The article first appeared in The GROWER magazine in 2012.

Innovation on the family farm.

Farmers continually adapt to changes in farming conditions and local or global circumstances. This is innovation at work. These innovations are rarely documented but they could be of major benefit to other farmers.

Sometimes farmers want to keep their innovative ideas to themselves, seeking a competitive edge. But this is not always true, and many farmers do willingly share their ideas. They value the critique of others as an important part of on-going improvement.

A recent UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) report¹ concludes that farmer innovations should be documented.  The report also encourages closer links between farmers and formal scientific research to allow independent farmer innovations to be validated, and the scientific community to learn from and build on those innovations. This concept is hardly new, but it is relatively rare in practice.

The FAO report also notes farmers need to be organised for collective action, and that access to market opportunities is critical for innovation. It says that resource-poor farmers wish to minimise risk, and this has a major impact on their adoption of innovative practices.

The report comes from an e‑mail conference asking whether family farmers can fully participate in, and benefit from, agricultural innovation systems (AIS) and what policy-makers can do to help. The focus was on family farms in developing nations, but also seems relevant here.

Innovation systems are collaborative. They involve many stakeholders working together, sharing their knowledge to develop and apply new ideas. In contrast, the traditional linear approach assumes knowledge is developed by researchers and fed out to farmers².

Collaborative research with farmers, industry and scientists was the foundation of LandWISE and has remained central to our most successful activities. A side benefit is that this develops ability for continual innovation.

Innovation systems are “messy”, with many partners with differing roles and views. To make them work better, the FAO report identifies a key role for innovation brokers, described as the “lubricants of the innovation engine”. This role is similar to that formerly played by MAF farm advisors, transferring knowledge both ways between MAF Tech researchers and the farmers.

Unlike the dairy and fruit sectors, vegetable cropping has few innovation brokers and lacks the clearly defined extension role that would support them. Individual projects involve engagement of farmers with scientists and others. But continuity is lacking in the relationships that support shared learning and foster innovation excellence.

Perhaps new information and communication technologies offer farmers opportunities to fully participate in shared learning. Mobile phone and web technologies have their challenges but can be used to bring farmers closer to markets, link farmers to each other and to extension agents, give farmers improved access to technical knowledge and document farmer innovations.

How can we use new technologies and collaborative learning to help growers minimise risk, or overcome the perception of risk, to free them up to innovate?

PS

The FAO report is interesting for a number of reasons – not least being that it is from an e-mail conference.

560 people from 50 different countries shared 242 email messages over a period of four weeks. It was cheap – virtually free to attend.

Nobody had to travel and nobody had to miss a session because they had another pressing engagement. Everyone had time to think about a posting and craft a considered reply.

Maybe we could use that approach here.

References:

1. “A FAO e‑mail conference on agricultural innovation systems and family farming: The moderator’s summary.” http://www.fao.org/docrep/016/ap097e/ap097e00.pdf
2. “Agricultural Innovation Systems – A guide” via http://www.slideshare.net/LINKInnovationStudies/agricultural-innovation-systems-an-introduction

Dan Bloomer, LandWISE

Visiting the food markets of France stimulated memories of fruit and vegetable markets in Peru and even of farmers’ markets in New Zealand.

We visited Peru with Tahuri Whenua in 2009, comparing and Maori Potatoes (taewa) and some of the 3000 identified Andean varieties, and the culture that surrounds them. That is another story.

In 2009, about half the fruit and vegetables to feed the Lima population went through the old market. The rest of the produce was distributed via supermarket chains.

Nobody is really sure how many people live in Peru’s capital city, Lima. It is officially about 8 million, but there are a few million extras that don’t officially exist.

The traditional vegetable market’s total area was about three hectares, but most activity was concentrated in a densely filled one hectare centre that was servicing 4 million people!

Much of the produce came from the headwaters of the Amazon jungle, past Machu Picchu in the Andes.  The train track down-stream of Machu Picchu had been washed away so everything was going by road, a couple of days by truck.

