Historical Trajectory of Farming Systems Research: Past, Present and Future by David Norman

HISTORICAL TRAJECTORY OF FARMIMG SYSTEMS

RESEARCH: PAST, PRESENT AND FUTURE

D W Norman, Professor Emeritus, Kansas State University

Invited Keynote Address for Integrated Systems Research for Sustainable Intensification in Smallholder

Agriculture Conference

IITA, Ibadan, Nigeria, March 3rd-6th, 2015

INTRODUCTION

• Reason for evolution (1960s on):

Favourable homogenous areas – Green Revolution (GR)

Unfavourable heterogeneous areas – Farming Systems Approach (FSA)

TOPICS COVERED

• Evolution and methodology of FSA/FPA (farmer participatory approaches)

• Why farmer empowerment inhibited

• Justification for further farmer empowerment

• Future of FSA/FPA and innovation platforms

• Village studies (1960s)

Anthropological/farm management studies

Much descriptive” information -- findings:

EVOLUTION OF FARMING SYSTEMS APPROACH (FSA)

EVOLUTION OF FSA (Con) Farmers:

F Understood their production

environments

F Practiced sound and rational

farming systems (e.g., crop

mixtures)

F Natural experimenters

Schematic Representation of Some Farming System Determinants

ELEMENTS: SOCIO-ECONOMIC BIO-PHYSICAL

FACTORS : EXOGENOUS ENDOGENOUS PHYSICAL BIOLOGICAL

CHEMICAL

MECHANICAL

COMMUNITY STRUCTURES

NORMS AND BELIEFS

EXTERNAL

INSTITUTIONS

OTHER

INPUT

SIDE

OUTPUT

SIDE

FARMING

HOUSEHOLD

DECISION MAKER(S)

(FARM)

CONSUMPTION

SAVINGS INCOME

INPUTS: LAND CAPITAL LABOUR MANAGEMENT

PROCESSES: OFF-FARM CROPS LIVESTOCK

FARMING SYSTEM Note: Broken lines represent the results of the farming system.

Source: Norman, et. al. (1982)

EVOLUTION OF FSA (Con)

• Recommended technologies:

“Blanket” technologies often unsuitable

Incompatibility with socioeconomic environment

Standard evaluation criteria flawed

• Conclusion:

Treating farmers as “objects” bad

Farmers:

F Had skills and expertise

F Technology development: should be involved ex ante rather than just ex post


• Systems perspective maintained

• 4 phases in evolution of FSA (Figure 1):

Predetermined focus

Whole farm focus

Natural resource focus

Sustainable livelihoods focus

• Ratio of variables to parameters increased

EVOLUTION OF FSA (Con) • Principle, farmer involvement -- 4 stages:

Description/diagnosis

Identification of opportunities and solutions to problems

Evaluate most promising ones

Disseminate best ones

• Approach:

Interdisciplinary

Iterative and dynamic

• 1976: Bamako, Mali

Farming Systems Development Approach to Technology Generation

1. Descriptive/

Diagnostic

STAGES

Current Farming

System

(Hypothesis Formulation)

Support Systems

and Policy

Farmers

2. Design Use Body of

Knowledge from

Experiment

Station

RM RI

3. Testing RM FI

FM FI

4. Dissemination Modified Farming

System

KEY: R = Research (Technician)

F = Farmer

M = Managed

I = Implemented


(Late ‘70s – Early 80s)

• Pre-Determined Focus

Started in CGIAR institutions with specific crop mandates

Looked at improving one crop enterprise

Rationale:

Easiest methodologically

Improvement of major crop enterprise would have greatest impact on whole farming system

EVOLUTION OF FSA (Con) (Late ‘70s – Early 80s)

• Start of Whole Farm Focus

Started in national (NARSs) programmes

Substantial donor support

More variables to parameters

Rationale:

More compatible with NARSs’ mandates – area based farming system teams

Better able to address farmers’ needs

EVOLUTION OF FSA (Con) (Late ’80s - Early ’90s)

• Natural Resource Focus

Increasing concern with ecological degradation because:

incompatibility between production and ecological sustainability

Poor farmers forced to sacrifice sustainable practices

Overuse of “external” inputs


Two approaches for dealing with this:

Farmer participation:

Shift farmers’ perception from “foreseen” to “felt” problem

Methodologies for “modelling” bioresource flows with farmers have evolved

CGIAR: congruency of productivity improvement and ecological sustainability via eco-regional research


Challenges:

Many solutions locational specific

Assessing progress in improving ecological sustainability takes time

Poor farmers have to improve productivity and environmental sustainability simultaneously

EVOLUTION OF FSA (Con) (Early ’90s until Now)

• Sustainable livelihood focus

High ratio of variables to parameters

Distinct features:

Improves livelihoods through addressing:

All activities (farm and off-farm)

