FACTS, FANTASIES AND FA1LURES OF FARMER PARTICIPATION INTRODUCTION TO THE SYMPOSIUM VOLUME Proceedings of the Symposium "Participación del Agricultor en la Investigación y Extensión Agrícola" (Farmer Participátion in Agricultural Research and Extensión) Semana Científica, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de Honduras, Tegucigalpa, Honduras, October 16-20,1989. JefferyW.BenÜey1 The notion of farmer participation in agricultural technology generation can be traced to the work of three researchers: Stephen Biggs (1980, 1986,1989, Biggs and Clay 1981) Robert Rhoades (Rhoades and Booth 1982, Rhoades 1982, 1987,1988, 1989, Rhoades and Bebbington 1988) and Paul Richards (Page and Richards 1977, Richards 1985,1986, 1989a, 1989b). Working separately, all three carne to essentially the same conclusions by the early 1980s; that farmers have valuable knowledge, that they do agricultural research on their own, and that scientists could tap their abilities to improve agrarian R&D (research and development). These form the three philosophical pillars of farmer participation in agricultural research. Eventually Biggs, Rhoades and Richards began to cite each other's work without acrimonious debate, suggesting that they 1 Crop Protectíon Department, Escuela Agrícola Panamerican, Apartado Postal 93, Tegucigalpa, Honduras. 8 CEIBA VoL 31(2) found each others' notions sufficiently comparable to their own to avoid quíbbling over details. Richards (1985, 1986) demonstrated that farmer experiments include self-conscious rice variety selection. Rhoades and' Booth (1982) described how CIP (Centro.Internacioaal de la Papa) researchers learned about diffused-light potato storage from African farmers and spread it to Latín America and Asia. In a remarkable article, Biggs and Clay (1981) outlined many of the issues in farmer participation that are still current, such as the importance of linkages between farmers and scientists, genetic erosión, and environmental specificity (and may have been the first to apply the term "participation" to agncultural R&JD). These authors are so often cited in the burgeoning participation literature that they obviously deserve substantial credit for stimulating the notion of farmer participation. On the eve of the first programmatic statements about farmer participation, other writers were trying to cali the agricultural scientists' attention to the creative power of peasant farmers, including the American anthropologist Alien Johnson (1972) and the soil scientist Hugh Brammer (1980). An even larger body of literature already showed that indigenous technical knowledge (ITK) and traditional farmer practices were ecologically sound and had much to offer the science of agronomy (see Brokensha et al. 1980). The agroecology of Conklin (1957) and ethnobotany of Berlín et. al. (1974) are now cited so frequently as examples of profound farmer knowledge that I need not repeat their arguments here. Chambers (1983: 85-95) sums up many other primary sources on ITK. Less well known is the vast body of earlier anthropological and geographical studies which painstakingly documented indigenous food-getting technologies and ecological knowledge of all sorts and presented them in a light sympathetic to peasants and tribal peoples . Just mentioning some of the better studies quickly adds up to severa! Unes of citations (Evans-Pritchard 1940, Steward 1955, Leach 1968, Netting 1968,1981, Rappaport 1968, Johnson 1971, Candan 1972, Hunn 1977, Wilken 1977, Durham 1979, Denevan et. al. 1984). However, a comprehensive inventory of good research on cultural ecology is beyond the scope of this introduction (see Netting 1977, Ellen 1982). Although long under-appreciated, Norgaard (19S7) A cultural ecology focus can be used to defend even land fragmentation, a traditional form of farm structure that agrarianpolicy makers and many economista use as a prime example of irrational behavior (Bentley 1987a, 199Qb). 7990 Bentley: introduction credits cultural ecology with providing the philosophical under-pinnings of agroecology, a new discipline consístent with farmer participation. There was enough Information about 1TK and even about farmer experiments to have led agricultural researchers to farmer participation some years earlíer. Stinrulating and valuable as it was, Richards', "Rhoades1 and Biggs' work may not have been the only reason that farmer participation and interest in farmer experimenters suddenly carne into vogue. As Gould (1977) points out, scientific theories are not usually built up bit by bit from the data, but are usually proposed for social and political reasons and then oíd data is discarded and other data marshalled to suit the new theory. Much of evolutionary theory was an attempt to place Victorian Englishmen at the top of the biológica! and social ladder. "Information always reaches us through the strong filters of culture, hope and expectation (Gould 1980: 118)." As it bows to the underdog of development—the long-ignored small farmer—the participation fad is dressed for the current political climate. By the 1980s the green movement was growing strong (Uedclift 1984). Discouragement with capital- and chemical-intensive agriculture was rampant (Altieri 1987, Granatstein 1988, Murray and Hoppin 1990, Thrupp 1988). The United States Agency for International Development (USAID), the Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO), the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and other industrial country aid agencies were being díscredited as serving to stimulate the economies of industrialized covrntries rather than the alleged beneficiarles (Hayter and Watson 1985, Linear 1985, DeWalt 1985, 1986, Stonich 1989). The achievements of the green revolution werebeing seriously questioned (Altieri 1986, Cleveland andSoleri 1989, Crist 1983, Chambers and Jiggins 1987, Gómez-Pompa et al. 1982, Hunter 1981, Lansing 1987, Pimentel and Goodman 1978, Waters-Bayer 1989). Small was beautiful in development circles, I have two main arguments in support of the notion that farmer-participation is motivated more by political and economic motives than by technical considerations. 