Farmer involvement in research has become a buzzword but is rarely implemented in a way that is meaningful. The Australian experience is interesting. In Australia farmers pay for a proportion of the research budget through levies on their production. Farmers have been appointed to the funding bodies for many decades but it took time for them to exert their influence. Initially they meekly followed the recommendations of the professional researchers. In more recent decades they have funded genuine farmer managed research. This has broadened the research into farming systems in a way that the research establishment has been frightened to touch because of the difficulties in statistical analysis. Professional researchers are more concerned about convincing other researchers than convincing farmers.
Farmers in Australia are also researching mechanization which is something that the research centres have failed to address over many decades. This is an incredible lapse as mechanization has become one of the major costs for farmers - not just in the developed world but everywhere. Algeria for example has more tractors and harvesters per hectare than Australia but no one seems interested in finding out why their productivity is so much lower.
I have called "farmer participation in research" as a buzzword because of my experience with IFS and IFAD. Their concept is to set up a research project and then involve the farmers. Of course the funding organization wants a detailed plan before it will approve the funds. What is left for participation by the farmers? The project cannot be changed in any meaningful way. Participation is really communication.
Over the last several decades we have seen a shift from public research to private research. Private research is constrained. It has to produce results that are can be patented and sold. For example I cannot see the great leap in productivity achieved in Australia with trace elements being privately funded. So far it has not proved possible to patent elements such as copper, zinc and molybdenum. For the small farmer this high input farming coming from private research is a disaster. They need low cost farming not the high input system that has become the ruling ideology. No where is this more important than in dryland areas. Drought is a common occurrence in these zones. One of the most effective strategies to reduce drought risk is to reduce costs yet that is not the thrust of agronomic advice funded from corporate research.
Of course it is not just small farmers that suffer from the costly input syndrome. The story of the water hyacinth on Lake Victoria is a perfect contrast between the high input and low input approaches.
The new theology is optimism or technological optimism to be more precise. Technology is going to solve the problems of food security. The problem with this approach is that it ignores completely the social and economic context that the farmer - particularly the small farmer works in. The technological optimists also advocate a globalized food market. The two are incompatible. Even if you lifted wheat yields in Tunisia and Morocco to levels higher than those achieved in similar conditions of soil and climate in South Australia the small farmers will still not compete with the larger farmers in Australia or the subsidized farmers of the USA. If you want to grow wheat in these countries in a global market you are going to destroy the social structure of the rural population and increase migration to the cities and probably to Europe. Agronomists cannot live in a little bubble and ignore the wider context.
Farmer involvement in research has become a buzzword but is rarely implemented in a way that is meaningful. The Australian experience is interesting. In Australia farmers pay for a proportion of the research budget through levies on their production. Farmers have been appointed to the funding bodies for many decades but it took time for them to exert their influence. Initially they meekly followed the recommendations of the professional researchers. In more recent decades they have funded genuine farmer managed research. This has broadened the research into farming systems in a way that the research establishment has been frightened to touch because of the difficulties in statistical analysis. Professional researchers are more concerned about convincing other researchers than convincing farmers.
Farmers in Australia are also researching mechanization which is something that the research centres have failed to address over many decades. This is an incredible lapse as mechanization has become one of the major costs for farmers - not just in the developed world but everywhere. Algeria for example has more tractors and harvesters per hectare than Australia but no one seems interested in finding out why their productivity is so much lower.
I have called "farmer participation in research" as a buzzword because of my experience with IFS and IFAD. Their concept is to set up a research project and then involve the farmers. Of course the funding organization wants a detailed plan before it will approve the funds. What is left for participation by the farmers? The project cannot be changed in any meaningful way. Participation is really communication.
Over the last several decades we have seen a shift from public research to private research. Private research is constrained. It has to produce results that are can be patented and sold. For example I cannot see the great leap in productivity achieved in Australia with trace elements being privately funded. So far it has not proved possible to patent elements such as copper, zinc and molybdenum. For the small farmer this high input farming coming from private research is a disaster. They need low cost farming not the high input system that has become the ruling ideology. No where is this more important than in dryland areas. Drought is a common occurrence in these zones. One of the most effective strategies to reduce drought risk is to reduce costs yet that is not the thrust of agronomic advice funded from corporate research.
Of course it is not just small farmers that suffer from the costly input syndrome. The story of the water hyacinth on Lake Victoria is a perfect contrast between the high input and low input approaches.
The new theology is optimism or technological optimism to be more precise. Technology is going to solve the problems of food security. The problem with this approach is that it ignores completely the social and economic context that the farmer - particularly the small farmer works in. The technological optimists also advocate a globalized food market. The two are incompatible. Even if you lifted wheat yields in Tunisia and Morocco to levels higher than those achieved in similar conditions of soil and climate in South Australia the small farmers will still not compete with the larger farmers in Australia or the subsidized farmers of the USA. If you want to grow wheat in these countries in a global market you are going to destroy the social structure of the rural population and increase migration to the cities and probably to Europe. Agronomists cannot live in a little bubble and ignore the wider context.