John M. Gerber, 1990

There is an urgent need for a research/extension model based on a new vision of cooperative effort that empowers and accommodates the needs of producers, especially in sustainable agriculture. This need for change has been recognized (Francis et al., 1988) but the fundamental issue pertains to the nature of the change. Some investigators have emphasized the need for institutional changes while others have favored accommodation under the existing system. Irrespective of these controversies another critical issue that has to be resolved is the methodology and process to be adopted in facilitating farmer participation in sustainable agriculture.

Public awareness and concern for contamination of the environment by toxic chemicals, loss of soil quality through degradation and erosion, depletion of non-renewable fossil energy have also contributed to dissatisfaction with conventional research and associated high input agriculture. In addition to the social costs there has also been a declining cost/benefit ratio to farmers engaged in conventional agriculture production. In an attempt to redress some of the problems associated with conventional agriculture the concept of " sustainable agriculture" has been advanced.

" A sustainable agriculture is one that, over the long term, 1) enhances environmental quality and the resource base on which agriculture depends, 2) provides for basic human food and fiber needs, 3) is economically viable, and enhances the quality of life for farmers and society as a whole. " (American Society of Agronomy, 1988 ).

The field of sustainable agriculture is not a call for the return to past production systems but a recognition of the need for a biorational approach compatible with social, economic and ecological concerns. The concept recognizes the contribution of indigenous knowledge arising from the experiences of the farmers. Contrary to the common assertion that sustainable agriculture is most appropriate for small to moderate sized farms there is no empirical evidence to support claim (Buttel et al., 1986). Sustainable agriculture has generated tremendous interest among producers but a serious constraint has been the lack of credible sources of information. This situation has been due to the absence of research programs in sustainable agriculture at agriculture institutions and the absence of a mechanism for farmer participation in the research- extension process. Consequently agricultural institutions have been reacting to situations when ideally they should be in a leadership position and precipitating change.

BACK-GROUND TO THE SUSTAINABLE AGRICULTURE MOVEMENT

The principles and techniques underlying sustainable agriculture have evolved over time and reflect a synthesis of ideas originating from various sources and various motivations (Lockeretz, 1988). Organic farming was one of the original ideas that was in practice before World War II. Itwas directed at recycling of farm nutrients while discouraging introduction of nutrients in the form of inorganic fertilizers and stock feed from outside the farm (Scofield, 1986). In recent years the concept of organic farming has evolved into various general ideas at times collectively referred to as " sustainable agriculture ". The general ideas include alternative, low input, ecological and regenerative agriculture. Each of these terms has specific goals that are independent and distinct, though paths to achieving the goals may coincide at times. In certain cases there are incompatibilities that make it impossible to achieve them all (Lockeretz,1986).

The land grant system has consisted of problem identification by the research scientists, sometimes in consultation with the producers and the industry, followed by research at experiment stations. In certain cases conventional experimental design and analysis have been conducted at other locations but under the supervision and control of researchers. The information generated from these experiments has then been conveyed by state extension specialists and county agents to the producers and the industry. This approach is generally referred to as "top down " model and is characterized by minimal control on the research agenda by the producer clientele and little feedback through extension agents to decision makers. This system of conventional research has been adequate at resolving problems for well defined single crop situations and when the most limiting constraints have been known (Francis et al, 1988). The current situation is complex and is characterized by an interaction of multiple variables that include social, economic, and ecological concerns by diverse individuals with different motivations. These interactions among components of sustainable farming enable greater insight and understanding. Recent trends in information and technology flow have reduced the producers to passive recipients of information with limited control of their own destiny. The present dissatisfaction with conventional research and extension reflects an urgent need for empowerment by the producer clientele to enable them to participate actively in determining the research agenda and ultimately their lives.

An issue that has generated widespread controversy is whether sustainable agriculture requires fundamental changes in either the economic and institutional environment or farmers motivations and values (Lockeretz,1989). In some discussions the primary areas of concern have been either the agronomic, biological, environmental and economic aspects under existing conditions. The assumptions are that the same farmers can change their production systems without altering their attitude or economic and social parameters. In contrast some reports have concentrated on socioeconomic changes at the expense of technical differences between sustainable and conventional agriculture. Major changes that have been advanced have included greater ties between the producers and consumers; reduced linkage between farming and the industrial economy; policies that reward resource conservation and a preference for family farms rather than corporate (Douglass, 1984; Crosson; 1986).

