
Panama
Peru
Nicaragua
BrazilEcuador
Costa Rica
Chile
Guatemala
México
Argentina LACBolivia
ParaguayVenezuela
HondurasColombia
El Salvador
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0
Tasa d
e c
recim
ien
to d
el P
IB a
grí
cola
(1
99
7-2
00
1)
(%)
Gasto Público en Agricultura como % del PIB, promedio 1997-2001e.
Source: Valdes, 2008a, “Agricultural Public Spending: Description and Assessment Relevant to Latin America,” using FAO, 2005b, “Base de Datos de estadísticas e indicadores del gasto publico agrícola y rural (GPAGRURAL), Oficina regional para American Latina y el Caribe, Santiago. Agricultural GDP growth rates are based on World Development Indicators Database, World Bank.
Zero vs. Conventional
ZT CT
Govaerts et al., 2005
Conservation Agriculture
• Comprises three basic components Soil surface cover => rational Minimal soil movement Crop rotation => economical
Varieties
Sensor technology
• Research platform• Trial with long term perspective• Clear controlled differences between treatments• Development of component technologies (Fertilizers, weed control, …)• Training centre for technicians• First contact and working example for farmers
• 1 farmer trainer – 1 technician• To work together with the farmer• Meeting point for all actors• Central knowledge center• Anchor point• Sears of the field • The expert at farmers level• Ownership • Feeding back
Technician
1 Farmer trainer
Transfer of knowledge
Observing the processGenerating the socio-economic infoSoilsTargeted extension materials
Technical training
Com
mer
cial S
ervic
es
19
20
Machinery
Breeding Precision agriculture
Input dealersPost harvest technologies
Research institutions
The hub concept• benchmark sites for research on the impacts
of CA • focal point for regional (agro-ecological)
capacity-building and scaling out of research and innovation systems
• regional CA networks are established to facilitate and foment research and extension of CA innovation systems and technologies
• example of the functionality of CA systems
• structure to work together with partners including farmers – to test various best-bet technology options with
farmers– to integrate these options to improve farm level
economics and family well-being– to provide a demonstration platform to extend
these technologies to surrounding farmers– to provide a training/demonstration platform to
bring together all actors from other areas with similar production systems and conditions
– to provide a platform to do relevant research– To integrate the production chain around
common objective
Interventions
• Socio-economic evaluations to optimize the value chain
• Varieties• Conservation agriculture based cropping
systems• Fertility management• Post Harvest technologies• Capacity building
Impacts
• Farmer leaders that are the center of a productive and integrated chain for a sustainab;e development of Mexican agriculture. – High and stable yields– Least impact on the environment– Highest income for the farmer.
• How to evaluate the impacts– Economic model– Conservation Earth
Valles Altos 2010• ASGROW• INIFAP• FIRA• Fundación Estado de México• Fundación Produce DF• Gobierno Estatal de Puebla• Talleres de maquinaria• Impulsora Agrícola• UACh, UAM, UAEMex, CINVESTAV, ITSOE• SAGARPA Federal y oficinas Estatales• Asociaciones de productores• MasAgro
Plataform
A platform
Farmer practices Proposed BBT Option:What should not be done
Flexible CA area
Platforms
• Will be evaluated– Interdisciplinary– Training
Modules
Modules
• Should have a connection (two way) with a platform
• Extension area recognizes the module and is connected to it
Capacity building
Targeted communication• Diferentes públicos cautivos
– Agricultor innovador– Técnicos – Agricultores influenciados por
el agricultor innovador– Iniciativa privada– Público en general– Centros de investigación
• Asegurar retro-alimentación
• Eventos con la interacción de los actores agrícolas.
• EnlACe (Suplemento de las actividades de los módulos).
• Caricaturas educativas para las áreas de extensión.
Results
• 106 appearances in the press• >2500 famers in farmer event (not counting
the massive events) 75% male
Appoaches
• TTF is the umbrella– SAGARPA– Monsanto project– Small projects
• The TTF buys capacity where it is best available => structure
• TTF builds the catalyzing structure to streamline existing funds
• Annual report => Stakeholders• PPP• Franchising => local initiatives
Project up to now
• Uses the existing basis– Central Highland hubs => CA– Pacific north => CA + Sensor– Bajio => CA + Sensor– Chiapas
• General technical consultation• Hub meetings• Now we receive the P1, P2, P3 projects• Project structure with Working groups and regional
actions
Project up to now
• Different working groups came together– Fertility!
• Training– Platform development– Tecnico certificado
• Hubs– 3 hubs fully operational– 2 in transition– 2 to be developed
Challenging reality
• Broken public system => complex and heterogenic realities
• Competition between different actors• Non existing extension service• Weak human resources and education• No linkage between public and private sector• Miss-trust in private sector• Public policies => votes
Successes• Farmer the central actor, the integrator of technological
options as well as actors• Accountable approach => BID buy inn• Tecnico certificado as a central driver• Marketing tools => How to change behavior• SEP integrated in the project• Very close integration of Universities (students), research
platforms and modules• Integration of the research network with the hub activities• Catalytic function• Hubs create a sense of market
Challenges• Logistics
– MasAgro => politics– Integration of all components in 1 project and not
sub-projects– CIMMYT admin and embedded way of working– Not optimal prepared working groups
• Work with private partner technicians (Impulsora example)
Challenges• Running behind the facts• INIFAP miss-trust (Maize)• How to structure the ‘organic’ development when
scaling out• ‘CIMMYT stealing the money’ => Fundaciones? • How to bring up to speed the hubs => human
resources, multi-taskers• Easy to fall back into linear thinking• Make people work together!
Thanks