Agriculture Reference
In-Depth Information
Although we stress the need for flexible strategies that respond to local conditions,
most visible success stories related to AEI are more often presented as packages than
as principles. There is a tendency for research and extension organizations to package,
brand, and promote their technologies. Technology packages that utilize AEI prin-
ciples include the push-pull (Khan et  al. 2008) and conservation agriculture (Hobbs
et al. 2008) systems mentioned above and the system of rice intensification discussed in
“Alternative Paths to Food Security” by Norman Uphoff. While the these technologies
are often seen and promoted as packages, they are also subject to centralized and local
adaptation to respond to varying conditions and demands (e.g., integrating edible beans
into the push-pull system, as described in Khan et al. 2009; tailoring of conservation
agriculture to local contexts, as described in Ekboir 2001). It is important to develop
strategies for technology promotion that support rather than suppress local innovation
and adaptation.
Farm technology options must be suited to local conditions and adaptable to farmers'
varying circumstances, and farm systems must have the resilience needed to cope with
the variability that occurs from season to season and from year to year. It is unlikely that
a centralized approach could deliver these results, particularly when national research
and extension systems are strapped for resources. These requirements and conditions
imply the need for a local innovation capacity. There is a need for approaches that build
the social structures needed for group problem-solving and resource mobilization.
Examples of such approaches include farmer field schools that allow farmer groups to
learn about and experiment with agroecological methods (Pretty 2003). “Innovation
platforms” bring together producers with other players along value chains to enhance
smallholder market access and improve the efficiencies of input and output markets.
Nontraditional market approaches can support diversification, local value addition
and responsible input use. An example of such an approach is the “community bas-
ket” movement in Ecuador, which brings together Andean smallholder farmers and
low-income urban markets for mutual benefits of fair pricing and valuing of culturally
significant crops.
Research should be focused on understanding principles and processes underpin-
ning agroecology and developing suites of component technologies, as well as concepts
and models for their local integration (e.g., Whitbread et al. 2010). The underlying the-
ory and principles of AEI should be the subject of aggressive international research, but
the specifics of their implementation need to be worked out locally. Traditional research
and extension approaches that are oriented to developing general prescriptions have
little relevance in view of the diversity of farmers' conditions and requirements. There is
a need to support local innovation processes through which communities and families
can access, adapt, and integrate diverse options according to their particular objectives,
problems, and opportunities.
We conclude with an endorsement of the call by Leach et al. (2012) for new technolo-
gies, new policies, and new modes of innovation. Smallholder farmers around the world
need more ecologically efficient options that work under their resource constraints
in their diverse social and biophysical contexts. We need policies and incentives that
Search WWH ::




Custom Search