1. As mentioned above, a well-known anthropologist, Alien Johnson, made a convincing argument for farmer experiments in a prestigious In American Indianantíonsin the United States a similar relationshíp occurs, where universíty faculty use development funds, ostensibly to ¡mprove local standards of living, while furthering the scíentists* research and career goals (Bentley 1987c). 10 CEIBA Vol. 31(2) journal in 1972, but went uncited and largely unread until his paper was belatedly discovered in the late 1980s. Johnson's descriptions of farmer experiments in his widely read monograph on small-scale farmers in Brazil (1971) could have served just as well as Richards, Rhoades or Biggs to light the fuse of farmer participation. Elsewhere I have argued that Johnson's work on farmer experiments was ignored because it went against the grain of anthropological thought, whích places perhapstoo much emphasis on community lore and not enough on individual creativity (Bentley in press), 2. As Keith Andrews (1990) points out, agricultural research has always been participatory in the case of commercial farmers (with money to spend on research) whether they be ahnond growers in California or transnational banana companies in Honduras. Another example comes from an African pahn Corporation in Costa Rica, which has several Ph.D. level researchers and four large farms. IWice a year everyone in the company meets to discuss technical topics. Company leaders discuss research goals and progress more often among themselves. Production people (i.e. "the farmers') often help collect data. C olí abo r a ti o n between research and production personnel is facilitated by many informal (social, recreational) links between them. Successful experiments are tried out on a larger plot and from there new technology is adopted on a large scale by production people, usually withno further adaptation needed (Nidia Guzmán, personal communication). This case suggests three important factors present in commercial farmer participation which are missing from peasant farmer participation: 1) there are structural, financial relationships between production and research; and research must dance to the tune that production pipes. 2) The commercial farm is powerful, organized and concentrated, so extensión flows naturally, ahnost automatically, from research. In Standard Fruit, the production people are required to use the research results and recommendations once they are approved by higher management and incorporated into the production guide book, commonly known as "the Bible" (Keith Andrews, personal communication). 3) The "farmers" and the researchers in this highl In an intriguing arricie, the linguistíc anthropologist Keith Basso (1967) díscussed the Western Apaches' complex knowledge of and lexicón for carparts. The words are extended from the Apache terms for a horse's bodyparts, and the knowledge derives from tearing down and rebuilding oíd pick-up trucks. Certainly knowledge and vocabulary are as easily molded by a people's experience as they are handed down from the ancestors. 1990 Bentley: ¡ntroduction 11 y participatory research program share the same class background. Farxner participation's emphasis on land-poor farmers, "empowerment" of peasant farmers through respect for ITK (Thrupp 1989) and its small-scale approach make it an ideal mental refuge for liberal social scientists and sensiüve agricultiiral scientists. Farmer participation became tlie heir of farming systems research (FSR.) and appropriate technology movements. As advocates of a trendy, politically-correct idea, rather than as dispassionate scientists, authors of farmer participation papers have generated one of the vacuous bodies of literature ever written, Amanor (1989) Usted 340 abstracts on the subjectby 1989. Inspiteofthis literature the development establishment goes about business as usual. "As we enter the 1990s, the dominant paradigm of development expressed by normal professionals and implemented through normal bureaucracy is still top-down and centre-outwards (Chambers 1990:3)." My experience suggests that farmer participation is sometimes of limited use in technology generation (Bentley and Melara 1990) and that participation in extensión is less important than ecological factors in technology adoption (del Río et ai 1990). While a recent anthology demonstrates that farmers and other rural people invent technology on their own (Gamser et al. 1990), the lack of concrete reports in the literature suggests that formal scientist-farmer interaction has failed to genérate many new technologies. Because farmer participation is frustrating and unwieldy the only way most authors can describe their experiences and still sound rosy is by skipping most of the real-world details. Most farmer participation papers include no data, no description of technologies generated with farmers and no descripüon of the method used or which scientists participated and how. Some even fail to mention which crop was under study. Despite its