The assumption that sustainable agriculture requires changes in attitude and value support the assertion that new approaches and methods are required in agriculture research. The relatively new field of agro-ecology as applied to sustainable agriculture is aimed at developing and introducing a theoretical framework for analysis of agriculture. In recognition of the role of sustainableagriculture and the influence of the sustainable agriculture movement many universities have initiated research programs which have been hampered by a number of constraints. These include the limitation imposed on institutions by disciplines, that reduces flexibility in research (Bidwell, 1986). Another constraint has been the influence of traditional ways of thinking that continues through current generation of researchers. Finally the reluctance on the part of agriculture institutions to challenge economic, social, or political constraints (Altieri, 1988).

THE CONCEPT OF PARTICIPATION

The concept of participation in general and farmer participation in agricultural research in particular initially attained wide-scale use in the 1970's. Its emergence hinged largely on the move towards participation in social science research and the concept of farming systems research (FSR) (Farrington and Martin, 1988). Pierse and Stiefel, 1979 defined the concept of participation as; " the organized effort to increase control over resources and regulative institutions in given social situations, on the part of groups and movements of those hitherto excluded from such control. " It is evident from this definition that controlling and influencing decisions that impact ones well-being are critical aspects of participation.

An aspect that is not clarified is the process through which participation might be implemented. This is especially critical in the Pierse and Stiefel (1979) definition, as this is a research definition. Research definitions are formulated with a research process in mind. They are therefore important for the operationalization of the components of interest to the research. It is obvious that the concept of participation is difficult to operationalize and this accounts for inconsistency in the definition. This operationalization difficulty has contributed to variability in implementation. Consequently various writers have approached participation differently.

Farrington and Martin (1988) identified 4 approaches to farmer participation in agricultural research. These are described by Tripp (1982); Harwood (1979); Rhoades and Booth (1982); and Chambers and Ghildyal (1985).With respect to farmer participation two key issues of relevance emerge: methodological issues and linkages. With regard to methodology, the Chambers and Ghildyal approach represents a strongly farmer-centric view of the farmer participation continuum. On the other hand Tripp's (1982) approach represents a strongly researcher-centric view, even though it recognizes the importance of farmers' views. In the middle of the farmer participation continuum are the Harwood (1979), and Rhoades and Booth (1982) approaches.

With regard to linkage the Chambers and Ghildyal (1985) approach becomes ill defined by concentrating on farmer led experiments and omitting areas of interaction with the remainder of the research and extension system. The other three approaches have identified clearly the linkages from a systems perspective.

CITATIONS

Altieri, Miguel A. 1988. Agroecology: A new research and development paradigm for world agriculture. Paper presented at the International Symposium on Agricultural Ecology and Environment, University of Padova, Italy.

American Society of Agronomy. Annual meeting, Annheim, CA. 1988.

Bidwell, O. W. 1986. Where do we stand on sustainable agriculture? Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 41 (5): 317-320

Buttel, F. H., G. W. Gillespie Jr. R. Janke, B. Caldwell and M. Sarrantonio. 1986. Reduced- input agricultural systems: Rational and prospects. American Journal of Alternative Agriculture 1 (2) 58-64.

Chambers, R and Ghildyal, B.P. 1985. Agricultural Research for Resource-Poor Farmers: The Farmer-First and Last Model. Agriculture Administration (20) 1-30

Crosson, P. 1986. Sustainable food productions: Interactions among natural resources, technology and institutions. Food policy 11(2): 143-156.

Douglass, G. K. 1984. The meanings of agriculture sustainability in a changing world order. In G.K. Douglass (ed) 1-29.

Harwood, R.R. 1985. Small Farm Development: Understanding and Improving Farming Systems in the Humid Tropics, Westview press, Boulder, Colorado, 1979.

Farrington, J. and Martin, A. 1988. Farmer Participation in Agriculture Research: A Review of Concepts and Practices. Agricultural Administration Unit Occasional Paper 9, London, ODI, 1988.

Francis, C, Sander,D, and Martin, A. 1987. Search for a Sustainable Agriculture: Reduced inputs and increased profits. Crops and Soils, Aug-Sept. 12-14.

Lockeretz, William. 1986. Alterative agriculture. In K. Dahlberg(ed). New Directions for Agriculture and Agricultural Research. 291-311.

Lockeretz, William. 1988. Open questions in sustainable agriculture. American Journal of Alternative Agriculture. (3) 4 174-181.

Rhoades, R.E. and Booth, R.H, Farmer back to farmer: A model for generating acceptable agriculture technology. Agric Admin (11) 1982 127-137.

Scofield, A. M. 1986. 0rganic Farming: The origin of the name. Biological Agriculture and Horticulture 4(1): 1-5.

Tripp, R. 1982. Data Collection, Site Selection and Farmer Participation in On Farm Experimentation, CIMMYT Working Paper 82/1.