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