promising sub-title, "Farmers1 Particlpation in the Development of Technology," none of the papers in the Matlon et al. f!988) volume mention a technology developed with a farmer—except for Rhoades (1988), who again writes about diffused light potato storage. Lightfoot et al. (1988) wrote one of the few articles to describe a technology invented by farmers and scientists together; they discovered with farmers that the broad leafed plant Desmodium ovalífolium could be used to shade out Imperata sp. grass. Their article is unusual among participation literature in describing scientist-farmer interaction in some detall. Bentley and Andrews (1991) describe an experience Keith Andrews had in 1983, 12 CEIBA VoL 31(2) developing a slug trap with farmers, made from cut weeds. However, even farmer-scientist hybrid technologies are no panacea; as this case shows, since the "trash trap" requires more labor than farmers are willing to spend it has not been widely adopted (Andrews and Bentley 1990, Bentley and Andrews 1991, Shaxson and Bentley 1991). A brief article on citrus ants (Oecophylla smaragdina) Fabr. in China by two entomologists is surprisingly full of references to farmer inventions and unselfconscious farmer-scientist interaction. Huang and Yang (1987) learned how villagers in one área rescued the vanishing art of ant cultivatíon to control insect pests and ínvented cement rings to keep the ants in the brees and shelters to allow the ants survive the winter. In another village farmers taught the scientists that ants naturally survive the winter in pomelo trees, which are leafier and provide more shelter than orange trees. The entomologists suggested that the growers move the ant nests to pomelo trees from orange trees before the orange harvest. The villagers tried the idea and saved more ant colonies. This p'aper is about biological control of insect pests, not about scientist-farmer relations, as though the authors were unaware of the participation craze. Perhaps true farmer participation is rare because it requires scientists who have the humility to learn from farmers, the ability to teach them, and the creativity to synthesize formal and mformal research. Other participation artícles discuss experiments with very simple technologies like new varieties (Ashby et al. 1989a, 1989b) or fertüizer (Ashby 1987, Ashby et al. 1987, Matlon et al. 1988) that farmers try on their own anyway. The commercial sector figured out years ago that farmers will experiment with chemical fertüizer, and in Portugal it used the tendency as part of a marketmg ploy. Agrochemical vendors gave away one kg bags of fertilizer at country fairs in the 1930s and returned the next year to sell 50 kg bags. Chambers (1983) writes that researchers often have limited access to farmers, especially the poorest ones, because scientists don't venture far from cities, visit farms under the influence of specific projects, stay on the paved híghway, travel during the dry season, and talk to men, especially the wealthier ones. Class, ethnic, geographical, economic and linguistic differences between scientists and small farmers mean that their interaction is, if not a pipe dream, a tremendous challenge which can only be met with extraordinary 7990 Bentley: Introduction 73 ef fort. It is probablybeing attempted mostly by development tourists (seeChambers!9SO). Farmer participation is not failing for lack of farmer creativity. Farmers experiment all the time (Bentley 1989a, 1990a, 1991, in press, Bentley and Andrews 1991) and extend technology spoutaneously (Bentley 1987b). Farmers in Honduras and many other countries habitually experiment with new seed varíeties (Altieri 1987:15, CIAT 1989, Conelly 1988, Farrington and Martin 1987)KerrandPoseyl984íMattesoneta/. J984, Maurya et al 1988). Many other experiments and inventions by rural people have also been documented (Biggs 1980, Brammer 1980, Estorninos and Moody 1990, Gamser et al 1990, Richards 1989a). As Rhoades (1989) and Biggs and Clay (1991) point out, the archaeological record proves that illiterate villagers domesticated all farm animáis and all crops (except triticale) and invented many agrarian implements (the plow, wagón, sickle and many others). European peasants carefully adapted. plow types to fit micro-environments. The multitude of different kinds of plows that OÜveira et al "(1983) map for Portugal show that t there are many small environments to which technology must be adapted, and that the plow types (many slight variations on a few basic designs) were conceived by local peasants. Animal and plant domestication and agricultural inventions were probably not the work of a few prehistoric geniuses, but the outcome of many bright men and women working creatively over centuries to make a living from available resources hi the most rational way. Farmers are so creative that there is a logical attraction to the notion that scientists could team up with them to genérate new agricultural technology. The problem with farmer participation may lie with the scientists rather than with the farmers (see Andrews and Bentley 1990). Netting et al. (1989) argüe that the stnnningsuccess ofKofyar farmers in Nigeria to sustarn indigenous agricultural development (producing native food crops for the urban market) is precisely because íhe Kofyar were ignored by government planners and scienüsts, and were free to evolve new cropping systems based on new land, previous experience, local experimentation, roads and an open market. Chapin (1990) reaches much the same conclusión in México; the few successful ecodevelopmentprojectshe visitedwere ones without scientist participation. Six basic problems limit scientists1 abüity to tap into farmers' creativity: 14 CEIBA Vol. 31(2) 1. Farmers are difficult for scientists to reach. Most peasants live several days* journey from agricultura! researchers. A common way around this problem is for scientists to work with farmers in nearby, accessible villages. I know one farmer who collaborates witb- five different scientists. Their iníluence on him means that he is no longer (if he ever was) representative of Honduran farmers. 