Asset sets

Entitlements

Social relationships

Focuses on most vulnerable households

Sustainable Livelihoods Framework

Key

H = Human Capital S = Social Capital

N = Natural Capital P = Physical Capital

F = Financial Capital

VULNERABILITY

CONTEXT

• SHOCKS

• TRENDS

• SEASONALITY

LIVELIHOOD ASSETS

H

N

F P

S Influence

& access

TRANSFORMING

STRUCTURES &

PROCESSES

STRUCTURES

• Levels of

government

• Private

sector

• Laws

• Policies

• Culture

• Institutions

PROCESSES

LIVELIHOOD

STRATEGIES

LIVELIHOOD

OUTCOMES

• More income

• Increased

well-being

• Reduced

vulnerability

• Improved food

security

• More sustainable

use of NR base

I n o r d e r t o a c h i e v e

PROGRESS ASSESSED: METHODOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENTS

• Important methodological developments:

Interaction with farmers -- RRA and PRA techniques:

Enabled systematising farmers’ knowledge/ opinions

Farmers’ relationship -- contractual to collaborative

Gender related issues incorporated

PROGRESS ASSESSED: METHODOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENTS (Con) New trial types :

Researcher (R), Farmer (F)

Managed (M), Implemented (I)

RMRI – traditional

RMFI and FMFI – “learn by doing”

PROGRESS ASSESSED: METHODOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENTS (Con) Involving farmers in participatory :

Variety selection(PVS)

Plant breeding (PPB) activities

On-farm trial and recommendation analysis improved through modified stability analysis

PROGRESS ASSESSED: METHODOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENTS (Con) • Approaches to involving

farmers more effective through:

Farmer groups (formal and informal): Empower farmers

Improve efficiency of research/development process

Farmer groups allocating research funds

Greater interaction between farmers and other stakeholders -- “innovation platforms!”

FARMERS NOW TRULY EMPOWERED?

Do experimental designs often aim for technical optimum?

How often are RMFI and FMFI trials done?

• Are they? For example in technical research:

Are needs of disadvantaged farmers considered?

FARMERS NOW TRULY EMPOWERED? (Con)

• Why farmers not fully empowered:

Many “stakeholders” still unconvinced/lack ability to interact with “poorly educated” farmers

Multi- rather than inter-disciplinary approaches are common

Inappropriate reward systems – based on “good science” not relevancy

FARMERS NOW TRULY EMPOWERED? (Con)

• Positive impact of FSA inhibited by:

Farmers not sufficiently empowered

Weaknesses in farmer-research-development continuum:

Limited financial resources

Vertical organisational structure in institutions

WHY MORE FARMER EMPOWERMENT NECESSARY

• Requirement – by 2050:

Produce 60% more food in an ecologically sustainable manner

Address malnutrition by diversifying diets with “nutrition dense foods”

WHY MORE FARMER EMPOWERMENT NECESSARY (Con)

• Challenge:

Now more complex than prior to GR

Systems perspective essential because will require:

Many combinations of management practices and enterprises

Use (re-adoption!) of supportive biological processes

Results which often incremental, not revolutionary


• In FSA require:

More emphasis on Phases 3 and 4 – complex

Less emphasis on Phases 1 and 2 – simpler

• Farmer empowerment critical because many relevant solutions are:

Locational specific -- farmers have intimate knowledge

Often incremental not revolutionary results – farmers have to take “ownership”


• Farmer empowerment important in:

Supporting changes in the farming paradigm

Benefitting from the globalisation process

Facilitating necessary, and benefitting from, collective action


• Changing the farming paradigm:

From intensive tillage (interventionist) to no-till /minimal tillage (agro-ecological)

Specific examples:

Conservation agriculture (CA)

System of rice intensification (SRI)

Emphasise:

Reduced external inputs

Exploiting natural biological processes/ relationships

Require locational specific adjustments


• Benefitting from globalisation process

Traditionally farming households – both production and consumption unit

To benefit from globalisation process help farmers: On how to calculate profits and budget


Improve their knowledge of marketing chain (mobile phones)

Improve their bargaining power in market place (collective buying/selling, adding value through processing)


• Facilitating necessary, and benefitting from, collective action

Requires enhancement of social capital

Necessary for establishing equitable and ecologically sustainable livelihood systems

Examples:

Watershed management

Promoting specific collective action in a region

(See previous slide) – collective action on buying inputs and marketing products

MULTI-STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT VIA INNOVATION PLATFORMS

• Promotes/facilitates interactive multi-stakeholder engagement/participation

• Important for:

Meeting challenges discussed – incremental not revolutionary changes likely to be dominant

Improving efficiency and interactivity of farmer-research -development continuum

• Complements and potentially improves payoff of FSA activities – scaling out and up potential

CONCLUDING COMMENT

• Still role for reductionist approach

• Now need greater emphasis on Phases 3 and 4 than 1 and 2 of FSA

CONCLUDING COMMENT (Con)

• Use farmers’ (men and women!) minds --informal modeling function -- important

• Innovation platforms provide means of improving effectiveness and payoff from FSA

NAGODE!

[email protected]

Hard copies of paper

available

mailto:[email protected]



Historical Trajectory of Farming Systems Research: Past, Present and Future by David Norman

Science

rational farming systems

evolution of fsa figure

farming system key

systems perspective

integrated systems research

s early

s predetermined focus

predetermined focus