Inside the market, transport was manual, with huge sacks on shoulders or barrows. The produce was piled high, and its vendors showed considerable pride through their care with display. There were certainly no flash cabinets and definitely no refrigeration, though plenty of workers climbing over piled sacks of produce.

It was difficult to fully understand how everything worked. The language barrier was significant, and we were shepherded carefully by government staff. But the scale ranged from a person with a very small pile of corn to huge stacks of bagged produce with people running everywhere. Maybe some were farmers come to town, others traders. Some buyers looked to be doing a family shop so there was some retail. But clearly the bulk must go out as wholesale.

Down the road a “proper retail” market had stores, display units and altogether a different role. Our hosts explained how government advisors were training the people in food handling, marketing and presentation to maximise sale value. The appearance of this market was much closer to the French markets visited in 2012.

While in Lima, we also visited the site of the new wholesale fruit and vegetable market being developed at a much larger site. Now in operation, it has cool store capacity, power and space for mechanical transport. It has good transport links to the port, the rail network and the main roads into Lima. It also integrates health and social services that seemed highly needed by the people that worked the old vegetable market.  But it was a long way from their homes . . .  Progress versus traditional practice always has pros and cons.

The passion with which the French approach their food is surely to be admired. A brief stay with relatives in a village south of Paris let me visit a range of food markets. 

Driving home from the railway station on Friday evening, we stopped at a farm where a weekly order of vegetables was waiting. Organic produce grown on-site, bought mostly by urban professionals. The farmer loaded our baskets, the week’s mix varying according to what was available.

Saturday morning involved a walk to the village square. Getting food is serious business: vegetables on display, eyed over and specifically selected; this bakery for this type of bread, the other for another; the village butcher intent on preparing your chosen chicken exactly as you want it, in front of you. The queued folk behind you wait their turn. Croissant and coffee at the hotel, the social centre and local information exchange.

My hosts invited a local couple to dinner, an event with strong traditions and expectations. The guests will bring a gift, something for the house, or maybe professionally arranged flowers.

Another food gathering trip required. The supermarket had prominent country of origin labelling. Proudly French mixed with the best from Portugal, Spain, Italy, Brazil and more. A similar range of fresh produce, but higher prices than I expect in New Zealand.

Winter vegetables on display in Fontainebleau market. “Vitelotte” looks the same as the Maori potato “Urenika” or “Tutaekuri”.

The hosts laid out a range of cheeses to welcome their guests, noting to me they should know not only where each is from, but ideally who made it. Each meal dish will be contemplated, savoured, judged. Appreciated. With wine chosen to match.

Maybe their profession as vegetable buyers for the UK restaurant trade elevated their interest. But my all-too-brief visit suggested a deep and wide community engagement with anything the locals put in their mouths.

The open air market in Fontainebleau has been running for centuries. Some 50km south of Paris, Fontainebleau was built about one thousand years ago. It is dominated by a huge palace (Chateau Fontainebleau) which probably gave impetus to the French Revolution.

Importantly, Fontainebleau has an outdoor market twice a week. We visited the town centre site on a Sunday morning, in light winter drizzle. It was packed; quality produce and the variety was considerable. Refrigerated display cabinets with meats and vegetables, fruit and wild mushrooms, breads and cheeses and delicate sweets and chocolates.

A campaign was underway and I was pressed to take a sticker, “Touch’ pas à mon Marché”. “Don’t touch my Market!” The local council wants to redevelop the market site, which will require the stall holders to shift to another part of town; temporarily. It seems no one is buying that: “If we go it will be forever!” they cry. They don’t want to be relegated to a fringe site; that would break with history (and lose customers).

Fontainebleau is a wealthy area. The market struck me as a one for the well-to-do middle class and tourists. It prompted me to recall and compare the fruit and vegetable markets of Lima in Peru. So different.

My lasting impressions are the different variety of vegetables available, the attention paid to presentation, and something special about being in an old style marketplace. But, of course, I was both middle class and a tourist.