2. Farmers and scientists have different observation styles. Farmers observe the natural environment as they work, while scientists set out to observe to fulfíll an acadernic agenda. For example, malacologists place slugs in plástic boxes and offer them different foods to see which ones the mollusks prefer and which they reject; concluding that the common bean slug (Sarasmulaplebeía) eats a wide variety of broad-leafedplants,includingbeans (Andrews etal. 1985). When I asked Honduran campesinos what bean slugs eat, some responded that they eat maize kernels. At ñrst glance this answer seems bizarre, because bean slugs refuse maize seedlings as well as other grasses. However, a slug does occasionallyfindits way into a maize ear} where it may nibble a few grahis. Farmers harvesting maize by hand are not lilcely to forget fínding one of these slimy invertebrates in a maize ear. 3. Farmers and scientists have different experimental styles. Farmers often make up experiments as they go along (much like anthropologists designing hypotheses). I met one Honduran farmer who had a hard time getting a tractor to plow his land one year and so planted his beans laícr than usual. He considered this an experiment, to determine if late planting would lower slug attacks, although it was not a planned experiment. As in most farmer experiments, there were none of the formal trappings that agricultural scientists consider essential to distinguish a true experiment from a mere production experience: a control treatment, replicates, randomization and numerical data. Farmers generally try one thing at a time, over a whole fíeíd. Scientists divide a field into sub-plots, often blocks and replicates. The farmers' replicates are over time; one year after another. The farmers can't be bothered with fílling their fíelds full of stakes and twine; this makes it much harder to get work done. Even planting is more time-consuming in many sub-plots. Occasionally farmers compare a han dfulof a newseed variety inafleld with the variety they normally plant, but a simple mark—what Honduran farmers cali a "sign" (seña)—]&Q an oíd cornstalk or a stick placed between two rows, is enough to sepárate the treatments. 7990 Bentley: Introduction 75 4. Farmers and scientists have different economies. Farmers Uve from the land and are not overly interested in any household economy other than their own. If an innovation works for them, they can easily judge its valué qualitatively. Thus farmers are not interested in whether or not results from an experiment can be extrapolated to áreas beyond their farm. Applied scientists are supposed to do research that addresses broad, significant problems and search for solutions which are applicable over áreas large enough to justify the research expenditure. Scientists use specific experiences to generalize and extrapólate. Scientists live from their salaries, which is not closely correlated with their productivity; but scientists earn prestige from publícations, which must include numerical data in agriculturaljournals. Farmers couldn'tcarelessabout the scientist's precious numbers and may harvest an experiment before the scientist collects the data from it (see Matlon 1988). This may explain some of World Neighbors* success; their promoters are generally from the áreas where they work, and are not scientists (see Chapin 1990, Andrade 1990). 5. Scientists aren't Peace Corp volunteers. They have other things to do besides work with farmers. Family, laboratory work, writing, teaching, on-station experimental research, reading, administration, organizing symposiums, "networking" with each other and up-dating their resumes all compete for their time. 6. There are many local natural environments, each with unique research needs (Biggs and Clay 1981, Horton 1984, Andrews and Bentley 1990). When colleagues andl asked farmers m 13 vülages in Olancho, Honduras, what their problems were in maize, most mentioned maize ear rots (a complex of fungal diseases, especially Stenocarpella spp. ajidFusarium mayáis) or whorlworm (Spodoptera fmgiperda) (J.E. Smith) (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae), but farmers in the village of El Bebedero described an odd disease they called canícula (the short dry season that interrupts the raiñy season every year). They said in a drier year, whole maíze fields fail to develop brace roots, the plants grow onion-like roots and fall over in the first goodwindstorm, Agriculturalresearcntakesyears andno scientifíc team has the time and money to study an agricultural problem that happens in one village, no matter how important that problem is for that village. Perhaps farmer participation can work for some purposes. The Nígerian economist Aboyade (1991) says that peasant farmers should set research agendas. Keith Andrews (personal 1(3 CEIBA Voi. 31(2) communication) goes one step further: farmers should not be involved in actual experiments, just in setting research agendas and scientists should then report the results back to them. Farmers should set strategies and establish some evaluation críteria, then do "quality control" on the scientific program, helping to redirect it and decide when extensión should begin. Farmer particípation may work for students, non-governmental organiza tío ns, the Peace Corps and others who can Uve and work in remote villages (see Andrade 1990, Bunch 1990). Unfortunately, these people often lack the technical agronomic knowledge to do formal scientific research. Most of the celebrated work by World Neighbors has been with the adaptation of relatively simple technologies, and not wholesale technology generation (Chapín 1990). Perhaps the key to farmer parücipation is that scientists should work with farmers through mtermediaries who Uve in remote vülages and can serve as informationbrokers between scientists and farmers. True farmer-scientist interaction is excruciatingly difficult, perhaps an art requiring special gifts. This does not mean it is impossible or should be discarded. Hying a 747 and playing concert piano are also difficult, but with extensive training some people manage. Keith Andrews (personal communication) points out that salaries and Uving conditions make the effort to acquire these skills worth making. Fewer people want to struggle to learn new skills if the reward is to go to Central Mali to apply them. There are several vaUd reasons why scientists should not throw in the towel on farmer participaron. First, researchers can work with traditional technologies to validate and retool them for today's conditions before the oíd practices are lost completely. Thurston (1990) documents many such techniques, including bending the mature maize plant, which protects against fungal diseases in a number of Latin American countries. Second, although farmers are ingenious experimentéis, they can easily get into trouble with agrochemicals. Farmers in Burkina Faso had been taught to use insecticides in stored grains, and so began experimenting on their own, mixing highly toxic herbicides with insecticides and applying them in grain storage. "The powders, like powerful potions in folk medicine, were thought by the villagers to have magical quaUties that protected plants and grain from harm by evil influences such as insects, spoilage (Vierich 1988: 23)." Marcus Linear reports several pernicious farmer experiments with chemicals, including ñshing \vith insecticides in streams in Ghana (Linear 1985:96). I recently 1990 Bentley: Introduction 77 watched a Honduran campesino spray a small field with paraquat. He had fashioned small channels from the trunk of banana plants to cover bis maize seedlings, so he could spray a contact herbicide without killing his crop; an ingenious experiment with a foul chemical, The man smoked as he worked, bringmg the herbicide to his lips. He and his two small sons moved the banana trunk pieces from row to row with their bare hands. Farmers in industrial countries are also vulnerable to pesticide maladaptation. Taít (1983) writes that English farmers poison themselves with pesticides at alarming ra3tes. Third, outsiders must help local people preserve wild lands before much of the world's biological tropical heritage disappears altogether. The small African forest elephant (Loxodonta africana cyclotis) that once brought new rice varieties to West African farmers, by eating in one field and defecating undigested husk rice across tribal boundaries, is near extinction in Sierra Leone (Richards 1991). The stirring success story of indigenous Kofyar agricultural development in Nigeria had a dark side; farmers stripped the plains of all but a few species of trees (Netting et al. 1989). If left to their own devices, loggers, ranchers and small farmers—pushed by population growth^ depressed economies and displacement by commercial agriculture —will elimínate the last wild áreas, including large remaining rainforests in the Río Plátano and Tawahka áreas east of the Honduran Mosquitia. This volume represents a typical anthology of farmer participation as it was conceived of in 1989, and is useftü for severa! reasons. 1. It is in Spanish, filling a void for Spanish-speakers who are interested in farmer participation. 2. It has two papers by farmers, and others by social scientísts, agricultural scientists, goverument officials and leaders of NGOs. 3. It is about Latín America. If farmer-participation is going to work in tropical countries, Latín America has perhaps the best comparative advantage. There are fewer linguistic differences in Latín America than ín other tropical regions. In the cases presented in this volume, all the farmers and scientists speak Spanish (although with differences in díalect and argot [workjargon]) and do not need to use interpreters or speak pídgins to talk to farmers. Sec DeWalt (1985,1986). 78 CEIBA Mol. 31(2) ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Keith L. Andrews, Ronald D. Cave, Eric Ekland, Ana González, George Pilz, Francis Shaxson and Louise Shaxson read and commented on earlier versions of this paper. REFERENCES CITED ABOYADE, Ojetunji. 1991. "Some Missing Policy Links in Nígerian Agricultura! Development." Ibadan: International Institute of Tropical Agriculture. 29 pp. ALTIERI, Miguel A. 1986. "Bases Ecológicas para el Desarrollo de Sistemas Agrícolas Alternativos para Campesinos de Latino-América". CZR?OATV(l-4): 83-109. ALTIERI, Miguel A. 1987. Agroecology: The Scientiflc Basis of AltemativeAgriculture. Boulder: Westview, AMANOR, Kojo. 1989.340Abstracts on FarmerParticipatory Research, London: Overseas Development Institute. Agricultural Administration (Research and Extensión) Network. NetworkPaper 5. ANDRADE, Fernando. 1990 "Como Podemos Participar los Agricultores en la Capacitación de Nuestros Compañeros." Ceiba 31(2). ANDREWS, Keith L. 1990. "La Investigación Agrícola Siempre es Participativa, Excepto en el Caso de los Pequeños Productores." Ceiba 31(2). ANDREWS, Keith L., Héctor Barletta and George Pilz (eds.). 1985. Memoria del Primer Seminario Regional Sobre la Babosa del Frijol, Abril 1984. Ceiba 26 (1): 55-112. ANDREWS, Keith L. and Jeffery W. Bentley. 1990. "IPM and Resource-Poor Central American Farmers." Global Pesticide Monitor. 1 (2, May):l, 7-9. ASHBY, Jacqueline A, 1987. "The Effects of Different Types of Farmer Participation on the Management of On-Farm Triáis". Agricultural Administration and Extensión 25: 235-252. 7990 Bentley: Introduction 79 ASHBY, Jacqueline A., Carlos A. Quiros, and Yolanda M. Rivera.1987. "Farmer Participaron in On-Farm Varietal Triáis." London: Overseas Development Institute. Agrícuitural Administra tío n (Research and Extensión) Network. Discussion Paper 22. ASHBY, Jacqueline A., Carlos A. Quiros, and YolandaM. Rivera. 1989a. "Farmer Participaron in Technology Development: Work with Crop Varieties."inChambers,RobertJAnioldPaceyandLoriAnnThrupp (eds.) Farmer First: Farmer Innovation and Agricultural Research. London: Intermedíate Technology Publicaüons. pp. 115-122. ASHBY, Jacqueline A., Carlos A. Quiros, and YolandaM. Rivera, 1989b. "Experience with Group Techniques in Colombia." in Chambers, Robert, Arnold Pacey and Lori Ann Thrupp (eds.) Farmer First: Farmer Innovation and Agricultural Research. London: Intermedíate Technology Publicaüons. pp. 127-132. BENTLEY, Jeffery W. 1987a. "Economic and Ecológica! Approaches to Land Fragmentation: In Defense of a Much-Maligned Phenomenon." AnnualReview ofAnthropology 76:32-63. BENTLEY, Jeffery W. 1987b. "A Parish Study in the Minho." In Portuguese Agriculture in Transition. Scott Pearson et al. (eds.) Ithaca: Cornell University Press, pp. 167-186. BENTLEY, Jeffery W. 1987c. Water Harvesting on the Papago Reservation: Experimental Agricultural Technology in the Guise of Development. Human Organizaron 46 (2):141-146. BENTLEY, Jeffery W. 1989a. "Pérdida de Confianza en Conocimiento Tradicional como Resultado de Extensión Agrícola entre Campesinos del Sector Reformado en Honduras." Ceiba 30(1). BENTLEY, Jeffery W. 1989b. "What Farmers Don't Know Can'tHelp Them: The Strengths and Weaknesses of Indigenous Technical Knowledge in Honduras." Agriculture and Human Valúes. 6(3, Summer):25-31. BENTLEY, Jeffery W. 1990a. "Conocimiento y Experimentos Espontáneos de Campesinos Hondurenos sobre Maíz Muerto". Manejo Integrado de Plagas. 17(September):l6-26. 20 CEIBA Vol. 31(2) BENTLEY, Jeffery W. I990b. "Wouldn't You Like to Have AU of Your Land ín One Place: Land Fragmentación in Northwest Portugal." Human Ecology J8(l, March). BENTLEY, Jeffery W. 1991. "¿Qué Es Hielo? Percepciones de los Campesinos Hondurenos sobre Enfermedades del Fríjol y otros Cultivos." Interdencia. In press. BENTLEY, Jeffery W. In press. Today There Is No Miseiy: The Ethnography ofFarmingin NorthwestPortugal. Tucson: University of Arizona Press. BENTJLEY, Jeffery W. and KeithL. Andrews. 1991. "Pests, Peasants and Publications: Anthropological and Entomological Views of an Integrated Pest Management Program for Small-Scale Honduran Farmers." Human Organization. In press. BENTLEY, Jeffery W. and Werner Melara. 1990. "Experimentos por Agricultores Hondurenos." Ceiba. 31(2). BERLÍN, B., D. E. Breedlove, and Peter H. Raven. 1974.Principies of Tzeltal Plant Classífication: An Introductlon to the Botanical Ethnography ofaMayan-SpeakingPeople ofHighland Chiapas. New York: Academic Press. BIGGS, Stephen D. 1980. "Informal R&D." Ceres 13 (4; July-August): 23-26. BIGGS, Stephen. 1986. "Agricultura! Technology Generation and Diffusion: Lessons for Research Policy." London: Overseas Development Institute. AgriculturalAdministration (Research and Extensión) Network Discussion Paper No. 16. 20 pp. BIGGS, Stephen D. 1989. "A Múltiple Source of Innovation Model of Agncultural Research and Technology Promotion." London: Overseas Development Institute. Agricultura! Administrad o n (Research and Extensión) Network Paper No. 6. 71 pp. BIGGS, Stephen D. and Edward J. Clay. 1981. "Sources of Innovation in Agricultura! Technology." World Development 9(4):321-336. BRAMMER, Hugh. 1980. "Some Innovations Don't Wait for Experts: A Report on Applied Research by Bangladeshi Peasants". Ceres 13 (2; March-April): 24-28. 7990 Bentiey: Introductíon 21_ BROKENSHA, D. W., D. M. Warren y O. Werner (eds.). 1980. Indigenous Knowledge Systems and Development Lanham, MD: Uní versity Press of America. BUNCH, Rolando. 1990 "Como Lograr la Participación del Agricultor Campesino en el Proceso de Investigación-Extensión: Algunas Experiencias." Ceiba 31(2). CANCIAN, Frank. 1972. Change and Uncertaínty in a Peasant Economy: The Maya Corn Farmers of Zinacantán. Stanford: Stanford University Press. CHAMBERS, Robert. 1980. "Lesson No. 1 for Rural Developers: The Small Farmer is a Professional" Ceres No. 74 Vol. 13 (2): 19-23. CHAMBERS, Robert. 1983, Rural Development: Putting the Last First. • New York: Wiley and Sons. 246 pp. - CHAMBERS,Robert. 1990. "Microenvironments Unobserved." London: International Tnstitute for Environment and Development. Gatekeeper Series No. 22. 16 pp. CHAMBERS, Robert and Janice Jiggins. 1987. "Agricultural Research for Resource-Poor Farmers Part I: Transfer-of-Technology and Farming Systems Research." Agñcultural Administration and Extensión 27:35-52. CHAPÍN, Macl990/n Search ofEcodevelopment: An Account ofTravels through México, MS. 182 pp. CIAT. 1989. Farmer Participation in Technology Design and Transfer. Activity Report 1988-89. Prepared for the W.K. Kellogg Foundation. CLEVELAND, David A. and Daniela Soleri. 1989. "Diversity and the Creen Revolution." Diversity 5(2&3): 24-25. CONELLY, W. Thomas. 1988. "Managing Agricultural Pests in Subsistence Farming Systems: Insect and Weed Control in Western Kenya" in David Brokensha and Peter Little (&ds.)Anlhropology of Development and Change in EastÁfrica Boulder: Westvíew Press. CONKLIN, H.C. 1957. Hanunoo Agriculture, a Report on an Integral System ofShifting Cultivation in the Philippines. Rome: FAO. 22 _ CEIBA _ Vol. 31(2) CRIST, R.E. 1983. "Land for the People--A Vital Need Everywhere." American Journal of Economías and Sodology. 42(3):275-290. DENE"VAN, William M., John. M. Treacy, Janis B. Alcorn, Chrístine Padoch, Julie Denslow, and Salvador Flores Paitan. 1984 "Indigenous Agroforestry in the Peruvian Amazon: Bora Indian Management of Swidden Fallows." Interdenda 9:346-357. Del RIO, Luis E.; Jeffery W. BenÜey and JuanRubio 1990 "Adopción de Tecnologías para el Control de la Babosa del Frijol (Sarasinula plebeia Fischer) en Olancho bajo Diferentes Grados de Participación de Agricultores." Ceiba. 31(2). DeWALT, Billie R. 1985. "The Agrarian Bases of Confüct in Central America." In Coleman, K. and G.H. Herring (eds.) The Central American Crisis: Sources of Conflict and the Failure of U.S. Policy. Wumington: Scholarly Resources, pp. 43-54. DeWALT, Billie R. 1986. "Economíc Assistance in Central America: Development or Impoverishment." Cultural Survival Quarterfy DURHAM, William H. 1979. Scarcity and Survival in Central America: Ecológica! Origins ofthe Soccer War. Stanford: StanfordUniversity Press. ELLEN, RoyF. l982.Environment} Subsistence andSystem: TheEcotogy ofSmall-Scale Social Formations. New York: Cambridge University Press. ESTORNINOS, L.E. and K. Moody. 1990. "Farmers' Herbicide • Application Method in Koronadal, South Cotabato, Philippines." IRRÍNewsletter 15(4):31. EVANS-PRITCHARD, E.E. 1940. The NuerADescription oftheModes ofLivelihood and Political Institutions of a Nilotic People. Oxford: Oxford University Press. FARRINGTON, John, and Adrienne Martin. 1987. "Farmer Participatory Research: A Review of Concepts and Pracüces." London: Overseas Development Institute. Agricultural Administration (Research and Extensión) Network. Discussion Paper 19. 7990 Bentley: Introduction 23 G AMSER, Matthew S., Helen Appleton and Nicola Cárter. 1990. Tinker, Tiller, Technical Change: Technologies from the People* London: Intermedíate Technology Publications, GÓMEZ-POMPA, Arturo, Héctor Luis Morales, Epifanio Jiménez Avilla, and Julio Jiménez Avilla. 1982. "Experiences in Traditional HydraulicAgriculture". InJVf¿rya Subsistence. KentVFlannery, ed. New York: Academic Press, pp. 327-342. GOULD, Stephen Jay. 1977. EverSince Darwin: Reflections in Natural History, New York: W.W. Norton and Company. GOULD, Stephen Jay, 1980. The Panda's Thumb: More Reflections in Natural History. New York: W.W. Norton and Company. GRANATSTEIN, David. 1988. Reshaping the Bottom Une: On-Farm Strategies for a Sustainable Agriculture. Stillwater, Minnesota: Land Stewardship Project. 63 pp. HAYTER, Teresa and Catharine Watson. 1985. Aid:Rhetoric andReality, London: Pluto Press. 303 pp. HORTON, Douglas E. 1984. Social Stienüsts in Agricultural Research: Lessonsfrom theMantaro ValleyProject,Perú, Ottawa: International Development Research Centre. 67 pp. HUANG, H.T. and Pei Yang. 1987. "The Ancient Cultured Citrus Ant." BioScience 37(9):665-671. HUNN, Eugene S. 1977. Tzeltal Folk Zoology: The Classification of Discontinuities in Nature. New York: Academic Press. 368 pp. HUNTER, Guy. 1981. "AHardLook atDirectíngBenefits to the Rural Poor and at 'Participation'." London: Overseas Development Institute. Agricultural Administration Network. Discussion Paper 6.39 pp. JOHNSON, Alien W. 1971. Sharecroppers of the Sert~ ao: Economics and Dependence on a Brazilian Plantation. Stanford: Stanford University Press. JOHNSON, Alien W. 1972. "Individuaüty and Experimentaüon in Traditional Agriculture". Human Ecology 1 (2): 149-159. 24 _ CEIBA _ Vol. 31(2) KERR, Warv/ick Estevam and Darrell Addison Posey. 1984. "Informac~oes Adicionáis sobre a Agricultura dos Kayapó." Interesencia 9: 392-400. LANSING, J. Stephen. 1987. "Balinese 'Water Temples5 and the Management of Irrigation." AmericanAnthropologist 89(2):326-341. LEACH, Edmund. 1968. Pul Eliya: A Village in Ceylon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. LIGHTFOOT, C., O. De Guiajr., and E Ocado. 1988. "A Participatory Method for Systems-Problem Research: Rehabilitating Marginal Uplands in th&^\ü]^ppm&s" Experimental Agriculture. 24: 301-309. LINEAR, Marcus. 1985. Zapping the Third World: The Disaster of Development Aid. London: Pluto. MATLON, Peter J. 1988. "Technology Evaluation: Five Case Studies from West África." In Matlon, Peter, Ronald Cantrell, David King, and Michel Benoit-Cattin (eds.) Corning Full Circle: Farmers' Participaron in the Development of Technology. Ottawa: International Development Research Centre, pp. 95-118. MATLON, Peter, Ronald Cantrell, David King, and Michel Benoit-Cattin (eds.) 1988. ComingFull Circle: Farmers' Participation in the Development of Technology. Ottawa: International Development Research Centre. MATTESON, Patricia, Miguel A. Altieri, and Wayne C. Gagné. 1984. "Modification of Small Farmer Practices for Better Pest Management." Annual Review of Entomólogo 29:383-402. MAURYA, D.M:, A. Bottrall, and J. Farrington. 1988. "Improved Livehhoods, GeneticDiversity and Farmer Participation: AStrategy for Rice Breeding in Rainfed Áreas of India." Experimental Agriculture 24: 311-320. MURRAY, Douglas L. and Polly Hoppin. 1990. "Pesticides, Nontraditional Agriculture, and Social Equity." Global Pesticide Campaigner 1(1):!, 6-10. NETTING, RobertMcC. 1968. Hill Farmers of Nigeria: Cultural Ecóloga of the Kofyar of the Jos Platean. Seattle: University of Washington Press. 1990 Bentley: Introduction 25 NETTING, RobertMcC. 1977. Cultural Ecology. MenloPark, California: B en] amin/Ci i m mings Pubüshíng Company. NETTING, RobertMcC. 1981.Balancingon anAlp:Ecological Change and Continuity in a Swiss Mountain Community. New York: . Cambridge University Press. NETTING, Robert McC., M. PrisciUa Stone, and Glenn D. Stone. 1989. "Kofyar Cash-Cropping: Choice and Change in Indigenous Agricultural Development." Human Ecology 17(3);299-319. NORGAARD, Richard B. 1987. "The Epistemological Basis of Agroecology" In Altieri, Miguel A.Agroecology: The Scientific Basis ofAltemativeAgñculture. Boulder: Westview. pp; 21-27. OLIVEIRA, Ernesto Veiga de, Fernando Galhano, and Benjamirn Pereira. 1983. Alfaia Agrícola Portuguesa. Lisbon: Instituto de Investigas"" ao Científica. Second edítion. PAGE, W.W. and P. Richards. 1977. "Agricultural Pest Control by Community Action: The Case of the Variegated Grasshopper in Southern Nigeria." African Environment 2 & 3:127-141. PIMENTEL, David and Nancy Goodman. 1978. "Ecological Basis for Une Management of Insect Populations." Oikos 30: 422-437. RAPPAPORT, R. A. 1968. Pigs for the Ancestors: Ritual in the Ecology of a New Guinea People. New Haven: Yale University Press. REDCLIFT, Michael. 1984. Development and the Environmental Crisis: Red or Green Altematives. London: Methuen. 149 pp. RHOADES, Robert E. 1982. "Understanding Smali Farmers: Sociocultural Perspectives on Experimental Farm Triáis." Social Science Department Training Document. Lima: International Potato Center. 9 pp. RHOADES, Robert E. 1987. "Farmers and Experimentation." Discussion Paper 21. London: Agricultural Administration Unit. Overseas Development Institute. RHOADES, Robert E. 1988."Tecnicistaversus Campesinista: Praxis and Theory of Farmer Involvement in Agricultural Research." In Matlon, Peter, Ronald Cantrell, DavidKing, andMichelBenoit-Cattin (eds.) 26 CEIBA Mol. 31(2) . Corning Full Circle: Farmers3 Participation in the Deveíopment of Technology. Ottawa: International Deveíopment Research Centre, pp. 139-150. RHOADES, Robert. 1989. "The Role of Farmers in the Creation of Agricultural Technology." in Chambers, Robert, Arnold Pacey and Lori Ann Thrupp (eds.) Farmer First: Farmer Innovation and Agricultural Research. London: Intermedíate Technology Publications. pp. 3-9. RHOADES, Robert and Anthony Bebbington. 1988. "Farmers Who Experiment: An Untapped Resource for Agricultural Research and Deveíopment." Paper presented at the International Congress on PlantPhysiology. New Delhi, India. February 15-20,1988. RHOADES, Robert E. and Robert H. Booth. 1982. "Farmer-Back-to-Farmer: a Model for Generating Acceptable . Agricultural T&chnology." Agricultural Administration 11:127-137 RICHARDS, Paul. 1985. Indigenous Agricultural Revolution: Ecology and Food Production in West África. London: Hutchinson. RICHARDS, Paul. 1986. Coping with Hunger: Hazard and JExperímentation in an African Rice-Farming System. London: Alien and Unwin, 1986. RICHARDS, Paul.'1989a. "Farmers Also Experiment: A Neglected Intellectual Resource in African Science." Discoveiy andlnnovation 1(1): 19-25. RICHARDS, Paul. 1989b. "Agriculture as a Performance." in Chambers, Robert, Arnold Pacey and Lori Ann Thrupp (eds.) Farmer First: Farmer Innovation and Agricultural Research. London: Intermedíate Technology Publications. pp. 39-43. RICHARDS, Paul 1991 "Elephants and Rice: Evolution of a West African Agro-Ecological Knowledge System." Paper for a workshop on "Agricultural Knowledge Systems and the Role of Extensión." Institut fuer Agrasoziologie, Universitaet Hohenheiin, Stuttgart. Bad Boíl, May 21-24. SHAXSON, Louise and Jeffery W. Bentley. 1991. "Economic Factors Influencing the Cholee of Pest Control Technology by Small-Scale 1990 _ Bentley: Introductíon _ 27 Honduran Farmers." Natural Resources Institute: Chatham, TJK. 86 pp. STEWARD)Juüan.l955.7?ieoo'o/Cu/íureai£2nge. Urbana: University of Illinois Press. STONICH, Susan C. 1989. "The Dynamics of Social Processes and Environmental Destruction: A Central American Case Study." Population and Development Review 15(2) (June): 269-296. TAIT, EJ. 1983. "Pest Control Decisión Making on Brassica Crops" Advances in Applied Blology 8:121-188. London: Acadernic Press. THRUPP, Lori Ann. 1988. "Pesticides and Policies: Approaches to Pest-Control Dilemmas in Nicaragua and Costa Rica". Latín American Perspectives 15(4):37-70. THURSTON, H. David. 1990, "Plant Disease Management Practices of VIERICH, Helga. 1988. "Accommodation or Participation? Communi catión Problems." In Matlon, Peter, Ronald Cantrell, David King, and Michel Benóit-Cattin (eds.) Corning Full Circle: Farmers' Participation in the Development of Technology. Ottawa: International Development Research Centre, pp. 17-26. WATERS-BAYER, Ann. 1989. "Participatory TechnologyDevelopment in Ecologically-Oriented Agriculture: Some Approaches and Tools. "London: Overseas Development Institute. Agricultural Administration (Research andExtension) Nétwórk. NetworkPaper 7. 63 pp. WILKEN, Gene C. 1977. Integrating Forest and Small-Scale Farm Systems in Middle America. Agro-Ecosystems 3: 291-302.